SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
James J. H. Rucker, a psychiatrist and honorary lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, has argued in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) article that psychedelics should be reclassified as schedule 2 compounds:
He explains that many trials of psychedelics published before prohibition, in the 1950s and 1960s, suggested "beneficial change in many psychiatric disorders".
However, research ended after 1967. In the UK psychedelic drugs were legally classified as schedule 1 class A drugs - that is, as having "no accepted medical use and the greatest potential for harm, despite the research evidence to the contrary," he writes.
Rucker points out that psychedelics remain more legally restricted than heroin and cocaine. "But no evidence indicates that psychedelic drugs are habit forming; little evidence indicates that they are harmful in controlled settings; and much historical evidence shows that they could have use in common psychiatric disorders."
In fact, recent studies indicate that psychedelics have "clinical efficacy in anxiety associated with advanced cancer, obsessive compulsive disorder, tobacco and alcohol addiction, and cluster headaches," he writes.
And he explains that, at present, larger clinical studies on psychedelics are made "almost impossible by the practical, financial and bureaucratic obstacles" imposed by their schedule 1 classification. Currently, only one manufacturer in the world produces psilocybin for trial purposes, he says, at a "prohibitive" cost of £100,000 for 1 g (50 doses).
[...] He concludes that psychedelics are neither harmful nor addictive compared with other controlled substances, and he calls on the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, "to recommend that psychedelics be reclassified as schedule 2 compounds to enable a comprehensive, evidence based assessment of their therapeutic potential."
[See also: Research into Psychedelics, Shut Down for Decades, is Now Yielding Exciting Results - Ed.]
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CRCulver on Sunday May 31 2015, @12:49AM
I'm all for legalization of psychedelics, as I am for legalization of soft drugs in general. They are already being widely used, and saddling people with criminal records is more destructive to society than any suggested negative effects.
The only downside I see is the potential increase in people talking about their psychedelic experiences and saying daft things. Anyone who has friends who occasionally drop acid or ingest mushrooms knows what I'm talking about: the people who claim that LSD opened a supernatural world for them and showed them how they have a soul and that it is immortal, or how it enabled them to telepathically communicate with others a continent away; the people who claim that psychedelics have freed them from the "mental shackles" that the rest of the "sheeple" in society carry, and now they understand that every event ever was brought about by the New World Order to control us.
Let people use these substances in the privacy of their own home, but spare us the supposed benefits unless you are a clinical research and can take a dispassionate stance on how they work.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:12AM
LSD opened a supernatural world for us and showed us that we're part of a whole, it enabled us to telepathically communicate with others; psychedelics frees most people from the "mental shackles" that the rest of the "poor souls" in society carry, and makes us understand that most societal and personal problems are brought about by our own ignorance. Psychedelics give us a choice to dispel the illusion or (with time) forget reality and go back to the cave [wikipedia.org]
Was with you until the NWO bullshit, so I had to FTFY. SCNR, as I felt this to be my sacred duty to rectify the sarcastic tone of your post.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by CRCulver on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:32AM
Thanks for proving my point. Plato's allegory was a way of advocating for the practice of philosophy, not for using a hallucinogenic substance. If one wants to get the benefits of a clearer worldview, one would be a lot better off doing philosophy while not under the influence of a hallucinogen than taking a substance which cannot give you any more power for rational thought than you already have, and which risks giving you false beliefs. Just because you see it in your trip doesn't mean it's really so.
(Indeed, possibly due to his ingestion of a hallucinogenic substance as part of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Plato himself was insistent in claiming the existence of transmigration and a rather elaborate metaphysical reality which later philosophers would come to see as very misguided.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Geotti on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:35AM
if one wants to get the benefits of a clearer worldview, one would be a lot better off doing philosophy while not under the influence of a hallucinogen than taking a substance which cannot give you any more power for rational thought than you already have, and which risks giving you false beliefs. [citation needed]
It seems likely that you live under the false impression that the only way to achieve true insight is by having a "sober" head, while you ignoring the possibility that a) true "soberness" is a specific state of mind (which can be provoked through the ingestion of psychedelics) b) a "clearer worldview" has as much to do with rational as with emotional, biochemical, psychosomatic, etc. understanding and processes, or, in other words: Just because you think you're sober doesn't mean you really are.
Thanks for proving my point.
Dito.
Also,
Plato himself was insistent in claiming the existence of transmigration and a rather elaborate metaphysical reality which some later (and mostly western) philosophers would come to see as very misguided.
FTFY.
A very closed mind you have, of the marvels and beauty of life you can only understand a very small part of, if not change your attitude you will.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you believe something exists, which is perfect?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:20AM
It seems likely
If we're talking probability, then it is unlikely that someone will come up with a brilliant idea while under the influence of drugs that they could not have come up with while not under the influence of drugs. It's possible, and I don't think all drug use is bad, but a few examples don't disprove this.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you believe something exists, which is perfect?
Perfection is subjective. Someone could view something as being perfect according to their own values.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:06PM
Perfection is subjective.
