Re:Do Psychedelic Drug Laws Violate Human Rights?
by adrusi on Monday March 07, 2016 @04:49PM
(#11242007)
I agree with what you've said, though I tend more toward the liberal side. I'd point out though that "not exceeding OTC drug toxicity" is a very low threshold: just a few more acetominophen tablets or asprins than recommended can induce acute liver failure. This is exacerbated if you also drink alcohol. It's one of the most common forms of poisoning and the top cause of acute liver failure in the US.
It's not easy to accidentally overdose on a drug when it's sold in standard doses, especially if dosage information is presented honestly. The government's position on drugs only serves to increase the rate of overdose among the population using them.
Re:Do Psychedelic Drug Laws Violate Human Rights?
by api on Monday March 07, 2016 @05:34PM
(#11242300)
Yeah, I just said that to draw a line somewhere. You could eat LSD powder with a spoon and be technically okay, provided you could contend with the spoon's Ka in the liminal realm.
Re:Do Psychedelic Drug Laws Violate Human Rights?
by xkcd-sucks on Monday March 07, 2016 @06:11PM
(#11242477)
Most longitudinal studies of heroin users suggest that they frequently transition between periods of use and abstinence, and that most living users undergo spontaneous remission in middle age.
Also, it seems unlikely that the $hundreds of billions/year hard drug trade is driven by proceeds of petty crime+bottle redemption+welfare+other money sources traditionally associated with the destitute. It seems much more likely that the people buying most hard drugs are people with stable income.
Re:Do Psychedelic Drug Laws Violate Human Rights?
by tbrownaw on Monday March 07, 2016 @04:52PM
(#11242031)
Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice.
Or regulatory inertia, or differing priorities, or effects you don't recognize / didn't account for, or...
Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice.
I definitely think that non-addictive psychedelic drugs with no demonstrated human toxicity (or not exceeding OTC drug toxicity) should be legal. Perhaps there should be some restrictions. I would be in favor of some form of licensing or gating to set some minimum level of personal responsibility. Maybe if you freak out and end up in a psych ward or commit a crime you lose your license. I'd put it in the same category as driving a car, riding a motorcycle, operating a motorboat, etc. People are going to be stupid with LSD but people are stupid with motorcycles and rock climbing and those are legal.
Harder drugs? I'm open minded. I used to be against the legalization of heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, etc., but then I read up on Portugal's experience with heroin and now I'm more open to the idea of a pure harm-reduction approach. But I am wary of these. Alcohol is legal and there are alcoholics everywhere. I don't think criminal prosecution is the right tool for the job, but I also am not sure we want more of that.