6 ms·

Since cannabis is on the path to full legalization, should we also legalize LSD, Ecstasy and Mushrooms for the same reasons? Particularly since they cause less

• GuiA 12y ago
  Yes. There is no rational argument against it, only FUD.
  • frozenport 12y ago
    >> no rational argument against it People getting injured? Reoccurring flashbacks?
    • aberzombie 12y ago
      Study citation needed, or this is the very definition of FUD.
    • ghshephard 12y ago
      People getting injured is a good argument against horseback riding, and climbing mount everest - but neither of those activities is illegal. Shouldn't individuals be allowed to make informed choices regarding their activity, particularly if it does not harm those around them? Driving a car is dangerous, and it kills many innocent people who aren't driving - but we haven't mandated mass transit because we believe in the freedom to move.
      • frozenport 12y ago
        Consider guns or even certain fireworks. There are things that are dangerous that can be done by the foolish, the laws for regulating these are well motivated.
        • ghshephard 12y ago
          I'm certainly not opposed to the regulation of psychedelics (particularly keeping them away from younger children) though I expect the number of deaths which would occur to unregulated use of MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, Marijuana, Peyote, DMT, Ketamine are pretty minimal.
  • Symmetry 12y ago
    There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side. It is, however, very easy for people for people to get so wrapped up in one side of issue that they can no longer even see the arguments on the other side. Maybe that's typical, even. In the case of marijuana I'm strongly in favor of legalization on the same basis as alcohol with maybe driving while intoxicated being treated a bit more leniently. But if you want rational reasons why legalization might not be idea see here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha...
    • GuiA 12y ago
      The problem is that the underlying logic for all arguments that apply to criminalization of marijuana/psychedelics would also apply to the criminalization of alcohol, cigarettes, riding motorcycles, and so on. So either you believe alcohol should be made illegal again etc., or you believe marijuana should be legal - but there is no logical consistency to a "middle of the road" approach. Also the blog post you linked to has links to interesting studies, but it's a bit hard to take seriously when it holds gems of stupidity such as: "Those 400,000 teens would lose 8 IQ points each. IQ increases your yearly earnings by about $500 per point, so these people would lose about $4,000 a year. Making very strong assumptions about salary being a measure of value to society, society would lose about $1.6 billion a year directly, plus various intangibles from potential artists and scientists losing the ability to create masterpieces and inventions, plus various really intangibles like a slightly dumber electorate." I also heavily disagree with your premise: "There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side" I do believe that the media and various partisans groups are very skilled at spinning stories in such a way that it seems that all sides on an issue have their good points, but in retrospect it is often obvious how barbaric and misguided certain sides of the debate were. Examples: death penalty, women's right to vote, black people's right to vote, gay right to marry, etc. There is no doubt when I say that none of the arguments against women's right to vote, or for the death penalty, are consistent, rational, or logical in anyway. They ultimately all stem from FUD. So what current debates will be seen the same way 50 years from now? 100 years from now?
• dm2 12y ago
  Maybe. More research studies would be helpful in making that decision. Some of the drugs on that graph are questionably "more harmful" that cannabis, does that chart have a source?
  • MarkMc 12y ago
    Yes - I linked to the source.
  • DanBC 12y ago
    > does that chart have a source? Yes. Source: http://www.sg.unimaas.nl/_OLD/oudelezingen/dddsd.pdf http://www.sg.unimaas.nl/_OLD/oudelezingen/dddsd.pdf
    • dm2 12y ago
      I'd argue that most of those stats are very subjective. There would also be impacts on some by making others legal, people only do a majority of those drugs because the others are illegal and inaccessable. Who would do Butane if they could smoke marijuana or take LSD or mushrooms? Environmental damage? Economic cost? Crime? Family relationships? How could those be established? They did a survey at a 1-day workshop, this chart has zero scientific significance, it's purely averaged opinions from a survey.
      • MarkMc 12y ago
        'They' seem to be experts in the field of drug use: http://drugscience.org.uk/about/committee-members/ http://drugscience.org.uk/about/committee-members/ You seem confident that these people have no ability to judge the economic cost, crime, family breakdown, etc. associated with each drug. If a similar group of experts used the same methodology and produced a similar ranking of harm for each substance, would that change your mind?
        • dm2 12y ago
          Not really, it's still just a survey, and there is no way that any of them could be an expert of every effect (social, economical, crime, their relationships) of every drug. Without actual tests it was purely subjective. Change drug laws in a city for a period of time, heavily track the before and after effects, then repeat it in another city, and another city. That would be a study that would be more scientifically accurate.