You're rationalizing. There's actually a real answer to this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:12PM
"rationalizing" is just a meaningless buzzword the way you're using it. As I said, perfection is subjective. Therefore, yes, it's possible for something to be perfect to an individual, depending on how "perfection" is even defined.
I'm not even sure what the point of your question was.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:02AM
Just because you understand something as a buzzword, doesn't mean it is. You are trying to understand with your head something that can only be experienced. It's similar to describing a piece of music, a painting, sculpture, etc. You can describe what an object (concept in our case) represents using technical (as in context-sensitively-appropriate) vocabulary, but this hardly pays the deserved tribute. Only by experiencing this yourself can you get a glimpse of the marvel and only from a limited amount of perspectives.
Perfection exists all around you, all the time, but most of the time we're pre-occupied with other thoughts to realize this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:11AM
Just because you understand something as a buzzword, doesn't mean it is.
Just because you think it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't. Don't try to tell me what my state of mind is or I'll have to do the same to you. You don't actually believe a word you said and agree with me 100%. People try putting forth these "You're rationalizing!" accusations rather than actually getting to the argument at hand, and it's nonsense.
Perfection exists all around you, all the time, but most of the time we're pre-occupied with other thoughts to realize this.
What the fuck kind of new age bullshit are you talking about? Perfection is subjective. There is no objective definition of "perfection", because "perfection" doesn't even have an objective, scientific definition. It's subjective, as these things usually are.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @12:38PM
or I'll have to do the same to you
You already did and I responded to that. If you're throwing away the meaning of what I said with such contempt, this is what you get in return.
Perfection is subjective. There is no objective definition of "perfection", because "perfection" doesn't even have an objective, scientific definition.
So you've never experienced or understood something as truly perfect. That's a valid reply to my question but you weren't the one I was asking.
[redacted] are you talking about?
About something beyond rational thought but just as valid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:14PM
No its not. Perfect is objective and everybody who looked at it would know it was perfect, which is why there's no such thing. You're thinking of something like "perfect for x", which is subjective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:09PM
It is subjective, since most definitions of "perfect" also use subjective words to describe it.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Monday June 01 2015, @04:23AM
Again, you only prove my point. On one hand, you seem to be aware that hallucinogenics merely have a physical effect on the brain, they alter one's thoughts through well-known chemical means and can only offer an altered perception of the same physical reality that one experiences without the effect of a hallucinogen. On the other hand, you nonetheless suggest that psychedelics can reveal a supernatural world like the existence of a soul, and you appear to seriously believe in telepathic communication even though there is no experimental evidence for it whatsoever (it would be trivial for a third party to verify the communication of two trippers were it real).
Instead of credulously accepting what was sees under the effect of a hallucinogen as real, one has a duty to look back at one's trip and consider the possibility that what was experienced was deceptive.
I'm unaware of any philosophers, even non-Western ones, who would hold the specific belief that souls after death pass through seven days in a meadow, and then proceed further to a rainbow shaft of light where a group of goddesses await, and that said souls must eventually drink from a river that induces forgetfulness. Furthermore, Hindu and Buddhist schools of transmigration of the soul usually attempt to defend their belief in rebirth through argumentation, and there is a rich philosophical literature on the subject; they don't just assume that it is something that can be definitely verified through simply ingesting a hallucinogen.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:38AM
I'm unaware of any philosophers, even non-Western ones, who would hold the specific belief that souls after death pass through [...]
Thanks, so we were talking about the allegory of the cave and then you take an unrelated argument and try to discredit all his ideas? Basically, this is similar to discussions about RMS, where people try to discredit otherwise valid arguments with unrelated things such as that he didn't wash his socks and bragged about it?
Also, taking literally something, which is meant metaphorically is dubious IMO.
can only offer an altered perception of the same physical reality that one experiences without the effect of a hallucinogen.
Just as there are tools to working with matter, there are tools to working with mind and the "supernatural." Some people require a key to open the doors of perception.
you nonetheless suggest that psychedelics can reveal a supernatural world like the existence of a soul, and you appear to seriously believe in telepathic communication even though there is no experimental evidence for it whatsoever (it would be trivial for a third party to verify the communication of two trippers were it real).
There's actually enough evidence of telepathy, with and without the use of psychedelics, but of course, it would probably require an extraordinary coincidence to actually prove pre-cognition scientifically, but again, that doesn't mean such things don't exist. There's no way you can disprove as much as there's no way I can prove it to you.
So, as usual, you are free to believe whatever you want, but know that there's a large community of (very diverse) people, who share very similar beliefs without having ever been in contact or lived in the same or similar societies/having been exposed to similar cultures. There's also the concept of "common trip," which refers to trippers experiencing the same things in the same way, so it is possible to test it, but similar to quantum superposition, such things don't necessarily lend themselves to direct observation.
Instead of credulously accepting what was sees under the effect of a hallucinogen as real, one has a duty to look back at one's trip and consider the possibility that what was experienced was deceptive.
