5 ms·

Do you really feel that way? How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Think of all the research consenting adults could be d

Do you really feel that way? How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Think of all the research consenting adults could be doing and all the medical uses but a bunch of anti-science puritans are keeping them from doing it.(sarcasm) I am assuming there is hardly anyone on the planet who thinks the public is able to make its own informed decisions about radioactive materials. So it's odd how instead of arguing the merits and costs of criminalization/decriminalization there is this argument that anyone who wants to limit drug use is an ignorant, corrupt puritan and that restriction has been generally a failure. There is a nuclear black market too and the spread of nuclear weapons has still happened. Does anyone think we should shut down IAEA because of its failures?

superb_dev 3y ago
That is a huge false equivalency. Radioactive material has no use to the average person and has immensely more safety issues than psychedelics
- AYBABTME 3y ago
  I personally more easily envision personal uses of radioactive materials than psychedelics. Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
  - callalex 3y ago
    Explain how a person who makes a mistake with mushrooms can render a neighborhood uninhabitable for generations?
    - AYBABTME 3y ago
      You got a point, I didn't look at it this way.
doktrin 3y ago
I agree more with you than the GP, but reaching for the nuclear comparison is ineffective here. You might as well cite weaponised smallpox and the infinity gauntlet while you’re at it.
mptest 3y ago
>Do you really feel that way Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the substances at a taxed store where the money goes to pay for addict treatment and rehabilitation??? You can't be serious. Don't you? If you don't I'll call you a blind man and useful idiot. People here do not read my comment because I advocate for something that hurts their little sanctimonious puritanical brains. Would swear you lot are Mr mackey. Nothing more material than "drugs r bad mkay. Addicts bad mkay." Stick to STEM i guess. Sociology isn't for you. >How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material is def the same as me getting high in my house after work and playing a video game. Definitely arguing in good faith innit. The drug discussion makes people like you so damn silly and childish it's crazy
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  > Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.
  - mptest 3y ago
    >It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous.... I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why. I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom. If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.

superb_dev 3y ago

That is a huge false equivalency. Radioactive material has no use to the average person and has immensely more safety issues than psychedelics

AYBABTME 3y ago
I personally more easily envision personal uses of radioactive materials than psychedelics. Self powered devices, vs some psychedelic trip?
- callalex 3y ago
  Explain how a person who makes a mistake with mushrooms can render a neighborhood uninhabitable for generations?
  - AYBABTME 3y ago
    You got a point, I didn't look at it this way.

doktrin 3y ago

I agree more with you than the GP, but reaching for the nuclear comparison is ineffective here. You might as well cite weaponised smallpox and the infinity gauntlet while you’re at it.

mptest 3y ago

>Do you really feel that way Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the substances at a taxed store where the money goes to pay for addict treatment and rehabilitation??? You can't be serious. Don't you? If you don't I'll call you a blind man and useful idiot. People here do not read my comment because I advocate for something that hurts their little sanctimonious puritanical brains. Would swear you lot are Mr mackey. Nothing more material than "drugs r bad mkay. Addicts bad mkay." Stick to STEM i guess. Sociology isn't for you. >How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material is def the same as me getting high in my house after work and playing a video game. Definitely arguing in good faith innit. The drug discussion makes people like you so damn silly and childish it's crazy

onetimeusename 3y ago
> Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.
- mptest 3y ago
  >It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous.... I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why. I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom. If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.