6 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoBecause 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 agoWhy can’t “psychedelics” be the name for the category?
- seabird 3y agoBecause that's not how controlled substances are grouped and regulated, and for good reason.
- anigbrowl 3y agoThen 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 agoI 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.
- krispyfi 3y ago25i-NBOMe isn't "truly dangerous". It's only dangerous if mistaken for LSD and dosed carelessly, so rather than scheduling it more strictly, there should be strict requirements for accurate labeling and consistent dosing, like every other drug.
- seabird 3y agoIt is straight up dangerous. 5x a common dose of <1mg can kill you. Nobody that can actually execute on properly dosing it will expose themselves to the liability of doing so. Drugs are cool and interesting, go ahead and do them, but trying to pretend that something like 25i-NBOMe is something that Joe Average will safely deal with is, frankly, pretty fucking stupid. This conversation is constantly approached with this idea that everybody is a reasonable, informed person that is fully educated on the risks, but that's just not how this works.
- squirtlebonflow 3y ago
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIt could be, but once you have any experience with the legal system, you realize that terms are very flexible and explicitly defined. Maybe not using psychedelics as the legal term is useful strategically.