I've gotten to understand things that are so mind bending, you would think I'm a madman if I somehow managed to put them in words. You would also be wrong to assume that I just believe everything I see without "due process." The thing is, what I understand means everything and nothing at the same time, or everything about nothing, or the Nothing about everything, so what I could tell you (if I did manage to somehow weave a description around it even for a brief moment) might be meaningless to you, unless your current perspective (state of mind, set & setting, etc.) allows you to realize it.
You can trust me, or not, but I know what I know. You can continue believing what you think is right. Let me just tell you that there are certain things/concepts/constructs/objects that you can ground yourself on, that represent an absolute truth, or a root/foundation that you can build all remaining logic on. Imagine, you get to know something, so everything suddenly makes sense. (And then you forget about it again ;) )
You know, some people do recognize the Truth by the glow that shines around it. Maybe you will some day meet one of these people, who could convince you to at least allow the possibility that there is more than meets the (scientific) eye.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:21AM
Are you by chance taking lessons from things like this? [sebpearce.com]
With that said, there's actually enough evidence of a magical pink unicorn living on mars. I've experienced it myself, you see.
There's no way you can disprove as much as there's no way I can prove it to you.
Sounds like the "faith" that theistic idiots invoke. It just means you have no good reason to believe it. Boring. But sure, I'll just mindlessly take your word for it as you constantly claim it's true but admit you have no actual evidence for it. Excellent.
quantum
My quantum soul is resonating with the universe's quantum consciousness to produce infinite quantum fluctuations.
You can trust me, or not, but I know what I know.
Lots of people think they know crazy things. Maybe they do actually believe they know it, but that doesn't mean what they believe is actually true. Especially if they 'discovered' these things while on drugs, the mind tends to play tricks on you.
I know what I know, because I know it. This is sounding mighty familiar...
quantum quantum quantum quantum telepathy quantum
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @12:46PM
Maybe they do actually believe they know it, but that doesn't mean what they believe is actually true.
That doesn't mean that it's not either. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your opinion on anything related to empathy.
I'll just mindlessly take your word for it as you constantly claim it's true but admit you have no actual evidence for it. Excellent.
Again, fuck off. I put CRCulver's statement right for the in the name of the people actually do know what they're talking about. If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:06PM
That doesn't mean that it's not either. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your opinion on anything related to empathy.
I didn't say that that means it's no true. And empathy isn't the main issue here.
Again, fuck off. I put CRCulver's statement right for the in the name of the people actually do know what they're talking about.
What?
Also, he just left.
If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.
Well, you're the one who posted the new age nonsense. If someone makes a claim they can't back up, I see no reason not to call them out on it.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:40PM
And empathy isn't the main issue here.
If you say so, Einstein.
What?
"I put CRCulver's statement right in the name of the people actually do know what they're talking about."
Was hard to find the typo for an emotionally challenged person, I know.
Well, you're the one who posted the new age nonsense. If someone makes a claim they can't back up, I see no reason not to call them out on it.
I think you're an idiot. If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 02 2015, @06:40PM
Was hard to find the typo for an emotionally challenged person, I know.
I fail to see why you keep bringing up this empathy and emotion nonsense. Do you prefer to use emotion rather than logic?
At any rate, failing to understand a sentence with some typo is hardly a problem of emotion.
I think you're an idiot. If you think I'm trying to convince anyone here, that's your problem.
Did I say you're trying to convince anyone? You made a post with some new age bullshit, and you were called out on it. That's all there is to it.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday June 03 2015, @07:36PM
I fail to see why you keep bringing up this empathy and emotion nonsense.
You fail to see many things. That's your problem.
Did I say you're trying to convince anyone?
That's what you implied by expecting me to back up whatever I said. As this was not an argument, this request was misplaced. Also you intruded on a conversation.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 03 2015, @10:34PM
You fail to see many things. That's your problem.
Or maybe it's the lack of explanation that is a problem.
That's what you implied by expecting me to back up whatever I said.
I did not say you're trying to convince anyone. You talked about telepathy and other nonsense, so I asked you to back that up with actual evidence. You may not be trying to convince anyone, but that doesn't mean someone can't ask for evidence.
Also you intruded on a conversation.
Anyone can reply to any post. If you want a one-on-one chat, you'll have to use something else.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:26AM
Maybe your righteousness is as misplaced as a one-on-one chat? You're demanding information on something you wouldn't need any if you would understand what that information is about in the first place, because the information you demand is as obvious as the earth and the sky, if you know how to see.
Anyone can reply to any post, but you can't expect someone to give you an elaborate explanation of anything you request or spend any of their time whenever you whistle.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:17AM
You're demanding information on something you wouldn't need any if you would understand what that information is about in the first place, because the information you demand is as obvious as the earth and the sky, if you know how to see.
What was that in reply to? If it's about telepathy and such, then many scientists haven't figured out your method of seeing, either. I suspect it isn't very useful in determining what is true or likely true.
Anyone can reply to any post, but you can't expect someone to give you an elaborate explanation of anything you request or spend any of their time whenever you whistle.
Well, sure, but I was just seeing if you had any good reason to believe all that new age nonsense. It doesn't seem so, or if you do, you won't share it.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:46AM
I took acid once, and only once.
