Hacker News Reader

Comment by adfm | Hacker News Reader

Consider that teenagers can already acquire psychedelics regardless of legal status. More kids are killed by alcohol every year and it's a legal drug. Changing the legal status of psychedelics will help research into these amazing materials and hopefully change the world we collectively experience in real and meaningful ways.

View on HN

When I was in high school it was very difficult to get alcohol. LSD on the other hand was readily available and very cheap. And this was in Utah.

Ha! I lived in a small town in WI, and LSD was more available than any drug. Not only available, but available in exotic forms: microdots, gel tabs, fancy printed blotter. Sometimes I wonder if it was a government experiment, that's how remarkably available it was relative to other drugs. Consider for a moment it is pretty easy to grow mushrooms or pot, and then consider that a bunch of small-town kids in WI had easier access to a difficult-to-synthesize psychedelic. Wild.

Yeah we had all those too. Not sure where it was coming from but it was abundant in all varieties and as cheap as $1 a hit.

In high school in Australia, it was easy to find alcohol. Don't think there was much LSD going around (some marijuana and MDMA).

I think one difference is when you have 18 as the legal drinking age, a significant chunk of kids turn 18 while still in year 12. They could then legally buy it and then (illegally) on-sell it to their school friends who weren't of legal age yet.

In some cases parents would even buy alcohol for their teenage children. Parents supplying other drugs to their children is not totally unheard of but far less common.

Probably for the best, but I'm not sure what it means. I would think Utah would be unusually difficult to get alcohol, since (most) kids couldn't just raid their parents' liquor cabinets. Not sure how Utah's rather unique culture would affect availability of LSD.

This was in the 80s and Salt Lake City was a regular tour stop for the Grateful Dead. Which had at least something to do with it.

LDS are headquartered there and all it takes is a slip of the tongue.

The dead comment below you says:

> I have some stoner friends from high school who were really smart and gave up in college and now work mediocre dead end jobs and live in really low cost of living areas.

> They're happy. They're far from dead. But that potential they had is completely gone at this point.

What entitles you to their potential?

People may want to change the world, or may just want an entry level job that keeps them fed and housed while spending their time on drugs/videogames/what-the-hell-they-damn-want-its-not-my-problem

If really smart people decide that working in construction and smoking weed is their call, who am I to say otherwise?

Sorry, but construction is a serious job. I don't want people that are high building bridges and homes.

The same applies to construction and alcohol. It isn’t inherent that someone who works construction and uses a narcotic world do so while working.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that supports decriminalization and thinks people should be getting high at work, especially people who do dangerous work.

The same could be said about alcohol. It’s none of my business what people do in their free time at home, as long as they can safely and effectively do their job when they’re on the clock.

Legalization or decriminalization doesn't necessarily lead to "everyone's getting high at work"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com