11–20 of 199 posts
It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.
" Their safety and efficacy exist only within highly structured specialized treatment settings. In addition, desired outcomes depend upon the production of a temporary but profoundly regressed, disorganized and incapacitated state. Outside of that structure, psychedelics are no less abusable, acutely debilitating and liable to result in psychological damage—sometimes severe and unremitting—than they ever were." This…
On the flip-side, there are extremely powerful interests that are working against legalization. "Neurons to nirvana" is a great documentary that makes a good case for that.
Everything is driven by incentives. Alcohol is cheaper for mass production and guaranteed to have good sales and huge consumer base. A state can't just allow to flow money away by legalizing a new drug which is, probably, mutually exclusive to alcohol. It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.
The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely ridiculous.
I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc.
But there's little mandate that the government should be policing and prosecuting adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors. Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.
" Their safety and efficacy exist only within highly structured specialized treatment settings. In addition, desired outcomes depend upon the production of a temporary but profoundly regressed, disorganized and incapacitated state. Outside of that structure, psychedelics are no less abusable, acutely debilitating and liable to result in psychological damage—sometimes severe and unremitting—than they ever were." This…
I certainly feel that there's no absolute way to control the safety of participants in psychedelic experiences, but we should be wary of an open market approach without also considering a massive escalation in the way we teach people about safety with drug use.
Everything is driven by incentives. Alcohol is cheaper for mass production and guaranteed to have good sales and huge consumer base. A state can't just allow to flow money away by legalizing a new drug which is, probably, mutually exclusive to alcohol. It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.
I'm sorry that you're being downvoted, but you're right. You can't easily sell, and make a profit on acid (you certainly can't patent it). The dose needed for a trip is so small; a "therapeutic" dose is even tinier. The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely ridiculous.
Sandoz Labs produced pharmaceutical LSD for decades
Linking Tobacco with Cancer was not a simple battle and was possible only because it was legal and people were open about its use. The lower tobacco consumption in developing countries was achieved because of regulation and not criminalisation.
The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of these restrictions in the first place. I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc. But there…
There are a lot of reasons.
The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part.
But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?
So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go.
At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side.
Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while.
Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand.
'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky.
'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave.
More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems.
It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability.
Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.