Sorry to pull that quote out of context, but this is just peak HN. It's beautiful.
> Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings
So we should only allow them in ritual settings then?
> The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
I actually agree with that point. However, I don't see how from any of this follows that you should simply allow them without any precautions or any restrictions. Alcohol, tobacco, even coffee is regulated.
As an analogy, we deem it useful that you can purchase a car and drive around with it. Nevertheless, we demand that you get a driver's license first, because there is enough evidence that driving is an often highly counterintuitive activity that can lead to serious damage unless you had proper training first. There is also evidence that you need certain prerequisites even with that training, which is the reason we e.g. wouldn't let a 10 year old drive at all.
Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.
Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.
There is literally no argument that can be made about the dangers of psychedelics that can't be applied to alcohol addiction. Put crudely, alcohol really fucks people up.
Conversely the reality is that many supposedly respectable people are high on coke and other drugs. Mandatory drug testing for politicians and CEOs would reveal all kinds of interesting recreational habits.
A cynic might wonder if the use of these drugs is actually a status symbol, and if legalisation would remove some of the thrill of being able to use illegal drugs with impunity.
However I think my point still stands. The regulation of newer drugs seems to be dictated by ideology more than anything else. In many ways we've gone backwards.
I'm reminded of David Nutt, who was sacked from his job as UK Chief Drug Advisor, simply because the evidence he quoted disagreed with the government's rhetoric.
Psychedelic is not a right category anyway. It is a label given by users based on perceived effects.
I mean, "analgesic" is a label based entirely on perceived effects, and it's one of the most common medical drug classes (by sale volume).
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.
They are definitely evidenced based.
We don't have to have a complete scientific run-down of opioids or THC to know their general effects on people.
We've decided that these - among many, many other substances are not for the common good - and that's why they're banned.
We don't ban alcohol for cultural and historical reasons, though it's banned in many places in addition to the fact that alcoholism was a massive social problem for a long time.
There's no 'new science' in dope that has caused us to change our laws either, just a different view towards it, and probably a better common understanding of it.
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.
the drug war is a politically and economically driven disaster that has created the single largest wave in history of disrespect for law, laws, and our legal systems.
Law, as a system, draws 100% of it's authority from the notion of being an externalized codified form of social morality. The minute Law ceases being moral and becomes merely an obvious instrument of power it's basis flounders.
If you want a world with less problems, the drug war must go immediately.
Likewise in Persia, the it was related to sultan not profiting and religious reasons.
The police are supposed to be on our side, yet huge swathes of society must think of them as the 'enemy' because the law has made it so. It'll be at least a generation after legalisation, probably a couple of generations, before this toxic relationship gets healed, we can't start that process soon enough.
Just a clue as to the overall impact lies in noting that the USA is the single largest consumer of Latin American cocaine production, and the role this has played in creating a climate where cartels drive governments. (not to mention black money opportunities for shady governmental entities to dip in and out of, a la Oliver North...)
And, the onus is on me to have coverage to protect myself from such a situation.
However, abuse potential or evidence of harm should be first demonstrated before scheduling a substance this high.
It used to be even recently that you could get strong opiates for cold and amfetamines for cough, weight loss and lethargy for instance. Or that barbiturates were prescribed for many issues related to insomnia.
If there is a problem, the regulation may be changed, and additional measures taken to get rid of it.
The main issue with these laws is that they are speculative. It is actually very likely that nothing would change much if at all, except number of arrests and related costs. Oh and reduced cut for the black market.
Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings. (As opposed to drugs like opium, tobacco or alcohol which have always been one with few exceptions yet are less regulated.)
"Think of the children" is a cheap shot that can be used to set any number of odious laws. Show evidence of harm and how the law helps with it.
The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.