7 ms·

So silly, considering all the noise and accidents alcohol directly causes. But then a single bad case after someone taking psychedelics, and they reverse.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Textbook whataboutism--and I hate that phrase. Yes, and both substances should be controlled. Uncontrolled hard drugs are harmful to society, but it seems like the ignorant, naive youth of today are going to have to learn some hard lessons on the topic from first principles.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  This isn't whataboutism, it's very specifically comparing the societal consequences of two drugs and the possible consequences. It's not whataboutism bring up other risks that as a society we tolerate, when we are thinking about restricting one.
  - bko 4y ago
    One drug is possibly more harmful but is already legal almost everywhere, deeply ingrained in many aspects of Western society and has a history of issues regarding criminalization The other is possibly less harmful but it is currently illegal/controlled pretty much everywhere and has a niche demand. I think its entirely reasonable to think that we should not open up a whole new can of worms.
    - kortex 4y ago
      How is the can of worms not already open? The War on Drugs has failed to put a dent in drug consumption habits. My suspicion why there was an uptick of incidents in NL/Amsterdam was the influx of people specifically seeking those substances out, with little safety education or experience. If they were more widely available, the incidents would be far more diffuse, and likely fall below the noise floor. Plus, wider awareness means better overall substance education and understanding, meaning fewer folks getting in over their heads and acting a fool. The same "can of worms" argument was leveled against cannabis legalization, and turned out to be overblown, there was no outbreak of reefer madness.
    - gopher_space 4y ago
      Another way of looking at it is that right now only the kids buy and consume shrooms, and they do so completely unsupervised.
- loeg 4y ago
  Crying "whataboutism" isn't a rhetorical shortcut to dismiss a reasonable argument. It's hypocritical and silly to allow alcohol and not other recreational drugs with similar safety profiles. It's also untenable to completely restrict alcohol.
  - dshpala 4y ago
    Similar safety profiles? I'm not a drinker, but I think you need to drink a LOT of alcohol to state hallucinating? I.e. most people don't do that.
    - nonasktell 4y ago
      Yes, but hallucinations aren't the main problem. Assaulting people and zigzaging on the road after just a few drinks is a bigger problem than having blurry vision and seeing weird colors. I took a shitton of psychedelics, I never saw anything that wasn't there. Psychedelics never made me black out, piss on the floor/all over the room, never made me want to assault someone, or made me act like an asshole, but alcohol on the other hand....
    - LargeWu 4y ago
      To start hallucinating? Sure. To engage in dangerous behavior? Hardly. That said, alcohol is a lot more predictable in its effects for a given dosage. And also the dosages are a lot more reliable. There's a reason it's perceived "not as bad" as hallucinogenic drugs.
    - welshwelsh 4y ago
      You might be overestimating the effects of hallucination. Someone who's hallucinating is not necessarily more impaired than someone who is drunk. Imagine this- you hear something behind you (a real sound), and for a moment you are startled, thinking someone else is in the room. You soon realize that this isn't the case. Someone on hallucinogens might take a moment longer to realize that there is nobody there. They imagine the intruder a little more vividly, their heart rate goes up a bit more. But just for a moment. In contrast, if there actually is someone there, a drunk person might not realize it. Their senses are dulled. Instead of seeing things that aren't there, they fail to notice things that are there. It's the opposite.
- 8note 4y ago
  Specifically for the psychedelics, the danger is that people will see capitalist structures for how ridiculous they are They aren't dangerous to individuals, only rent seekers
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    That's the worst argument for socialism I've ever encountered.
    - captainredbeard 4y ago
      It’s not an argument, it’s a drug-induced psychotic musing…
    - breakfastduck 4y ago
      There was no argument for socialism.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Such statements are never made in a vacuum. There's always context, even if unstated.
  - deemster 4y ago
    Good time to quote the cosmic bard, Terence McKenna. "Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- nonasktell 4y ago
  Controlled hard drugs are harmful to society, the only country that has decriminalized everything is doing very good in that regard.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > Yes, and both substances should be controlled. We tried that here in the US. The result was a a proliferation of organized crime.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Yes we made murder illegal and organized crime engages in that too. Guess laws are just pointless
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      Organized crime doesn't profit from murder to anywhere close to the same degree it did from illicit alcohol sales or still does from illicit drug sales.
subsubzero 4y ago
Its not silly, for some psychedelics are fine and they can handle them ok. But others have psychotic breaks that are irreversible. I feel like SF is already a city that is very dysfunctional with crazies screaming at nothing, why make a really bad situation worse?
- borski 4y ago
  Some people who drink alcohol are fine and they can handle it okay. Others drink and drive and kill people, or become addicted and/or kill themselves. Should we go back to prohibition?
  - subsubzero 4y ago
    This is a straw man argument, having a permanent mental change after having a "bad trip" on psychedelics is not analogous to drinking a beer or too much whisky and doing something dumb(or worse). There is not evidence that a person consumes one drink and goes into psychosis or has permanent mental changes like with psychedelics. I am not against having psychedelics for certain situations(under controlled situations) but you are playing with fire and your mind and sanity are the tinder and are rolling the dice so to speak.
    - borski 4y ago
      Citation required. I have yet to see a single reputable paper or study that describes a 'permanent mental change' for the worse, like psychosis, after a single encounter with psychedelics.
    - acchow 4y ago
      What are the negative permanent effects of a "bad trip"?
      - drak0n1c 4y ago
        Perhaps not a single bad trip, but a couple years of bad drug habits can lead to permanent brain damage among those who aren't careful and knowledgeable about what they ingest and the dosage. It is a factor in the homelessness crisis.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Textbook whataboutism--and I hate that phrase. Yes, and both substances should be controlled. Uncontrolled hard drugs are harmful to society, but it seems like the ignorant, naive youth of today are going to have to learn some hard lessons on the topic from first principles.

