5 ms·

From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they

From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they medicines? Are they religious sacraments? I'm asking why we can't just answer this question with "They are psychedelics".

crazygringo 3y ago
Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". The entire point of categorizing them is to answer questions around: - Should they be sold to take recreationally, like tobacco and alcohol? Should there be limits, like tobacco packaging and taxes, or rules similar to drunk driving? - Or should they only be prescribed by doctors for mental health reasons, and not allowed recreationally or in religious ceremonies? - Or should there be exceptions for certain religious ceremonies as well? Is this open to anyone (so Catholics can invent a ceremony) or only ones that have traditionally used it? Does it require licensing or authorization? By categorizing them, we come to answers on these questions. If they fit into existing categories, we don't have to write many new laws except to state the categories. Or if we decide they don't fit into existing categories, we come up with a new category with its own set of answers and new laws to write, but part of this whole process is determining if that's necessary or not. And even if it is, the name of the label may not be "psychadelics" because we realize there's another set of non-psychadelic compounds that make sense to be included as well (e.g. empathogens like MDMA).
- ttctciyf 3y ago
  So, short answer, "yes a legal category is what's being asked for". Got it.
- PragmaticPulp 3y ago
  > Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". I don’t see how this is at all equivalent, given that “psychedelics” is a well-known term that can be found throughout decades of literature and that gibberish word you just made up has no attached meaning. If you’re equating random gibberish words to well-known words in literature then why does anything have any meaning? Why would a new word have meaning? Regardless, the laws generally don’t refer to “psychedelics”, they refer to specific chemicals by their name. There are numerous compounds that would be considered psychedelics that are, nevertheless, not illegal because they’re not covered by any laws (including analog acts)
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Because the term found through decades of literature isn't attached to legal categories, as I explained. It's the same way the term "drug" doesn't have much legal distinction, as I can't think of any legal commonalities spanning coffee, alcohol, Lipitor, cannabis, and heroin. > Regardless, the laws... refer to specific chemicals by their name. Not directly, very often. I doubt there's any specific law around Lipitor. Rather, drugs are grouped into categories and then the laws that permit or restrict them are mostly around those categories. Otherwise it would all be incredibly redundant (with exceptions for certain incredibly common drugs like alcohol). And the question here is how to categorize pyschadelics for legal purposes. And saying that we just call them psychadelics answers as many legal questions as saying we call them quooquaquams -- i.e. zero.
    - shwaj 3y ago
      Why can’t “psychedelics” be the name for the category?
      - seabird 3y ago
        Because that's not how controlled substances are grouped and regulated, and for good reason.
        anigbrowl 3y ago
        Then maybe it's the controlled substance administration that's wrong. Seriously, what level of hubris does it take to think that natural substances like psilocybin mushrooms which have existed for millions of years must be brought under the control of a polity's legislature? It's like declaring sharks or snakes illegal because they give some people nightmares. Future generations will laugh in disbelief at this idiocy.
        seabird 3y ago
        I don't know what you're getting at here. We're not talking about values. We're talking about why the word "psychedelics" is a worthless term as far as the law is concerned. From a values standpoint, I don't see how it would be idiotic to schedule truly dangerous drugs like 25i-NBOMe more strictly than psilocybin or LSD.
- bozhark 3y ago
  There is not licensing or authorization for religion. There is no application for approval required to be a “church”, ie: religion. Thinking there could be some “authority” for a religious institution’s practices is beyond measure.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    There absolutely is both for tax purposes as well as for legal religious exemptions. You can't just arbitrarily call your house a church to avoid paying property taxes. Government authorities have to make decisions all the time over what they deem to be a legitimate religious organization. You obviously don't need a license or authorization to engage in otherwise legal religious practice, but as soon as you want legal exemptions, the government most certainly has a say. And the ritual consumption of otherwise illegal drugs couldn't be a more perfect example.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > You obviously don't need a license or authorization to engage in otherwise legal religious practice by this logic, the government could make illegal any other religious practice (in addition to psychedelic usage), because then the practice isn't "otherwise legal"
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        Welcome to the grey areas of the real world.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        welcome to circular logic and confusing prescriptivism with descriptivism
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Is there a downside to deregulating them? (Like supplements.)
  - lbotos 3y ago
    Possibly more psychotic episodes from more folks who took too much? (I'm pro de-criminalization, not sure if I'm all the way to deregulation)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Is there a downside to totally deregulating them?
  - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
    Ocean Gate
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Administrators stop trying to control every aspect of people's lives challenge 2023
refurb 3y ago
Many drugs are already all of those. Opioids are both recreational drugs and medicines. Peyote is a recreational drug and religious sacrament. This seems to ignore this fact.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

