So because of 'idiots', anyone looking to experience the therapeutic effects should continue to carry the risk of jail time and a permanent record?
The important thing is that no one is charged criminally for possession.
We should decriminalize those, too.
But you cannot only rely on storing medicines up high and using adult-resistant caps to protect your adults. Also, it is just not possible to watch adults every second. So, other strategies need to be put in place to prevent your adults from gaining access to medicines.
How about antibiotics? Codeine?
Some drugs have very little risk when used improperly, and some can fuck you up for life. The average person isn't really equipped to make that kind of judgment for themselves, they need a medical expert in the chain who knows how much is safe and whether it's an appropriate treatment.
That's why we have OTC drugs and prescription drugs. Some drugs just are not safe to use without guidance.
People should absolutely consult medical experts before using most medications. I will consistently say that that does not mean they should be restricted from purchasing arbitrary medications.
(Antibiotics are a potentially interesting case that may require some additional complexity, precisely because they're a commons, and taking them incorrectly or even taking them correctly can affect people other than yourself. That doesn't apply to anything that only affects yourself.)
Linking money to rights so directly grates with my idealistic sensibilities, but my realist sensibilities are against policies that would exacerbate the homeless situation.
Many people in the open-air drug encampments are there because they aren't getting real help. Your proposed plan would do nothing to help those that might just be assisted by the new perspective psychedelic therapy can give. It would only let the rich keep living the untouchable life they already live.
This seems to be the case for most things across human existence. Did something change recently?
A model which on the margin (not totally) allows decisions about value allocation to be made by people who generate value seems to follow homeostatic principles which are evolutionarily fitting for a relatively peaceful time.
One may quibble that this equilibrium is largely limited toward English speaking nations and European peninsula, and that even there exist edge cases on the high and low ends. Thats focusing on the empty end of a glass that is generally getting fuller over time.
I don't believe this to be the case in most instances. Value agglomerates due to preferential attachment, and greater a capital accumulation the less effort is needed to increase it.
relatively peaceful
Compared to what, historical nadirs? Substituting economic conflict for kinetic warfare has had only limited success and had drastic atomizing effects upon society. I don't regard this as a great improvement over the historic methods, which were more pragmatic than you suggest and where excess could be tempered by replacement. The elevation of property rights over virtually all other considerations has been a net negative in my view.
a glass that is generally getting fuller over time
Sure, if you look at naive measures like GDP growth or the like. Capital proponents recoil fromt he idea of factoring in all externalities, viz environmental impact. There's a reason insurers are scrambling to get out of many markets. I used to believe in the cis cornucopian version of capitalism, but have come to think it's much closer to zero-sum than proponents care to admit, preferring to take refuge in idealistic accounting than frankly appraise reality.
> I don't believe this to be the case in most instances.
Seems like a potentially objective thing to determine. My impression is that the largest non-govt money flows are in the consumer economy which reflects the decisions of working people. Is that not the case? Are people not earning money for work and spending it? Does that not represent the largest portion of value created and passed along?
>> relatively peaceful
This phrase is recognition that warlordism was probably evolutionarily suited for those historic nadirs as opposed to today excluding certain regions.
Zero-Sum vs Ubiquitous Abundance
I totally agree about economic mis measures. My thought is that we are approaching an age of ubiquitous abundance without the necessary psycho-cultural supports in order to not treat it as a zero-sun moment. Despite material well being, there doesn’t seem to be much realization of how awesome life is. It’s a philosophical tragedy.
Not only insensitive but also very simplistic and wrong point of view. A lot of drug abuse is basically people trying to self-medicate psychological issues, trying to have a escape from oppressive life conditions, or trying to fit in with a crowd due to loneliness and self esteem.
Considering how much of our work is destroying people’s jobs or making their lives a bit more miserable we should at least try to be a bit less judgmental.