Because of the limited potency, the manufacturer had added strychnine to give the "kick" into the "high".
The worst thing about the experience was the next day - I had a terrible metal taste in my mouth, muscle cramps, and a monstrous headache.
I don't regret taking it, and am thankful for the experience. It was wonderful to listen to Pink Floyd's "Animals", in my head, note for note, without having a stereo in the room.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:12AM
Are you sure it was LSD? Sounds more like 25i-NBOME, especially the metallic taste. Both drugs have similar effects, but LSD is tasteless. 25i-NBOME and other research chemicals are often passed off as LSD because it is cheaper.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by redneckmother on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:23AM
Dunno. This was back in the late '70s, and it was purple microdot. I took two hits on the advice of the guy who gave it to me.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:07AM
if you took enough LSD that you could actually taste it, you'd still be in intergalactic space.
By the seventies and especially now there are many hallucinogenic chemicals but LSD has the name recognition.
A metallic taste though could arise for reasons other than the actual drug; you could hallucinate the taste for example. I once put my hand in my pocket then realized there were too many fingers in there.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @11:32AM
"if you took enough LSD that you could actually taste it, you'd still be in intergalactic space."
A massive dose does not last days.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:56PM
in fact there is a maximum effective dose that is determined by the number of serotonin receptors in your brain; once an LSD molecule is in every single one of them eating more acid has no effect.
I once had six uniformed with guns and shiny badges police officers howling with laughter when I told them of a friend I once had who dropped seventy hits so as to experimentally verify this theory.
While serotonin receptors do come and go due to brain plasticity, they don't do so very quickly.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @10:52AM
Once you've taken a receptor-saturating dose, any more taken past that extends duration.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:17PM
thats nothing but a bullshit myth [erowid.org] that keeps getting repeated by ignorant people, just like the similarly bullshit [erowid.org] "lsd stays in your body forever" myth.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by KGIII on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:51AM
People who want drugs can already get drugs. If they could not then there would be no "drug problem." There is no real scarcity and people are not swayed by the negative legal ramifications they may encounter. The illicitness is one of the attractions for some.
I am in favor of legalization of all drugs for consenting adults. Taking the criminal aspect from distribution and possession will likely mean a large reduction in crime and far fewer people being incarcerated. The money they used to spend on the War on Drugs can now be spent on education and rehabilitation - there is likely enough to even provide those trying to shake addiction with a temporary social net. The quality assurance factor should, alone, be motivation if not for the absolute certainty of increased monetary rewards for local, state, and federal governments.
The idea is that people would be free to ingest drugs but there would be a clear education program that says that doing so has certain ramifications that should be considered beforehand. Nobody is going to go out and start shooting heroin because, hey, it is legal. Again, those who want drugs can get them. You may not be unaware of this but I can almost certainly assure you that you are no more than two (maybe three) people away from being able to acquire 'hard' drugs.
We are entitled to freedom - we are not entitled to complete liberty in a society. Thus we must make some logical choices... This subject needs to be reconsidered by our legislatures.
This is a generic you and not you specifically. I only wish to demonstrate the difference between freedoms and liberties.
I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so. (There is nothing stopping me from killing someone, there are definite and severe repercussions for doing so.)
As a society we put our liberties into a collective pot and then withdraw them (as rights or, simply, liberties) to match our stated ideals and political beliefs via legislation. (Most of the time we do not give up our freedoms. People conflate the two words when they do not mean the same in reality and this distinction is important to discuss the subject succinctly.) I think we need decriminalize the right to put into our body what we wish -- so long as we do not harm anyone. We already have penalties for harming someone else. I strongly believe that this liberty should only be granted to those who have reached the age of majority and that we should heavily penalize those caught distributing these substances to minors.
Should this come to pass there will be a statistical increase in reported use. This will be, largely, due to people being honest as it is no longer a crime. Employers could still, obviously, test for the substances with urine screening or sweat tests BUT I think that mere presence of the alkaloids should not be a just cause for dismissal unless they can prove use/intoxication on company time. I guess I would allow them to deny employment due to a failed screening but I dislike it - I do not have to like it, it just has to be good enough as perfect is not attainable.
Sorry for the novella but this does not fit onto a postcard easily and including all the information is important as my verbiage could be confusing to some. I have a difficult time being clear, it seems, though it seems clear to me. I tend to be verbose because of this as I want to ensure I have given as much information as I can to make comprehension greater and the misunderstandings fewer.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:13AM
I am in favor of legalization of all drugs for consenting adults.
What about consenting non-adults? What about consenting adults who are as shortsighted as many believe children to be (i.e. the majority)? Someone's brain not being fully developed does not prevent them from making good decisions, and in fact, many would say taking drugs is foolish and shortsighted to begin with. But, naturally, we have to Save the Children.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 31 2015, @04:57PM
What about Portugal?
