Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

>Psychedelic is not a right category anyway. It is a label given by users based on perceived effects.

That's not my point. My point is that J-dawg stated that the laws prohibiting drugs in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics" are not based on evidence.

You stated that there were evidence based laws prohibiting a different set of drugs that are not in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics".

Your assertion does not invalidate his statement.

Yes, it bothers me tremendously whenever I see people asking "should X be allowed?" and similar things. That's the wrong question. It comes from an original position of assuming that everything is forbidden by default, and that good reason must be given for that restriction to be lifted. This is not how the world works. It is restriction that is the aberrant case, and the one which needs to be constantly defending itself. The moment it becomes clear that the restriction is not justified, it must be gotten rid of. Restriction is inherently costly and harmful. If it is not preventing greater harm than it is causing, there's no defense for it.

When it comes to psychedelic drugs and other drugs generally, there has never been any legitimate basis for their prohibition. Even poisons like arsenic and cyanide aren't regulated the way drugs that simply make you smile for awhile are.

I suspect most people simply want to skirt the backing philosophy behind drug prohibition. They don't want to discuss whether the belief that easy pleasure is immoral has merit. They don't want to have to say out loud or try to defend the idea that people would abandon productive, full lives to pursue chemically-induced pleasure states in large numbers. Mostly because they're not confident in their ability to hold those arguments, and they fear it might make them easily swindled I think.

>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.

As somebody who is pretty close to the bottom percentile of conscientious, I'd have to disagree :)

> But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?

The traditional psychedelics have the potential to become revolutionary tools in the hands of psychiatrists/psychologists, especially considering that when administered in a controled setting by a trained professional the risk of something going wrong is near zero. If you look into the literature involving the administration of LSD in the 50s, the concept of a "bad trip" was relatively unheard of.

When it comes to psychedelics "being sold at the corner store", I sincerely believe the government has no place in regulating consciousness, especially in adults. The entire idea of a bunch of monkeys locking another monkey in a cage for 20 years solely because he ate the forbidden fruit is absolutely absurd.

Let's consider the current legal framework surrounding alcohol. For the most part, It's completely legal to possess and consume, as long as you are not endangering anybody else in the process, and are an adult. This framework if applied to psychedelics, and any other drug for that matter, would still allow society to handle any problem users, while not criminalizing responsible use. The exploration of states of consciousness itself should NOT be criminalized, as long as said explorers are not causing problems for the people around them.

As a society we seem to handle alcohol pretty well, and alcohol itself has something close to the most severe health/behavioral consequences of any popular recreational drug. Alcohol use often leads to severe behavioral problems, especially violence, and can actually straight up kill you if you become addicted to it and try to stop cold turkey. If we can handle something as destructive as alcohol, we can certainly handle other comparatively benign drugs.

At the very minimum, the idea of a "schedule 1 drug" should be completely abolished. ESPECIALLY the clause which prevents research of any compound that is placed in schedule 1.

The United States has failed utterly in its "war on drugs". We've spent hundreds of billions in taxes, exploded our prison population to the largest in the world (rivaled only by russia), destabilized every country south of Texas, and yet have failed utterly in restricting the accessibility and usage of "illegal drugs". It's all absolutely ridiculous, especially considering that the stated purpose of mass criminalization in the first place was to silence political opposition.

THC is classified under schedule 1, "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

There are heaps of evidence for it being useful in treating anxiety, appetite disorders, chronic pain (possibly better than opiods with much lower chance of addiction), and others.

LSD, schedule 1. Psilocybin, schedule 1. Both have been shown to be effective in treating ptsd. An analogue of the former has been shown to be the only thing clinically effective in treating cluster headaches.

Methamphetamine is schedule 2.

Drug laws are not evidence based.

META:

Many people like psychedelics because they hate themselves.

Permanently rewire your personality, maybe blow out your mind entirely? No big deal.