Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming.

I suspect this is the beginning of reform. Politics moves slowly. At least my translation of the article implied that further steps towards decriminalization will come in the future.

In the US, states often pass laws that undermine federal laws. I'm less familiar with EU and German politics.

I always wonder how we as a society could legalize "hard" drugs. Do we sell them like alcohol / tobacco, with minimal restrictions? (Just age limits.) Or, do we require obtaining a license, or only allow taking hard drugs in a controlled setting? I don't have the answer; but it's an important discussion to have as drugs are decriminalized and legalized.

View on HN

On the scale of drug hardness, alcohol is near the top. I don't see why any other drug should have stricter laws.

Alcohol is addictive, physical dependence forming and can be overdosed with no medical use. Are these not attributes of Schedule 1 drugs?

It’s also widely understood how to dose and consume it — the commonality of it makes it less dangerous on a micro level. And also much harder to convince people to ban it when the majority of people consume it.

Alcohol has existed and been consumed since before humans existed. It’s also trivially easy to produce alcohol yourself, naturally manifesting out of a sugary liquid, meaning that prohibition is ~impossible.

If you mean just from an effects standpoint than yeah alcohol is absolutely top tier dangerous. But unfortunately/luckily, society operates on more than just statistics. And trying to take the human emotion element out of decisions is hopeless.

> Alcohol has existed and been consumed since before humans existed.

Ditto cannabis and opium poppies for example, arguably a million times more naturally manifesting than a distillation process.

>Ditto cannabis and opium poppies for example, arguably a million times more naturally manifesting than a distillation process.

Yes, but historically, alcoholic societies thrived and developed much better than stoner societies.

Source? Alcoholism took down at least one Mongol dynasty, and psychadelia was probably central to some comparably "enlightened" Greek societies.

You're missing the Chinese opium crirsis.

No source needed.

There's a liquor store in every strip mall, every restaurant servers liquor, every concert or sporting event serves liquor.

Meanwhile other drugs are heavily regulated if not outright illegal in most places still

The societies that drank liquor clearly dominated for this to be the case.

> The societies that drank liquor clearly dominated for this to be the case.

Wasn't LSD banned in the US because it got super popular and became a great "poster child" for the war on drugs? Not because it was not popular enough.

AFAIK caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are legal at this point mainly because they've been normalized. As in, people generally perceive them to have minimal risk, so there's not a lot of opposition.

Yes the risk is not actually minimal for any of those three. Even caffeine can be dependence-forming. But most people either don't know this or don't care.

It became super popular in a subculture that wasn't popular enough.

> The societies that drank liquor clearly dominated for this to be the case

You didnt think this through, Europe was a mongol raided, plague infested, dark-age shitshow untill they discovered tea and coffee. Id we are gonna go by 'drugs drive history' then caffeine is a top tier drug, and alcohol is crap.

But this has all the historifal rigour of "white people won, therefore everything white people do is the best'

What would a few examples of "stoner societies" be? The only possible one I could think of (and it's a stretch) would be Jamaica, but I'm pretty sure the issues they've had are more related to the whole slavery thing.

How would you realize this about alcohol, but not about psilocybin? Or lysergic acid? Etc etc.

So the answer is not the age of the substances, nor the natural occurrence in nature. It's something more irrational. I propose that it's regulatory capture by massive industrial interests. See also: scaremongering against weed vapes by the tobacco industry, or the classic Reefer Madness.

At very least, it makes sense to regulate it more in line with other drugs that have significant effects on GABAA receptors, like barbiturates and benzodiazepines. Not only does alcohol cause physical dependence, like other GABAA targeting drugs, chronic use lowers the seizure threshold making them physically dangerous to discontinue without tapering or medication.

> On the scale of drug hardness, alcohol is near the top.

That's a very subjective statement. Many animals seek out alcohol in the wild. For example, bears will seek out fermenting berries and get "drunk."

> drug hardness

There really is no objective distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs. For example, spend a minute skimming https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/addiction-blog/hard-vs-sof.... "These arbitrary categories have no clear criteria or definition, and they also have no scientific basis"

> Many animals seek out alcohol in the wild. For example, bears will seek out fermenting berries and get "drunk."

I am not clear how this proves or disproves anything. Deer seek out mushrooms that are poisonous to us. We seek out coffee beans, whoch are poison to insects but caffeine is fine for us in small doses. Etc.

Also caffeine is a top tier drug.

Schedule 1 also requires that there is no medical use for the drug, which IIRC ethanol is an effective treatment for someone who has consumed methanol.

> Schedule 1 also requires that there is no medical use for the drug

Technically yes, but that didn't stop marijuana from being schedule 1. Actually, isn't it still schedule 1 in the US?

"accepted medical use" is the actual phrasing I believe. But yes, it's definitely not based on actual medicine, moreso on the whims of the DEA and lawmakers.

"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote."

https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling

The key phrase is "currently accepted medical use". That is an arbitrary definition that is set by the regulator. A drug must have a medical use that is accepted by the DEA who defers to the FDA for such definitions.

And Adderall aka amphetamine is prescribed for ADHD.

As well as pure dextroamphetamine, which I take.

Hell, even meth can be prescribed by a doctor; I believe the brand for it's called Desoxyn and it's usually prescribed for severe overeating disorders, not usually ADHD.

Google says amphetamines are schedule II, so that's in line with your statement.

It can also be used to treat benzodiazapine withdrawal.

Ethanol is a cure to methanol poisoning.

There was an article I read on here years ago that outlined a plan to the legalization of all drugs, but I've sadly never been able to find it again. It was such an old article that it thoroughly addressed the legalization of marijuana.

It basically put all the drugs into a tiered system. Weed would be grouped with alcohol, regulated but basically available everywhere. Non addictive but more powerful drugs like MDMA and shrooms would be available at pharmacies with a consultation from the pharmacist, basically just making sure users planned ahead and knew the risks. It went all the way up to to intravenous heroin use at specific facilities with on site nurses, where users had to consult a doctor every so often.

If anyone knows the article or something similar, I would like to reread it just to see what the author got right and to review their ideas going forward.

Bummer no one responded to this. I’d be interested in reading that too!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com