Glenn Greenwald debating GWB's Drug Czar (and grinding him into pulp): https://vimeo.com/32110912 [vimeo.com]
For those with less time:
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening [mic.com]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:33PM
In other words, drugs aren't fully legal (just decriminalized), and the "marijuana to heroin" part makes it sound like not even all drugs have that sort of legal acceptance. Not good enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @06:25AM
I don't understand your point. As I understand your post, you want drugs to be illegal because some people make bad choices and kids could be hurt. Or maybe it was an unclear attempt at sarcasm meant to imply that you think all drugs should be legal. Either way -- I'm confused now.
As for Portugal's decriminalization, it isn't actually allowed to make drugs legal due to treaty obligations with the US (one of the things GG points out in the video I referenced along with the side note that small countries have to abide by their treaties) so it did the next best thing and decriminalized drugs. They're still technically illegal, but there is no punishment (at least if you have less than a 10 day supply on you). The upside has been reduced drug usage by young people, reduced HIV, and a bunch of other positives listed in the article and in the GG debate.
(can't login to post during site update, but I'm hemocyanin above)
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 01 2015, @08:00AM
I don't understand your point. As I understand your post, you want drugs to be illegal because some people make bad choices and kids could be hurt. Or maybe it was an unclear attempt at sarcasm meant to imply that you think all drugs should be legal. Either way -- I'm confused now.
I want all drugs to be legal.
As for Portugal's decriminalization, it isn't actually allowed to make drugs legal due to treaty obligations with the US (one of the things GG points out in the video I referenced along with the side note that small countries have to abide by their treaties) so it did the next best thing and decriminalized drugs.
That's a damn shame. These treaties are really harmful to democracy.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday June 01 2015, @05:35AM
All adults, those who have reached the age of majority as defined by their state, should be entitled to do with their body as they wish so long as they do not harm another. This is my opinion on the subject. All means all. Do not do nothing, perfection is the enemy of good.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday May 31 2015, @06:59PM
The ONLY reason I'm in favor of some drugs being illegal is to prevent them being advertised. So I'm in favor of a 50 cent fine for sale, possession, or use, but 15 year sentence for "advertising for sale".
I'd really rather just make them legal, but then you couldn't easily prevent advertising. And I'd include alcohol and tobacco among the covered drugs.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Monday June 01 2015, @05:38AM
I can agree with that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 01 2015, @01:17PM
A 15 year sentence for speech, which would be a complete violation of the first amendment in the US (regardless of nonsensical court interpretations of the constitution). It's government censorship regardless, which is intolerable. If someone chooses to do drugs because they saw an advertisement, that's their choice.
And you seem to be saying we should continue to allow the government to take control of people's bodies until someone can figure out a solution to the advertising 'problem'. I don't think keeping unjust restrictions around to prevent bad things from happening is something a free country would do.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:07AM
as I am for legalization of soft drugs in general.
But not 'hard' drugs? As someone who doesn't want government thugs to claim ownership of people's bodies, I can only be for the legalization of all drugs.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:16AM
I would support 'legalization' if there was a way of preventing those who wish to use 'soft drugs' from driving. Soft drugs might not harm the user, but their use can shatter the lives of others. Yes, I also think that alcohol use is a problem - the deaths that result indirectly from it, the additional cost of healthcare to us all, and the lives that are affected by someone who has used alcohol but doesn't know how to use a little bit of self control. Drink and take drugs at home, as you have suggested - I do not want them to be viewed as 'acceptable' in a wider sense of the word. But I am getting old, so perhaps I am just a grumpy old git.....
The summary states that this is not about legalization, but about changing them from schedule 1 to schedule 2 so that they can be used in research:
and
The quotes are far from suggesting that they should become legally available to all, but available for medical use which is currently not the case in Europe.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:29AM
I would support 'legalization' if there was a way of preventing those who wish to use 'soft drugs' from driving.
So you're for banning something for everyone because some people will abuse it, and the only way that would change is if no one would abuse it. That is a truly superior way of thinking, and is far better than the unintrusive "Freedom is more important than safety." idea. I would suggest just punishing people who drive dangerously when they are caught, but that would be insane.
(Score: 2, Troll) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @09:50AM
I am frequently amazed and filled with joy when I see the dead victims resurrected as the blameworthy drug or alcohol abuser is sent to prison. Perhaps prevention is sometimes better than 'cure'? Do you thing that legalization would increase the amount of drug abuse or reduce it?
The summary, as I pointed out, is not about legalisation, hence the reason I used the quotes around my suggestion.
As far as I can tell, you are not allowed to discharge a weapon in public places in the USA - why not just punish those who accidentally shoot someone? You can be arrested and charged for planning a crime - although no-one has been robbed, attacked or actually suffered any real harm at the time of the arrest. Prevention rather than cure perhaps? If the consequences of your crime are possibly so grave that they cannot be undone, there might be a precedent for taking action sooner rather than later.
I know that you and I will rarely agree, but I do appreciate your reply to my earlier comment.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @11:35AM
I am frequently amazed and filled with joy when I see the dead victims resurrected as the blameworthy drug or alcohol abuser is sent to prison.
