Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research • Hacker News Board

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#51

Post by rocgf » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:18 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #38

cies wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> criminals I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. Pedantic gov'tal meddling, waste of resources at best, a way to lock up lefty/hippy/non-whites at worst. Passing laws that make victimless behaviour illegal should be criminal. Let's make that a constitutional law...

> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how you prefer to look at it. (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.

All those apply to eating from McDonald's, as an example. Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact?

Later edit: Actually, banning is not a huge problem, the problem is incarceration for choosing to do something that hurts nobody, except maybe yourself.

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#52

Post by mehrdadn » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:24 PM UTC

rocgf wrote: post #51

mehrdadn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how you prefer to look at it. (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.

All those apply to eating from McDonald's, as an example. Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? Later edit: Actually, banning is not a huge problem, the problem is incarceration for choosing to do something that hurts nobody, except maybe yourself.

> Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact?

No, we should use weigh the negatives against the positives and avoid making strawmen of these arguments.

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#53

Post by rocgf » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:49 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #52

rocgf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those apply to eating from McDonald's, as an example. Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? Later edit: Actually, banning is not a huge problem, the problem is incarceration for choosing to do something that hurts nobody, except maybe yourself.

> Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? No, we should use weigh the negatives against the positives and avoid making strawmen of these arguments.

This is not strawmanning, this is showing you that your definition of what constitutes a victim is completely wrong and very easy to twist and abuse. A fast-food hamburger, alcohol and skydiving all fit your three criteria, but locking people in a cage for any of them is something that no sane person would ever agree on.

You can try to educate people, regulate, disincentivize through various means, but you shouldn't jail someone for an activity that is only dangerous at the tail end.

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#54

Post by Jimmed » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

llamathrowaway wrote: post #11

Fun fact: Aldous Huxley, author of, among others, the Door of Perception, was the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, the biologist who was the first dean of Royal School of Mines, which later became a part of the Imperial College.

They even named the building which houses the department of computing after him!

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#55

Post by qwerty456127 » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #47

qwerty456127 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think exactly the same yet legalizing everything victim-less can be a hard target to reach. There is, however, an easier concept: laws that are scientifically and logically unreasonable should be cancelled.

I keep suggesting that laws should have "acceptance tests" in the form of a stated intent in a form that must be possible to invalidate if the premises are wrong. You'd need a mechanism to challenge laws both on the basis that the intent is not met and on the basis that the stated intent is too unclear.

Great idea! I absolutely support this! But it still feels a way too radical for today society to accept. They just want to outlaw whatever they feel like they dislike and call this democracy.

But I've just came up with another compromise idea that can make sense for both progressive and conservative: committing victim-less crimes, doing whatever is outlawed yet doesn't actually harm anybody (like possessing or producing a schedule-1 substance for personal use) should never be considered a crime punishable with a prison sentence but can be considered an administrative infraction punishable with a reasonable (what a person can actually pay without becoming homeless or having to get a loan) fine.

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#56

Post by inflatableDodo » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #50

cies wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. > (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. > (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal w…

> One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Unfortunately they don't come knocking on our doors to inform us of this fact. Instead they settle for the sadly-suboptimal solution of electing representatives to represent their perspectives while they go about their own busines…

>there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use

This is not a situation where the criminal and victim are the same person, is it?

>If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further.

They obviously aren't suggesting that.

>I can't parse this sentence.

Here is some added punctuation that may help;

'So in case of medical insurances for all, the public is the victim. For every person's action is remotely risky.'

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#57

Post by cies » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 10:05 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #50

cies wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. > (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. > (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal w…

> One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Unfortunately they don't come knocking on our doors to inform us of this fact. Instead they settle for the sadly-suboptimal solution of electing representatives to represent their perspectives while they go about their own busines…

> Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use.

Please come up with examples. And if possible stay clear some people merely taking offense.

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#58

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #33

viktorvamos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

addictive is quite a loose term, things like weed and acid may not cause a chemical addiction - but they are extremely habit forming.

LSD is habit forming? ...and although many people (myself included) use cannabis in a habitual way, I don't think it's "extremely" habit forming. If cannabis represents the extreme in this metric, then it is a very flat extreme since it also has to include sugar, crack cocaine, nicotine, etc, users of which obviously develop much more dire habits much more quickly. I don't know that either of these are habit forming…

[deleted]

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#59

Post by viktorvamos » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

XaoDaoCaoCao wrote: post #35

viktorvamos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

addictive is quite a loose term, things like weed and acid may not cause a chemical addiction - but they are extremely habit forming.

Not in the same manner of alcoholism or stimulant/opioid addiction. Especially the psychedelic drugs. They punish harshly for trying to "trip" multiple times in a row. You'd have to take an absurd amount to abuse it in the same manner as the classical "hard" drugs. It's incredibly easy to restrain oneself to a 1xweek usage. It's like a incredibly cheap Friday night trip to the movies in that context. t. Someone who's…

im referring to microdosing acid

Re: Imperial College London Launches a Centre for Psychedelics Research

#60

Post by viktorvamos » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #33

viktorvamos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

addictive is quite a loose term, things like weed and acid may not cause a chemical addiction - but they are extremely habit forming.

LSD is habit forming? ...and although many people (myself included) use cannabis in a habitual way, I don't think it's "extremely" habit forming. If cannabis represents the extreme in this metric, then it is a very flat extreme since it also has to include sugar, crack cocaine, nicotine, etc, users of which obviously develop much more dire habits much more quickly. I don't know that either of these are habit forming…

sorry i was referring to microdosing lsd.

everyone has their experiences, personally i know a few people whos smoking habits have been detrimental to themselves.

i think theres this mantra of "its not addictive - legalise it!" when there are other qualities of these substances that may cause issues, however it's very hard to place weed on a scale of consumption benefit compared to other substances.

For me, smoking a lot of weed deprecates my memory significantly, something which i value quite highly, things like sugar and nicotine to not do this.

dire effects of these habits are also hard to quantify - i value mental health over physical health... i'd rather be addicted to cigs than be addicted [sic] to weed!