3 ms·

Modern drug laws came about in the 1970s, at the height of hippies on psychedelics trying to overthrow the government. People in power fear losing their power,

Modern drug laws came about in the 1970s, at the height of hippies on psychedelics trying to overthrow the government. People in power fear losing their power, and they saw these drugs as a threat. The weirdest part of the whole thing to me is that they outlawed Cannabis, Psilocybin, and LSD, but kept cocaine legal with a prescription under schedule 2.

pstuart 1y ago
But those modern drug laws picked up where the older drug laws petered out, and in both cases they were intended to punish their users, not protect them.
- pksebben 1y ago
  To bang a fairly weathered drum, this is largely a matter of conservative policy. Psychedelics were far more common in leftist circles (some might argue that this is cause as opposed to effect - mind-expanding experiences tend to shift politics towards that end of the spectrum). This means that if you wanted to use the law as a political cudgel without being accused of thought-policing, you could outlaw psychedelics and be confident that the blast zone would exclude the politically faithful while locking up loads of political undesirables; like hippies, panthers, etc. Of course, these days you have right-wing podcasters discussing DMT with billionaire CEOs, so it's a little trickier. Thus the tentative steps toward legalization.
bwestergard 1y ago
A family friend who was an ophthalmic surgeon once explained to me the cocaine was long the default anesthetic for eye surgery, and thus it had an accepted medical use (which was the criterion for Schedule 2). Sounds at least plausible to me.
Henchman21 1y ago
You have to understand that drugs roughly break down into two categories IMO: the touchy-feely stuff that creates empathy and kindness and healing on the one hand. On the other hand you’ve got stuff that makes people “hard-charging” — going off and doing a thing without thinking it through, with a tinge of anger, fury, unstoppable raw power. Think: cocaine, booze, caffeine and any other stimulants. These reduce empathy and create problems for people. These two camps are pretty wildly opposed! If I had to guess, I’d bet my money on the people in power liking and using the hard charging stuff while loathing the touchy feely stuff. All this feels a bit trite, over-simplified, and maybe even a but concocted on my part. But after a lifetime of being around these drugs, it fits well with my experience. I’d add, too, that the book “Chasing the Scream” gives a better perspective on drug laws & their origins, which really began much earlier than the 1970s.
- fragmede 1y ago
  It's oversimplified in terms of the drug landscape; fentanyl != meth != alcohol, and the reasons people use them are different. You could simplify it as escapism but you'd be incorrect. Or rather, where do people want to escape to? That has little to do with the racism of the 1970s when interracial marriage was literally illegal though which is when the original drug war and those laws date back to.
  - Henchman21 1y ago
    Definitely over-simplified for the drug landscape, but I still think that users roughly sort into these two categories. I also think its incorrect to define this sort of escapism as escaping to something. IME people escape from something — the “to” doesn’t matter as long as the “from” ain’t there. I’d further agree that it has nothing to do with interracial marriage — not sure where this point came from? The “War on Drugs” as Nixon named it isn’t the beginning of the story.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      it's not the beginning nor is it the end. To go back to the story, you said > If I had to guess, I’d bet my money on the people in power liking and using the hard charging stuff while loathing the touchy feely stuff. that some people liked the hard charging stuff and were white, and that some people liked the touchy feely stuff and who just so coincidentally some of them happened to be dark skinned, in an era that was racist to the point of having anti-miscegenation laws, isn't some minor coincidence. > the “to” doesn’t matter as long as the “from” ain’t there. The "to" matters because after you've gotten high you're there, but where's there? it's that the one where your kids are listening to you? where your wife never left, where your boyfriend wasn't beating you? In that "to", how is life?
      - Henchman21 1y ago
        Yeah it's a sad history that can't be separated from racism, unfortunately. I think "to" matters most to the sober folks, no? Perhaps I'm simply not getting it. When you're high the pain stops whatever it is. And you're there. In the euphoria. And nothing else matters. But you eventually come down, and when you're sober again, it all matters! Particularly when you live in a society that criminalizes your escape. I've always thought it excessively cruel to criminalize substance abuse. Truly, what kind of creatures are we? smfh
jorvi 1y ago
One of Nixon's advisors: > “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” The initial war on drugs had nothing to do with the drugs themselves. But then successive governments had to keep running with it because letting the foot off the gas would let the opposition portray them as weak on drug abuse and crime. And then commercial interests got mixed into it too. Research has proven that mushrooms and LSD are societally and personally the least damaging drug you can take. The top spots go to usual suspects like heroin and crack, and the subtop is alcohol and tobacco.
sitzkrieg 1y ago
the ssri industry would have collapsed, only reason
- AbstractH24 1y ago
  Proof?
- tomjakubowski 1y ago
  This is an incredible take. The first SSRI was introduced in 1982 by a Swedish pharmaceutical company. The US congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. Not even Big SSRI has lobbyists who are time travelers.
  - sitzkrieg 1y ago
    sure, fair point but what is the reason mushrooms, which are factually and scientifically proven less harmful than say, ethanol on all measurable indices still scheduled? its all just money in the end. they need to get theirs in scam tax structures like say, colorado etc
    - phatskat 1y ago
      I mean, the scheduling alone put research behind by decades, helping to stifle competition for more recent and less effective (in some cases ofc) pharmaceuticals
larodi 1y ago
Particularly considering this story about the cocaine extracted from coca for the coca cola products and where it supposedly goes to… Besides, I’m not sure Timothy Leary and friends were more real about political party than Elon is today. This absurd stigma of psychedelic substances need to stop now. This very moment.