I am frequently amazed and filled with joy when I see the dead victims resurrected as the blameworthy terrorist is sent to prison. Perhaps prevention is sometimes better than 'cure'? Maybe the NSA's mass surveillance isn't so bad after all!
Or maybe safety is less important than freedom?
Do you thing that legalization would increase the amount of drug abuse or reduce it?
Not my concern, though considering how easy it is to obtain drugs, I doubt it would be significantly higher; people would be more honest about their drug use, however.
The drug war doesn't work, and never will. But that is a secondary concern of mine. The first concern is freedom to control your own body, as well as the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban drugs (despite nonsensical interpretations of the commerce clause).
As far as I can tell, you are not allowed to discharge a weapon in public places in the USA - why not just punish those who accidentally shoot someone?
Did you fail to see the part where I said that we should punish those who drive dangerously, not just people who cause accidents? It's because the *action* itself greatly increases the probability of actual, physical injury, and it isn't even a mere indirect effect.
As for prevention, I never did claim to be against all forms of prevention, as long as your "prevention" isn't collective punishment or at least just bans actions that are directly harmful or increase the probability of direct harm. For instance, I'm opposed to gun control because banning something because some people abuse it is generally intolerable to me. Merely owning a gun in and of itself does not bring direct harm, so that sort of "prevention" argument wouldn't work for me.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:13PM
I haven't seen any evidence that the NSAs surveillance has prevented any attacks being committed. I have seen verifiable proof that better policing of bad drivers, people who drink and drive, and those that abuse drugs and drive does reduce the number of traffic accidents and the deaths caused by them. The freedom that you describe is only of any value to those who are alive to enjoy it; the freedom of others to live without the fear of being killed on the road by someone under the influence doesn't appear to be a freedom that is worth keeping for you. There are enough deaths due to genuine accidents. We don't need to add more dangers just so that we can proclaim how free we are.
That may be the case where you live, but obtaining psychedelics is not as easy as that elsewhere. Federal government rights or otherwise is only applicable to your own country. Elsewhere governments are actually elected partly because of their promises to combat specific crimes. Whether they are actually effective in doing this is the subject discussion another time.
No, I didn't, but reducing the number of those who will potentially be driving dangerously in the future because of the 'acceptability' of drugs would also help.
Arguing about gun control is, for me, pointless. If you even own a weapon in Europe without the appropriate license it is an offence, and the number that qualify to hold a licence is very much smaller than in the US. The only 2 usual justifications here are being a member of a target shooting club, or for hunting/pest control. Neither give the licensee permission for carrying a weapon in a public place (which might still be a remote location but not private land) unless they are travelling to or from the shooting venue or hunting area, and the weapon must be cased and secured. Having a weapon for protection is not an acceptable justification for the vast majority of people. Your right to carry weapons is enshrined in your constitution. That's fine by me but it doesn't lead me to think that we should adopt the same thing here. But the point that I was making is that many laws are in place to prevent crime from occurring, not only to enable those that have commited a crime to be punished. It might not meet with your own personal approval but many countries, including the USA, find it a perfectly acceptable way of reducing crime. I do not feel that our freedoms are curtailed by having such laws, they usually result in a benefit for the majority.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:53PM
I haven't seen any evidence that the NSAs surveillance has prevented any attacks being committed.
But if it did, then it would be alright? Is there any level of
I have seen verifiable proof that better policing of bad drivers, people who drink and drive, and those that abuse drugs and drive does reduce the number of traffic accidents and the deaths caused by them.
So you want to stop people who drive dangerously, just like I suggested?
The freedom that you describe is only of any value to those who are alive to enjoy it
Reminds me of Chris Christie's idiotic statements, so you're already not in very good company. Not infringing upon people's fundamental liberties has value in and of itself, because even if we did die (which we won't, as there will be plenty of people who will be fine), at least we would die knowing that we stuck to our principles and lived freely. But that's absurd, because a grand majority won't die just because we actually respect people's freedoms, and you're infringing upon the liberties of them all when you put safety above freedom. As for it only being of value to those who are alive to enjoy it, even if that were true and going down in the name of freedom carried no value, that would still leave billions of people alive to enjoy their freedoms.
Following your line of logic, no government restriction would be too much for you as long as it worked. Surveillance equipment in everyone's homes, with seemingly magical algorithms that decide whether intervention is necessary? You bet. As long as it catches more criminals, all is well, because we have to protect people's fragile minds or else they might live in fear!
the freedom of others to live without the fear of being killed on the road by someone under the influence doesn't appear to be a freedom that is worth keeping for you.
That's because it isn't. Just like you can't take away someone's freedom of speech just because you're offended, you can't take away someone's other rights simply because you're a coward who chooses to live in fear. Life has risks, and freedom brings some risks with it as well. Learn to come to terms with those risks, and mitigate them in ways that don't infringe upon people's fundamental liberties. This shouldn't even be a discussion.
Why is this "fear" angle so damn popular when it's so obviously illogical? Are we seriously going to sacrifice freedoms so people can feel safe (Otherwise, why specifically mention fear itself?)? Well, we already are, so it's a pointless question. Fear can be illogical; people are terribly afraid of terrorists and less afraid of things that are much greater threats to them.