JamesBarney 4y ago
This isn't whataboutism, it's very specifically comparing the societal consequences of two drugs and the possible consequences. It's not whataboutism bring up other risks that as a society we tolerate, when we are thinking about restricting one.
- bko 4y ago
  One drug is possibly more harmful but is already legal almost everywhere, deeply ingrained in many aspects of Western society and has a history of issues regarding criminalization The other is possibly less harmful but it is currently illegal/controlled pretty much everywhere and has a niche demand. I think its entirely reasonable to think that we should not open up a whole new can of worms.
  - kortex 4y ago
    How is the can of worms not already open? The War on Drugs has failed to put a dent in drug consumption habits. My suspicion why there was an uptick of incidents in NL/Amsterdam was the influx of people specifically seeking those substances out, with little safety education or experience. If they were more widely available, the incidents would be far more diffuse, and likely fall below the noise floor. Plus, wider awareness means better overall substance education and understanding, meaning fewer folks getting in over their heads and acting a fool. The same "can of worms" argument was leveled against cannabis legalization, and turned out to be overblown, there was no outbreak of reefer madness.
  - gopher_space 4y ago
    Another way of looking at it is that right now only the kids buy and consume shrooms, and they do so completely unsupervised.
loeg 4y ago
Crying "whataboutism" isn't a rhetorical shortcut to dismiss a reasonable argument. It's hypocritical and silly to allow alcohol and not other recreational drugs with similar safety profiles. It's also untenable to completely restrict alcohol.
- dshpala 4y ago
  Similar safety profiles? I'm not a drinker, but I think you need to drink a LOT of alcohol to state hallucinating? I.e. most people don't do that.
  - nonasktell 4y ago
    Yes, but hallucinations aren't the main problem. Assaulting people and zigzaging on the road after just a few drinks is a bigger problem than having blurry vision and seeing weird colors. I took a shitton of psychedelics, I never saw anything that wasn't there. Psychedelics never made me black out, piss on the floor/all over the room, never made me want to assault someone, or made me act like an asshole, but alcohol on the other hand....
  - LargeWu 4y ago
    To start hallucinating? Sure. To engage in dangerous behavior? Hardly. That said, alcohol is a lot more predictable in its effects for a given dosage. And also the dosages are a lot more reliable. There's a reason it's perceived "not as bad" as hallucinogenic drugs.
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    You might be overestimating the effects of hallucination. Someone who's hallucinating is not necessarily more impaired than someone who is drunk. Imagine this- you hear something behind you (a real sound), and for a moment you are startled, thinking someone else is in the room. You soon realize that this isn't the case. Someone on hallucinogens might take a moment longer to realize that there is nobody there. They imagine the intruder a little more vividly, their heart rate goes up a bit more. But just for a moment. In contrast, if there actually is someone there, a drunk person might not realize it. Their senses are dulled. Instead of seeing things that aren't there, they fail to notice things that are there. It's the opposite.
8note 4y ago
Specifically for the psychedelics, the danger is that people will see capitalist structures for how ridiculous they are They aren't dangerous to individuals, only rent seekers
- WalterBright 4y ago
  That's the worst argument for socialism I've ever encountered.
  - captainredbeard 4y ago
    It’s not an argument, it’s a drug-induced psychotic musing…
  - breakfastduck 4y ago
    There was no argument for socialism.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Such statements are never made in a vacuum. There's always context, even if unstated.
- deemster 4y ago
  Good time to quote the cosmic bard, Terence McKenna. "Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
nonasktell 4y ago
Controlled hard drugs are harmful to society, the only country that has decriminalized everything is doing very good in that regard.
yellowapple 4y ago
> Yes, and both substances should be controlled. We tried that here in the US. The result was a a proliferation of organized crime.
- tsol 4y ago
  Yes we made murder illegal and organized crime engages in that too. Guess laws are just pointless
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Organized crime doesn't profit from murder to anywhere close to the same degree it did from illicit alcohol sales or still does from illicit drug sales.

subsubzero 4y ago

Its not silly, for some psychedelics are fine and they can handle them ok. But others have psychotic breaks that are irreversible. I feel like SF is already a city that is very dysfunctional with crazies screaming at nothing, why make a really bad situation worse?

borski 4y ago
Some people who drink alcohol are fine and they can handle it okay. Others drink and drive and kill people, or become addicted and/or kill themselves. Should we go back to prohibition?
- subsubzero 4y ago
  This is a straw man argument, having a permanent mental change after having a "bad trip" on psychedelics is not analogous to drinking a beer or too much whisky and doing something dumb(or worse). There is not evidence that a person consumes one drink and goes into psychosis or has permanent mental changes like with psychedelics. I am not against having psychedelics for certain situations(under controlled situations) but you are playing with fire and your mind and sanity are the tinder and are rolling the dice so to speak.
  - borski 4y ago
    Citation required. I have yet to see a single reputable paper or study that describes a 'permanent mental change' for the worse, like psychosis, after a single encounter with psychedelics.
  - acchow 4y ago
    What are the negative permanent effects of a "bad trip"?
    - drak0n1c 4y ago
      Perhaps not a single bad trip, but a couple years of bad drug habits can lead to permanent brain damage among those who aren't careful and knowledgeable about what they ingest and the dosage. It is a factor in the homelessness crisis.