3 ms·

I agree but I’m talking tactically. Legalization requires convincing people that don’t think the same way, and the best method for doing that is by rigorous med

I agree but I’m talking tactically. Legalization requires convincing people that don’t think the same way, and the best method for doing that is by rigorous medical study. The prohibition is puritanical and ideological, no amount of evidence is going to change that Your insistence that this is the case is itself ideological.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Your insistence that this is the case is itself ideological. Haha, ok, well, in that case, on what basis were drugs banned? Specifically psychedelics. > We’re talking about current attitudes, not the reasons why they were banned in the first place. The current attitude is "drugs are bad" because of childhood education programs. Drugs are bad because they're illegal. You've seen the PSAs. It was never evidence based to begin with, then the "puritans" (DARE) switched to youth indoctrination. It's been so long now that there "must be a good reason." It was never logical, or evidence based, and it remains illogical, and not evidence based. Bringing evidence to an illogical conversation IMO is like bringing an inflatable flamingo to a fancy dinner. People will look quizzically, and you won't change minds. But hey, here's hoping I'm wrong. After all when Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 all the negative health factors and societal factors associated with drug use fell off a cliff -- and usage did not increase. That's all the evidence I need to follow suit.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  That isn’t what your comment said. You said “no amount of evidence is going to change it”. We’re talking about current attitudes, not the reasons why they were banned in the first place.
  - tremon 5y ago
    But if the current attitudes aren't based on evidence, what makes you think that more evidence will change those attitudes? That's what the GP is asking.

arcticbull 5y ago

> Your insistence that this is the case is itself ideological. Haha, ok, well, in that case, on what basis were drugs banned? Specifically psychedelics. > We’re talking about current attitudes, not the reasons why they were banned in the first place. The current attitude is "drugs are bad" because of childhood education programs. Drugs are bad because they're illegal. You've seen the PSAs. It was never evidence based to begin with, then the "puritans" (DARE) switched to youth indoctrination. It's been so long now that there "must be a good reason." It was never logical, or evidence based, and it remains illogical, and not evidence based. Bringing evidence to an illogical conversation IMO is like bringing an inflatable flamingo to a fancy dinner. People will look quizzically, and you won't change minds. But hey, here's hoping I'm wrong. After all when Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 all the negative health factors and societal factors associated with drug use fell off a cliff -- and usage did not increase. That's all the evidence I need to follow suit.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
That isn’t what your comment said. You said “no amount of evidence is going to change it”. We’re talking about current attitudes, not the reasons why they were banned in the first place.
- tremon 5y ago
  But if the current attitudes aren't based on evidence, what makes you think that more evidence will change those attitudes? That's what the GP is asking.