pstuart 1y ago

But those modern drug laws picked up where the older drug laws petered out, and in both cases they were intended to punish their users, not protect them.

pksebben 1y ago
To bang a fairly weathered drum, this is largely a matter of conservative policy. Psychedelics were far more common in leftist circles (some might argue that this is cause as opposed to effect - mind-expanding experiences tend to shift politics towards that end of the spectrum). This means that if you wanted to use the law as a political cudgel without being accused of thought-policing, you could outlaw psychedelics and be confident that the blast zone would exclude the politically faithful while locking up loads of political undesirables; like hippies, panthers, etc. Of course, these days you have right-wing podcasters discussing DMT with billionaire CEOs, so it's a little trickier. Thus the tentative steps toward legalization.

bwestergard 1y ago

A family friend who was an ophthalmic surgeon once explained to me the cocaine was long the default anesthetic for eye surgery, and thus it had an accepted medical use (which was the criterion for Schedule 2). Sounds at least plausible to me.

Henchman21 1y ago

You have to understand that drugs roughly break down into two categories IMO: the touchy-feely stuff that creates empathy and kindness and healing on the one hand. On the other hand you’ve got stuff that makes people “hard-charging” — going off and doing a thing without thinking it through, with a tinge of anger, fury, unstoppable raw power. Think: cocaine, booze, caffeine and any other stimulants. These reduce empathy and create problems for people. These two camps are pretty wildly opposed! If I had to guess, I’d bet my money on the people in power liking and using the hard charging stuff while loathing the touchy feely stuff. All this feels a bit trite, over-simplified, and maybe even a but concocted on my part. But after a lifetime of being around these drugs, it fits well with my experience. I’d add, too, that the book “Chasing the Scream” gives a better perspective on drug laws & their origins, which really began much earlier than the 1970s.

fragmede 1y ago
It's oversimplified in terms of the drug landscape; fentanyl != meth != alcohol, and the reasons people use them are different. You could simplify it as escapism but you'd be incorrect. Or rather, where do people want to escape to? That has little to do with the racism of the 1970s when interracial marriage was literally illegal though which is when the original drug war and those laws date back to.
- Henchman21 1y ago
  Definitely over-simplified for the drug landscape, but I still think that users roughly sort into these two categories. I also think its incorrect to define this sort of escapism as escaping to something. IME people escape from something — the “to” doesn’t matter as long as the “from” ain’t there. I’d further agree that it has nothing to do with interracial marriage — not sure where this point came from? The “War on Drugs” as Nixon named it isn’t the beginning of the story.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    it's not the beginning nor is it the end. To go back to the story, you said > If I had to guess, I’d bet my money on the people in power liking and using the hard charging stuff while loathing the touchy feely stuff. that some people liked the hard charging stuff and were white, and that some people liked the touchy feely stuff and who just so coincidentally some of them happened to be dark skinned, in an era that was racist to the point of having anti-miscegenation laws, isn't some minor coincidence. > the “to” doesn’t matter as long as the “from” ain’t there. The "to" matters because after you've gotten high you're there, but where's there? it's that the one where your kids are listening to you? where your wife never left, where your boyfriend wasn't beating you? In that "to", how is life?
    - Henchman21 1y ago
      Yeah it's a sad history that can't be separated from racism, unfortunately. I think "to" matters most to the sober folks, no? Perhaps I'm simply not getting it. When you're high the pain stops whatever it is. And you're there. In the euphoria. And nothing else matters. But you eventually come down, and when you're sober again, it all matters! Particularly when you live in a society that criminalizes your escape. I've always thought it excessively cruel to criminalize substance abuse. Truly, what kind of creatures are we? smfh

jorvi 1y ago

One of Nixon's advisors: > “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” The initial war on drugs had nothing to do with the drugs themselves. But then successive governments had to keep running with it because letting the foot off the gas would let the opposition portray them as weak on drug abuse and crime. And then commercial interests got mixed into it too. Research has proven that mushrooms and LSD are societally and personally the least damaging drug you can take. The top spots go to usual suspects like heroin and crack, and the subtop is alcohol and tobacco.

sitzkrieg 1y ago

the ssri industry would have collapsed, only reason

AbstractH24 1y ago
Proof?
tomjakubowski 1y ago
This is an incredible take. The first SSRI was introduced in 1982 by a Swedish pharmaceutical company. The US congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. Not even Big SSRI has lobbyists who are time travelers.
- sitzkrieg 1y ago
  sure, fair point but what is the reason mushrooms, which are factually and scientifically proven less harmful than say, ethanol on all measurable indices still scheduled? its all just money in the end. they need to get theirs in scam tax structures like say, colorado etc
  - phatskat 1y ago
    I mean, the scheduling alone put research behind by decades, helping to stifle competition for more recent and less effective (in some cases ofc) pharmaceuticals

larodi 1y ago

Particularly considering this story about the cocaine extracted from coca for the coca cola products and where it supposedly goes to… Besides, I’m not sure Timothy Leary and friends were more real about political party than Elon is today. This absurd stigma of psychedelic substances need to stop now. This very moment.