• virtualwhys 12y ago
  Mushrooms, sure, but synthetics I'd say no unless there was a means to produce a quantity and quality of LSD or X akin to seeing the alcohol content written on a bottle of beer. LSD in particular is no joke, you're relying on word of mouth re: quality and quantity (if they even know, 75, 150, or in some cases 300 micrograms per tab for blotter), and even then you can't be sure it's LSD or some other cheaper-to-produce substance until you yourself try it. I think the less harm factor referenced in the imgur link has a lot to do with frequency of use. Nobody in their right mind trips everyday for years on end, while many heads break out the bong, pipe, papers, etc. daily.
  • aberzombie 12y ago
    I would expect taxation of all of these -- synthetics included -- to buy the appropriate certification and regulation. It's also worth noting that the toxicity for some of these, including LSD, is so ridiculously low that as far as the science goes we should be much more concerned about moonshine than blotters.
    • spacemanmatt 12y ago
      The LD50 for THC, last I ever heard, was over 40,000. Technically water is more dangerous.
      • DanBC 12y ago
        > Technically water is more dangerous. It's not technical - people die from drinking too much water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
  • mseebach 12y ago
    I'd expect it to be many orders of magnitude easier to create "objective" LSD than mushrooms since we already have a pharmaceutical industry in place that does that for thousands of different kinds of medicine. Mushrooms are a complex cocktail of stuff that affects the user in different ways, so there's no one scale on which mushroom A is a 3 and mushroom B is a 6 in such a way that two of A is roughly B. Rather, it's a multitude of scales with complex interplay.
• InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Yes, almost all recreational drugs should be legalized. For much the same reasons. As shown in that study, alcohol is far and away one of the very fewest of the most damaging recreational drugs, ranking up with meth, heroin, and crack, and in some ways even worse than them. But, of course, our attempts at prohibition of alcohol proved disastrous, as our attempts at prohibition of other drugs has been turning out to be as well. And while the prospect of allowing meth, crack, and heroin to be legally used by adults is likely enormously disconcerting to most people it shouldn't be. Largely that is due to the bias of familiarity. The problems of alcoholism are familiar to us as a society, they've been with us a long time and we know them well. Are comfortable with them even if we don't like them. And we accept that alcoholism and other problems of alcohol use can destroy families, destroy lives, and have fatal consequences, aside from its propensity to cause disgusting side effects (vomiting, loss of bowel control, pissing oneself, a generally slovenly or disheveled appearance and a rank smell due to lack of personal hygiene combined with the smell of booze, and so on). Yet the dangers and grotesqueries of, say, meth use have yet to worm their way into such a position of familiarity and comfort in the heart of the collective conscious. Which enables the public to decry its use, shun it from polite society, and force users outside the boundaries of the law. Aside from all of the very good practical reasons to roll back drug prohibition there is an even more fundamental reason: the cause of liberty. People should and must be allowed to make mistakes. Being "allowed" to engage only in activities chosen from a list of behaviors that have been determined to be safe and unobjectionable activities is not freedom. But that is much of the nature of drug prohibition, the idea that the collective (the government) is in charge of what you can and can't do with your life and your body, not you. Without the ability to make choices that others, perhaps even lots of others, disagree with or object to there can be no freedom. The law should come into play only in so far as people cross the line into actively harming others, otherwise it should not intrude on how people decide to live their lives.
  • tnorthcutt 12y ago
    Aside from all of the very good practical reasons to roll back drug prohibition there is an even more fundamental reason: the cause of liberty. People should and must be allowed to make mistakes. Being "allowed" to engage only in activities chosen from a list of behaviors that have been determined to be safe and unobjectionable activities is not freedom. But that is much of the nature of drug prohibition, the idea that the collective (the government) is in charge of what you can and can't do with your life and your body, not you. Without the ability to make choices that others, perhaps even lots of others, disagree with or object to there can be no freedom. The law should come into play only in so far as people cross the line into actively harming others, otherwise it should not intrude on how people decide to live their lives. Very, very well said.
• opendais 12y ago
  Honestly, I'd legalize anything less harmful than Tobacco as long as it was bought inside an establishment and consumed on private property. If you don't leave your home while consuming that sort of thing, I don't see an issue regardless of the substance. I think the core issue is a small quantity of people who use these sorts of things then go outside and do stupid things. Or try to beat people they live with. [e.g. Driving under the influence]