An acute example of this is a psychedelic called “DMT”. This psychedelic is nearly everywhere in nature, including our own brains. When inhaled, it lasts less than 10 minutes, give or take. After that 10 minutes, a user is completely sober without any indication that they were not, and no physiological side effects. But during that 10 minutes? It is an acute spiritual and existential experience, possibly the most acute non-normal experience possible for a human being. A true exploration of altered states, and possible contact with a different form of life unbound from our reality.
And for some reason, this substance is scheduled. It does no harm to a user, to third parties, nor to society, is short lived, and offers true spiritual experience but it’s scheduled. The scheduling as a whole is archaic, oppressive, and if nothing else, misguided.
This is also in top of the fact that it discourages addicts from seeking real treatment due to fear of being criminalized.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2000 and saw a huge reduction in harm associated with drug use, and did not see an increase in usage. They went from among the worst in the EU in terms of HIV infections to among the lowest. [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
Edit: cannot edit any longer. While I do not think they do cause psychological harm in the long term (I think they force confrontation with buried psychological issues in order to transcend them), they most certainly can cause short term psychological distress and issues for people unprepared, approaching with the wrong mindset, or using in an otherwise problematic set or setting.
That said, psilocybin is highly sensitive to set and setting, especially to other neural nets and especially to others also on it. There is a massive host of issues in partaking with friends or around anyone else for that matter. It will amplify hidden untruths or other sort of otherwise “benign” sober psychological distress and make them acute.
What people call a “bad trip” I call an important lesson. We can choose to react negatively and label it accordingly, or visit it in a sense that a very advanced mindset was indicating a problem. When done this way, bad states cease to exist and it becomes clear the “bad trips” were just bad other things that needed some conscious attention.
All this to say: go get lost in the woods and trip with some plants & with people who hang with that setting, they will take care of you and it is a much better setting to do the work on self.
Except it opens doors in people's minds which allows them to think differently for themselves. This results in them behaving less like sheeple. Why would that ever be scary for society?
Sure, not all mj users may experience it this way, but a lot do! I certainly wouldn't be arguing it opens the door to a bunch of usefully profound thinkers in society.
MJ used more sparingly, and especially when used on someone with exposure to a psychedelic (not simultaneously but maybe the weekend after a trip)? Entirely different ballgame. It can awaken an internal symphony of inspiration and thinking.
Everything can be abused. Eat too much if anything and you will suffer. But when used appropriately, very magical experiences can be had that enable routes of thinking and problem solving that seem to come from out of this world.
In general, my recommendation to anyone is to try these things while simply meditating or hiking a safe & easy trail. Your mileage will vary but when done correctly, you will acquire otherworldly inspiration applicable towards your skilled professions and hobbies.
And if nothing else, even falling short of that result, this possibility should be enough for legality.
It "goes back" to Nixon needing a tool to criminalize the anti-war and racial justice movement.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...
By the time Nixon came out with that policy, multiple commissions around the world had concluded that pot was largely harmless and should be decriminalized. People in his own administration - who he ordered to come up with a "damn strong statement" - concluded the same, infuriating him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_policy_of_the_Richard...
Reagan, however, was the one who really ratcheted up the criminalization aspect: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs
quote from https://gizmodo.com/anti-marijuana-laws-were-based-on-racism... :
-----------------
Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (an early predecessor of the DEA), was one of the driving forces behind pot prohibition. He pushed it for explicitly racist reasons, saying, "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men," and:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
The main reason to prohibit marijuana, he said was "its effect on the degenerate races." (And god forbid women should sleep with entertainers!)
-----------------
That tells me all I need to know about this whole situation. We would rightfully cancel/hold accountable someone saying that now. Why aren't we viewing the laws in the same light in which they were made?
There seem to be a few threads I've found that are worth pursuing:
1. The general increase in state power in various domains of life .
2. The decline of traditional communities and move toward urbanization creating a disconnected group of people that worried the upper classes.
3. The tendency of geopolitics to follow social trends/fads.
My explanation would be that the US drug war was aggressively international.
Ha! Ever tried to get a Swede to do something he or she doesn't already want to do?
