Comment by xg15 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xg15 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The main issue with these "laws" is that they are speculative

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.

In what way are they anything other than speculative?

Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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).

"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.

coffee is regulated?

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.

Coffee used to be regulated, until about 19th century in its countries, among them France, UK and Persia come to mind. First two were to crack down on cafés which were sources of political opposition.

Likewise in Persia, the it was related to sultan not profiting and religious reasons.

This was a market/power issue i.e. 'mercantilism' - not a health issue.

Just wanted to say that I agree 100% with this, yet rarely hear it articulated elsewhere. The pernicious effects of pitting otherwise law-abiding people against the justice system and by proxy, the entire state, is something that I think has contributed a not insignificant part to the breakdown of community and subsequent alienation we're seeing today.

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.

I wish to expound further: The criminalization of possession and cultivation/fabrication of certain substances has created a highly lucrative black market providing revenue for entities that are less that concerned with our social welfare and more concerned with maintaining a hegemony of power.

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 yet we have not eliminated uninsured motorists driving without a license.

And, the onus is on me to have coverage to protect myself from such a situation.

Of ritual settings, some are allowed already. Perhaps also should be allowed in a medical and research setting which would mean schedule 2 or 3.

However, abuse potential or evidence of harm should be first demonstrated before scheduling a substance this high.

So, there is no abuse problem with current Schedule 2 and 3 substances?

There is, but less than before most of this drugs were scheduled.

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.

You guys are in 100% agreement. Parent is pointing out the difference between regulation and law and is just fine with regulated legality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com