That may be the case where you live, but obtaining psychedelics is not as easy as that elsewhere.
Or other drugs.
We don't need to add more dangers just so that we can proclaim how free we are.
I'll accept any risks that legalized drugs might bring. People who care about freedom tend to do that.
But I agree. We don't "need" to add more dangers.
Elsewhere governments are actually elected partly because of their promises to combat specific crimes.
Whereas I am saying that it should not be a crime at all to take these drugs.
No, I didn't, but reducing the number of those who will potentially be driving dangerously in the future because of the 'acceptability' of drugs would also help.
Banning drugs is unacceptable to me; the ends don't justify the means. Focus on education and rehabilitation efforts if you want to mitigate the issue, not more failed drug war nonsense.
But the point that I was making is that many laws are in place to prevent crime from occurring
And for the ones that don't meet my standards, they are dead wrong. If you ban an entire technology/substance merely because it could be abused, chances are you've already screwed up. The ends (preventing crime) do not justify the means (taking away our freedoms). On the other hand, if they outlaw actions that are necessarily directly harmful to others, or increase the probability of direct harm coming to others, that is another thing entirely. That distinction needs to be made.
It might not meet with your own personal approval but many countries, including the USA, find it a perfectly acceptable way of reducing crime.
Every single country in the world has problems that need to be fixed. This mentality is just another problem that needs to be fixed.
Many countries are authoritarian hellholes that practice censorship, have no freedom of religion, treat women horribly, or just murder their citizens for little to no reason. So what? Am I supposed to be convinced that those things are good just because many countries find it perfectly acceptable? I bet you'll find they use similar propaganda ("It keeps us safe.", "It keeps the order.", etc.) when justifying this nonsense. I'll go against every last country in the world if every last country in the world is doing evil.
I do not feel that our freedoms are curtailed by having such laws, they usually result in a benefit for the majority.
Non sequitur. Just because it supposedly benefits the majority does not mean the laws are ethical or do not impact freedom. Countries should have measures in place to protect the freedoms of the minority from the whims of the ignorant majority.
I've noticed that authoritarians like to argue that their restrictions on our freedoms aren't really restrictions on freedoms because we never had those freedoms at all. They essentially redefine what "freedom" means so they can appear less authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:55PM
No, I didn't say that. It is unacceptable intrusion for many reasons. However, it doesn't even do what it set out to do. Policing of our roads uses many technologies that work very well, are not considered here to be an intrusion, but most certainly wouldn't meet with your approval. Many police cars in the UK are fitted with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). They are alerted when a vehicle is observed by the in-vehicle cameras which is not taxed, hasn't completed the necessary technical inspections, or has no insurance identified to a specific driver. Such vehicles are stopped. If the driver is able to show that the ANPR database is incorrect (vehicle taxed in the last few days, driver has insurance elsewhere etc) he/she is free to continue. Otherwise the offence is penalised appropriately. This is significantly reducing the number of uninsured, unlicensed, untaxed vehicle on the road. Most people see that as a good thing. I'm sure that those who have been penalised for an offence will view it differently.
I answered that in my previous post - yes. But I would also like to keep the number of potential dangerous drivers from getting to the point where they are actually endangering others. Making drug abuse legal will not do this. Limiting the number of people (however incomplete that might be) will help.
I won't, and my reasoning has nothing to do with freedom, other than the freedom to be free from idiots who take drugs and drive cars.
Because that is your own personal preference? Society and government is about doing the best for as many people as possible, not just for those who share your views. Legalizing psychedelics for personal use (i.e. outside medical control) offers no benefits to society as a whole, but does have a number of negative consequences. Permitting them for research and medical treatments where appropriate does have benefits.
We agree on this. It doesn't follow that they should also be legalized.
And your solution is to remove all laws that you do not like?
Nor does it automatically prove that they aren't. It is simply that our views of what is within the acceptable boundaries or outside of it differ.
Many western countries do this as well as have laws against drug abuse. You are implying that the majority are ignorant because their views do not accord with your own. I would need to be convinced of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I will have to leave this discussion - simply because I am in a different tz and I have other things that I need to do. We will only ever solve problems when we look at them from different viewpoints. I often like to try to do this, particularly at weekends. It always makes me re-examine my own values and helps me to see the opposing viewpoint. You have (again) given me a robust argument and made me think. We may never agree, but I appreciate hearing your opinion. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:21PM
No, I didn't say that. It is unacceptable intrusion for many reasons.
What about the freedom of others to live without the fear of being killed by terrorists or other baddies?
Many police cars in the UK are fitted with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).
Which I have an issue with because they're mass surveillance devices that can identify people and likely report to a central location. The only thing that sounds different from similar things in the US is that these are on police cars and probably aren't as numerous as the license plate readers they install everywhere. In general, though, this is a bad idea because it gives the government too much information about people's activities; I seriously doubt they aren't storing that information, after all. People should have privacy from mass surveillance even in public places.