crazygringo 3y ago

Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". The entire point of categorizing them is to answer questions around: - Should they be sold to take recreationally, like tobacco and alcohol? Should there be limits, like tobacco packaging and taxes, or rules similar to drunk driving? - Or should they only be prescribed by doctors for mental health reasons, and not allowed recreationally or in religious ceremonies? - Or should there be exceptions for certain religious ceremonies as well? Is this open to anyone (so Catholics can invent a ceremony) or only ones that have traditionally used it? Does it require licensing or authorization? By categorizing them, we come to answers on these questions. If they fit into existing categories, we don't have to write many new laws except to state the categories. Or if we decide they don't fit into existing categories, we come up with a new category with its own set of answers and new laws to write, but part of this whole process is determining if that's necessary or not. And even if it is, the name of the label may not be "psychadelics" because we realize there's another set of non-psychadelic compounds that make sense to be included as well (e.g. empathogens like MDMA).

ttctciyf 3y ago
So, short answer, "yes a legal category is what's being asked for". Got it.
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
> Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". I don’t see how this is at all equivalent, given that “psychedelics” is a well-known term that can be found throughout decades of literature and that gibberish word you just made up has no attached meaning. If you’re equating random gibberish words to well-known words in literature then why does anything have any meaning? Why would a new word have meaning? Regardless, the laws generally don’t refer to “psychedelics”, they refer to specific chemicals by their name. There are numerous compounds that would be considered psychedelics that are, nevertheless, not illegal because they’re not covered by any laws (including analog acts)
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Because the term found through decades of literature isn't attached to legal categories, as I explained. It's the same way the term "drug" doesn't have much legal distinction, as I can't think of any legal commonalities spanning coffee, alcohol, Lipitor, cannabis, and heroin. > Regardless, the laws... refer to specific chemicals by their name. Not directly, very often. I doubt there's any specific law around Lipitor. Rather, drugs are grouped into categories and then the laws that permit or restrict them are mostly around those categories. Otherwise it would all be incredibly redundant (with exceptions for certain incredibly common drugs like alcohol). And the question here is how to categorize pyschadelics for legal purposes. And saying that we just call them psychadelics answers as many legal questions as saying we call them quooquaquams -- i.e. zero.
  - shwaj 3y ago
    Why can’t “psychedelics” be the name for the category?
    - seabird 3y ago
      Because that's not how controlled substances are grouped and regulated, and for good reason.
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        Then maybe it's the controlled substance administration that's wrong. Seriously, what level of hubris does it take to think that natural substances like psilocybin mushrooms which have existed for millions of years must be brought under the control of a polity's legislature? It's like declaring sharks or snakes illegal because they give some people nightmares. Future generations will laugh in disbelief at this idiocy.
        seabird 3y ago
        I don't know what you're getting at here. We're not talking about values. We're talking about why the word "psychedelics" is a worthless term as far as the law is concerned. From a values standpoint, I don't see how it would be idiotic to schedule truly dangerous drugs like 25i-NBOMe more strictly than psilocybin or LSD.
bozhark 3y ago
There is not licensing or authorization for religion. There is no application for approval required to be a “church”, ie: religion. Thinking there could be some “authority” for a religious institution’s practices is beyond measure.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  There absolutely is both for tax purposes as well as for legal religious exemptions. You can't just arbitrarily call your house a church to avoid paying property taxes. Government authorities have to make decisions all the time over what they deem to be a legitimate religious organization. You obviously don't need a license or authorization to engage in otherwise legal religious practice, but as soon as you want legal exemptions, the government most certainly has a say. And the ritual consumption of otherwise illegal drugs couldn't be a more perfect example.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > You obviously don't need a license or authorization to engage in otherwise legal religious practice by this logic, the government could make illegal any other religious practice (in addition to psychedelic usage), because then the practice isn't "otherwise legal"
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Welcome to the grey areas of the real world.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        welcome to circular logic and confusing prescriptivism with descriptivism
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Is there a downside to deregulating them? (Like supplements.)
- lbotos 3y ago
  Possibly more psychotic episodes from more folks who took too much? (I'm pro de-criminalization, not sure if I'm all the way to deregulation)
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Is there a downside to totally deregulating them?
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  Ocean Gate
anigbrowl 3y ago
Administrators stop trying to control every aspect of people's lives challenge 2023

refurb 3y ago

Many drugs are already all of those. Opioids are both recreational drugs and medicines. Peyote is a recreational drug and religious sacrament. This seems to ignore this fact.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]