261–270 of 393 posts
Government policy: prevent people from ruining their lives with drugs by ruining it for them with prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LSD use is actually higher than it has ever been in the US. i apologize for lacking a source, but this was something i saw about a week ago, in the context of highlighting its relative popularity with young, college-educated americans. that said, it’s hardly a cash cow in the way meth and fentanyl are; and as someone said elsewhere on this thread, one person could probably suppy the whole country.
I'm 99,9% positive demand for LSD is not higher than it has ever been in the US because of the hippie era, when it was huge. The problem with LSD as a product is not only that few people use it. Amongst those that use it, most won't use many times. Compared to my social circle I'm a pretty heavy user, had around 30 trips in the span of almost 15 years. Most people I have met didn't trip more than 3 or 4 times in thei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here People may think LSD or cocaine is all well and good, but there are far more dangerous substances out there. Things like Carfentanil need to be regulated. So too all the so-called "date rape" drugs. Just because some guy wants a powerful, tasteless, anesthetic that can be readily dissolved in water doesn't mean we should…
Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug. This same thinking was applied to LSD. “What if they put LSD in the water supply!”
That was what the legal system did in the 18th century. It didn't work. Allowing people to buy poisons, weapons, even explosives and only punishing them once they harmed others has been deemed unacceptable. We now prevent crime by limiting access to such substances, hand in hand with governments licensing who may access them. Don't like not having access to something? Become a doctor/chemist/soldier/miner and you will be legally free to play around with all sorts of dangerous things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 20 years for each one That is incredible. For a crime that harms noone.
Having no experience with it, nonetheless, the popular impression of LSD is that an incredibly small amount of it can be on something and inadvertently ingested, so I can see the perspective that making, having, or dealing it is an unacceptable risk of harm to people who didn't consent. Is there some reason that's unrealistic?
If you can get 20 years for two sheets of LSD, I’d expect life in prison for everyone at the companies who continue to leak this toxic stuff, and full payment of affected people:s medical bills, for starters.
It doesn’t happen because LSD can be used recreationally, “drugs are bad,” and PFAS is only used by well-respected businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you have your logic backwards. The conclusion that with lax drug laws, there'd be less violence associated with drug manufacturing and selling is correct. But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. If I outlaw [drug], I'm not responsible because you kill someone trying to sell [drug].
Everyone responding here shared a similar opinion regarding the idea of laws being responsible for the violence, so let me share another problem where the laws play a role, namely legal dangerous fake substitutes. Take for instance 25I-NBOMe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe#Legal_status It remained (has remained?) legal in many places for more than a decade.
Ironically, the obverse task -- trying to create a molecule that acts on similar neurobiological targets as an illegal drug but doesnt get people "high" or look like a molecule from an illegal drug -- can be similarly fraught. The flagrant example is BIA 10-2474, an experimental drug meant to target the endocannabinoid system in a roundabout way: not by directly activating receptors, but by inhibiting an enzyme that degrades the endogenous chemicals that activate endocannabinoid receptors, which would, ideally, have similar effects as directly activating those receptors. A trial of it killed one person and irreversibly and severely neurologically damaged a few others. This isn't to claim that FAAH inhibition is doomed to failure, just that safely messing around with sublimely complex neurochemistry is difficult; adding constraints like "must not make people feel high" or "must not look like Prohibited Molecules" makes it needlessly harder.
For some reasons the feds in the 90s were unusually interested in prosecuting psychedelics. I'm of the opinion that all drugs should be legal, but even if I wasn't, I think I would still question why LSD manufacturers were getting such long sentences around that time. Never really made sense to me.
There was definitely unreasonable fear around LSD. I remember my parents not allowing us to use temporary tattoos because they were concerned they might be laced with LSD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you have your logic backwards. The conclusion that with lax drug laws, there'd be less violence associated with drug manufacturing and selling is correct. But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. If I outlaw [drug], I'm not responsible because you kill someone trying to sell [drug].
> But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply. The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well. If you pass that law kn…
100% agreed.
> If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does.
I'm not sure you could say knowing full well. At least not when the laws were enacted. And knowing that it could create a black market, isn't the same.
Also, if your calculations also lead you to believe that you could control the market, keeping the violence to a small minimum. You're at worst responsible for a small mistake in calculation. Not the violence that you were unable to predict.
The argument of who's to blame currently is the people with access to all the information who still refuse to act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
This logic applies against all 'victimless' crimes, including drug possession & use.
Drug use has one victim : the user. Time and time again it has been shown that legalization and cure are far more efficient and cost less to society but still many countries cling to the idea that beating up somebody who is down will magically solve the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an unacceptable risk for people who didn’t consent, but that’s a different matter. We should punish people who give others dangerous things without consent.
Well, you can get into trouble if you start playing around with radioactive material, too. I think "The Radioactive Boy Scout" has been mentioned on HN a few times. I think a reason why dangerous things are regulated is because even though they don't always lead to harm, the harm can be grave and impossible to undo. Even if an unexpected trip doesn't technically lead to permanent brain damage, if the behavior were mi…