I'm sure that those who have been penalised for an offence will view it differently.
People who care about privacy will also see it differently.
I won't, and my reasoning has nothing to do with freedom, other than the freedom to be free from idiots who take drugs and drive cars.
Have you considered starting your own authoritarian country, then? You could have all the mass surveillance, drug laws, censorship, and asset forfeiture that you want, as long as staying is voluntary.
There is no legitimate freedom to not have to take risks at the expense of our actual freedoms.
Because that is your own personal preference? Society and government is about doing the best for as many people as possible, not just for those who share your views.
The majority don't and should not have absolute power, even if it's in their best interests. Maybe enslaving some minority would help out a majority of people. Would that be alright, then? No, because it violates the fundamental liberties of the minority.
I would think that, in the 21st century, people would have realized the value of freedom, especially a freedom as basic as owning your own body. I guess not.
Legalizing psychedelics for personal use (i.e. outside medical control) offers no benefits to society as a whole, but does have a number of negative consequences.
It has no benefits because you've decided so? For one thing, you wouldn't have to spend millions or billions on trying to stop people from taking the drugs; there's one benefit. More importantly, the government wouldn't be controlling people's bodies and people would therefore have more freedom; that's another benefit. Two benefits right there.
We agree on this. It doesn't follow that they should also be legalized.
But it follows that they should be legalized from the rest of what I said, which is that the ends don't justify the means, and any measures for mitigating the harm should not impact people's liberties.
And your solution is to remove all laws that you do not like?
My solution is to remove all laws that violate people's fundamental liberties. Mass surveillance has to go. Censorship has to go. Restrictions on abortion and drug use have to go. Warrantless surveillance has to go. Things such as the TSA have to go. And so on. The goal of any country should be to maximize freedom as much as possible. But I see many countries that only pay lip service to freedom; they don't really care about it.
Nor does it automatically prove that they aren't.
I didn't say that it isn't. Something can benefit the majority and be ethical. Something can also benefit the majority and be unethical. Assuming that violating people's fundamental liberties could benefit the majority, which I don't believe; it just corrupts them.
Many western countries do this as well as have laws against drug abuse. You are implying that the majority are ignorant because their views do not accord with your own. I would need to be convinced of that.
Well, if they do not respect freedom, what else are they but ignorant? Many people in just about every country claim to be "free", but that does not appear to mean much to them if they are willing to sacrifice their freedoms to obtain more safety.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:49PM
So, are you suggesting that we ban alcohol (which is really a "soft drug"), since some people can't control themselves from driving under it's influence? I would posit that most users of other soft drugs are more able to control their actions than those under the influence of alcohol, and therefore would have less chance of driving under the influence. Also, it's likely that cannabis impairment is far less likely [foxnews.com][foxnews.com] to cause major impairment in drivers than alcohol. Personally, I'm in favor of legalization of all drugs, but at the very least I think cannabis needs leagalized, and keeping it illegal (as well as the decades long campaign against it by government) should be a crime in itself. If there was one "soft drug" that should be legal it should be cannabis, not alcohol. If there was one "soft drug" that should be illegal it should probably be alcohol. (but we've been down that road before haven't we?)...
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:06PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:38PM
I feel I must say that I've seen no evidence that the psychedelics are capable, by themselves, of making anyone believe in conspiracy theories. There are plenty of people who have never gone anywhere near any recreational drugs besides alcohol and/or nicotine yet are rabid conspiracy theorists. I have a strong suspicion after watching many talks of people like Terrence McKenna (who experimented with all types of psychedelics for decades and was still very rooted in reality) that psychedelics give you back exactly what you bring with you. If you are a credulous sort of person prone to believing in supernatural beings, aliens or conspiracy theories, you will be that person with or without psychedelics. It appears to me that the worst that can be said of psychedelics is that you might have a "bad trip", which frequently causes the user to simply lose interest in using the offending substance. Permanently.
Generally, the primary effect especially of certain compounds like DMT and its cousin ayahuasca seems to be that people who are very narrow-minded and/or self-centered wind up being slightly less so after a few trips (also permanently, which is interesting), and everyone tends to wind up feeling vaguely "spiritual" and more connected to (and empathic toward) the planet, nature, other people, and "the universe". Oh, the horror. What people end up doing with those new feelings and perspectives is entirely up to the constitution of the individual.
Now the stimulants, like cocaine and amphetamines, those are addictive and when overused have a strong tendency to lead to extreme paranoia and psychosis. We have plenty of medical evidence for that. But the psychedelics? There are a lot of New World Order nuts who _should_ do some psychedelics. Might give them a different perspective.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:25PM
That is precisley the problem I am referring to. People who use certain hallucinogens develop feelings of "spirituality" or connection. However, they are generally unable to defend the validity of those feelings through argumentation. Why is the emphathy they developed necessarily a good thing? Could certain perceptions of oneness simply be a misleading effect of altered brain chemistry? I have met very few users of hallucinogens who were capable of rationally looking back at their trip and considering the possibility that it gave them false views.