3 ms·
The issue with drugs is that it takes a huge body of evidence and experiments to be able to assert, with a margin of error, that a drug is safe or that it does
by Renaud 13y ago
The issue with drugs is that it takes a huge body of evidence and experiments to be able to assert, with a margin of error, that a drug is safe or that it does what we think it does.
For something like a 'truth serum' of any kind to be deemed both safe and reliable, you would have to study it pretty hard and pretty long and have a very high degree of confidence that when given to a particular person, you are going to get something provably reliable from them.
On top of that, imagine that the drug (a barbiturate after all) has a chance to kills one in a million. Would it even be ethical to use it?
- criley2 13y agoHonestly, considering that polygraph is used in courts despite there being no evidence at all for the efficacy of the test, I think you're greatly overvaluing the weight of evidence required...
- glenra 13y agoDirect polygraph evidence isn't used in courts. Polygraphs are a scam used by authorities to trick people into confessing. The trick is that they hook you up, ask you questions, and tell you "the machine says you're LYING!" until they get an answer they like better than the one you've been giving before. If it works, you give up and confess, then your confession is used in court.
- leephillips 13y agoReally? Which courts accept polygraph results as evidence?
- criley2 13y agoCalifornia, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida courts have precedent of allowing the polygraph in court. There is likely more than that too...
- leephillips 13y agoI was surprised at this, so I did some cursory Googling. It looks like these states allow polygraph evidence only if both sides agree, and further limit its use in various ways. So even in these states it's not treated as real evidence. However, I don't think pseudoscience should be admitted even under these restrictive conditions.