Some actually were evidence based, such as opium laws. There was a big public health problem with opium a few centuries back - complicated with politics and economics of opium trade.

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.

It's still immensely hypocritical to claim that these drugs cause harm and death while giving a pass - and sometimes subsidies and tax breaks - to the commercial alcohol and tobacco dealers.

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.

Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement.

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.

Errr...none of those are psychadelics?

Technically they are all psychoactive, but not chiefly or solely psychoactive - and usually also not hallucinogenic.

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

>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).

>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.

"Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places)"

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.

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.