The US drug war is international with respect to a few drug producing countries, but had very little influence elsewhere, such as in Asia. In my home country of Bangladesh the recent proposal is to make the death penalty available for drug traffickers and dealers. Nixon had no influence in Bangladesh (and in fact is strongly disliked because he supported Pakistan in the independence war).
Anti-drug sentiment arises out of cultural attitudes. Drug use is viewed as anti-social, because it often makes you less suitable for work, and degenerate. Some cultures are less forgiving of this than others. This is true in America and other highly religious countries, like Bangladesh, Iran, and the Philippines. But it’s also true in certain countries that aren’t highly religious but place a high cultural priority on industriousness, such as Sweden and Japan.
So I suspect you’ve got the Nixon anecdote backwards. Nixon didn’t cultivate anti-drug attitudes out of racism. The harnessed a reactionary sentiment against 1960s liberalism—which included trying to normalize drug usage—to stoke existing Puritan attitudes against drug use. His racism was in treating drug use as an issue especially relating to Black people, as opposed to being a vice common to white people and Black people alike.
The alleged Ehrlichman quote is brought up every single time drug prohibition is mentioned but it should be taken with at least some skepticism.
The surviving members of his family don't believe he made the quote:
>...Multiple family members of Ehrlichman (who died in 1999) challenge the veracity of the quote: The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father...We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman
This is a very explosive quote - if Baum had included it in his book in 1996 I am sure it would have garnered a huge amount of attention for the book. Instead Baum did not include it in his book, but instead would wait for many years before making the claim when Ehrlichman was no longer around to dispute the quote.
If the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it isn't a very accurate description of the overall drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs" rhetoric, the actual substance of his policies is a bit different than what people think it was:
>...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).
https://www.samefacts.com/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/
>..."Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse."
>The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction).
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs
>Reagan, however, was the one who really ratcheted up the criminalization aspect:
To say Reagan "ratcheted up the criminalization aspect" ignores the structure of the US federal government. The president does not make laws, the president can merely sign or veto laws made by the legislature. Unfortunately the drug policies of the 1980s were a bipartisan affair. The real bipartisan push for harsher penalties in the US came in the 1980s after basketball star Len Bias died of cocaine overdose.
>…Immediately after Bias's death, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr., from the Boston area (where Bias had just signed with the Celtics), issued a demand to his fellow Democrats for anti-drug legislation. Senior congressional staffers began meeting regularly in the speaker's conference room as practically every committee in the House wrote Len Bias-inspired legislation attacking the drug problem. News conferences around the Capitol featured members of Congress extolling their efforts to clamp down on cocaine and crack.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2006/06/24/u...
>...It became the sole focus of legislative activity for the remainder of the session on both sides of the aisle. Literally every committee, from the Committee on Agriculture to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries were somehow getting involved. Suddenly, the Len Bias case was the driving force behind every piece of legislation. Members of Congress were setting up hearings about the drug problem and every subcommittee chairman was looking to get a piece of the action...
https://www.salon.com/2011/06/19/len_bias_cocaine_tragedy_st...
If you want to go back further, a good person to start with is Harry Anslinger who headed the Federal Bureau of Narcotics:
>...Prior to the end of alcohol prohibition, Anslinger had claimed that cannabis was not a problem, did not harm people, and "There is probably no more absurd fallacy"[15] than the idea it makes people violent. His critics argue he shifted not due to objective evidence but self-interest due to the obsolescence of the Department of Prohibition he headed when alcohol prohibition ceased - campaigning for a new Prohibition against its use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
A difference with Nixon is that he was one of the first to try to greatly expand drug treatment and also reform sentencing in at least a small way:
>...the mandatory minimum sentence in a federal prison for marijuana possession was 2-10 years until Nixon slashed it to 1 year with a judicial option to waive even that sentence. No federal mandatory drug sentence would be rolled back again for 40 years (in the Obama Administration).
Imagine if we weren't allowed to study alcohol freely, if we had to jump through a dozen hoops to become qualified to do one of the few alcohol studies. We might not have so much knowledge about alcohol's toxic effects, and we might not have the current picture of "Marijuana is slightly healthier than alcohol" if Marijuana had been as thoroughly studied.