
Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics? - delian66
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-loosen-the-restrictions-on-psychedelics/
======
white-flame
The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of
these restrictions in the first place.

I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but
there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things.
Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard,
showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc.

But there's little mandate that the government should be _policing and
prosecuting_ adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors.
Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-
destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of
that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the
public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought
of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use
should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such
things."

There are a lot of reasons.

The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of
conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the
most part.

But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?

So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely
try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go.

At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky
behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who
might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol)
and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many
ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on
the conscientious side.

Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so
whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity
collapse issues from it for a while.

Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we
really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's
vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation
in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand.

'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part
of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many
people for whom this would be risky.

'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's
hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and
also hard for us to consider how regular people behave.

More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of
folks who have all sorts of problems.

It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants
to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have
widespread availability.

Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even
then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm
reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.

~~~
AstralStorm
You said regulations. Regulations are set _after_ there is a problem. In case
of psychedelics, it is a _law_.

If there is a problem, the regulation may be changed, and additional measures
taken to get rid of it.

The main issue with these _laws_ is that they are speculative. It is actually
very likely that nothing would change much if at all, except number of arrests
and related costs. Oh and reduced cut for the black market.

Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems
in ritual settings. (As opposed to drugs like opium, tobacco or alcohol which
have always been one with few exceptions yet are less regulated.)

"Think of the children" is a cheap shot that can be used to set any number of
odious laws. Show evidence of harm and how the law helps with it.

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.

~~~
xg15
> _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.

~~~
J-dawg
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.

~~~
AstralStorm
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.

~~~
Sir_Substance
Errr...none of those are psychadelics?

~~~
AstralStorm
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.

~~~
LordDragonfang
>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).

------
scarecrowbob
" Their safety and efficacy exist only within highly structured specialized
treatment settings. In addition, desired outcomes depend upon the production
of a temporary but profoundly regressed, disorganized and incapacitated state.
Outside of that structure, psychedelics are no less abusable, acutely
debilitating and liable to result in psychological damage—sometimes severe and
unremitting—than they ever were."

This doesn't meet with my general experiences.

I've never understood how something like LSD can be "abused" in the way that
alcohol can be abused... my experience (and the hundreds of folks I know
who've used it) is that at some point, you have bad experiences with it and
you stop. That's not a cyclical abuse pattern like with alcohol, where you
become addicted and continue on despite the terrible toll on your health.

Similarly, of the people who have been heavily involved with psychedelics and
the general outcomes aren't any worse than for the hundreds of functioning
alcoholics I know.

While it is true that these kinds of drugs can put you in some really scary
places and while it is true that they can possibly have longer-lasting
negative effects, the article doesn't make a very compelling case to me to
keep these chemicals scheduled so that only researchers have legal access to
them.

Pieces like these are interesting... I can see a strand of "messianic
utopianism" in some discussion of these drugs, but most of the folks I know
who want these things legalized don't have an agenda beyond "I like it and
have found it helpful in my life". It's a strange way to characterize the
discourse... it'd be like characterizing pieces like these as having an agenda
to keep these drugs out of peoples' had out some misguided sense that only
clinicians know what kinds of things healthy people should do. That is clearly
not what motivates most researchers I have met.

~~~
King-Aaron
Anecdotally, I was at a doof (bush rave) a few years ago, where one of the
punters decided to go for a stroll in the middle of the night - head full of
acid - and got promptly lost. Police search and rescue were called out, big
dollar costs to the state, and while the kid turned up fine in that instance,
it's statistically more likely you won't turn up fine in the Australian bush.

I certainly feel that there's no absolute way to control the safety of
participants in psychedelic experiences, but we should be wary of an open
market approach without also considering a massive escalation in the way we
teach people about safety with drug use.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I don't want to sound like one of those anti-alcohol, pro-drug people, but to
continue with the anecdotes: I've seen people get into far more dangerous
situations and states from drinking than I have from use of any recreational
drugs.

Anytime you hear about somebody being king hit in town, I can guarantee you
the perpetrator has had a skin full of piss.

~~~
thinkingemote
Your username encourages me on the truthfulness of your anecdotes!

------
tasty_freeze
The classification of LSD as a schedule I drug is unsupportable; it was
researched for 20 years before it became a 60s plaything and the threat of the
counter-culture movement to the establishment was enough to get all
psychedelic research killed off.

But as the article points out, there are real risks. There are a large number
of LSD zealots who have not just goofy but dangerous beliefs about LSD. Spend
any amount of time looking at posts on /r/lsd and you'll find people claiming
LSD is a sure-fire cure for depression. Sure, some people have found it
helpful, but those who tried it and went off the deep end probably aren't
hanging around on /r/lsd.

The other frightening thing about /r/lsd is how many teenagers are there. Part
of the over-representation is due to the nature of reddit. Even so, little
good can come out of that cohort dabbling in psychedelics.

~~~
Simon_says
I don't know what they're saying over on /r/lsd, but psychedelics can break
you out of repetitive negative modes of thinking, giving you insights that
last after the high is long gone. LSD is a tool that can work in in
conjunction with other tools and changes you make in your life for some people
some of the time.

~~~
Cthulhu_
key word being /can/; it's a statement and a belief that IMO is very sensitive
to confirmation bias.

One of the key points of the psychedelics / soft drugs legalisation effort is
that it would allow for a lot less red tape to do medical research on.

~~~
ramblerman
> it's a statement and a belief that IMO is very sensitive to confirmation
> bias.

Are you saying people who no longer feel depressed are suffering from
confirmation bias? :)

~~~
deadbunny
No, Surviorship Bias.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

~~~
Simon_says
That's a dark thought.

------
taurath
Schedule 1 is clearly rediculous. I honestly think we need these powerful
tools in therapeutic settings especially for addiction which is carving
swathes through entire generations. I know multiple people who’ve gotten the
ability and drive to grow past alcoholism using them, one can only hope it
could be a tool for opiate addiction. Benefits for PTSD and traumatic
experiences are practically proven at this point with MDMA.

~~~
1000units
As a counterpoint, I know multiple people who became insane after trying LSD.

~~~
hug
I believe this comment as far as I can metaphorically throw it, which is to
say not at all, because you can't throw comments.

This is the "my uncle works at Nintendo" of psychedelics.

~~~
scarecrowbob
"This is the "my uncle works at Nintendo" of psychedelics."

This thread is a long and predictably basic discussion on a topic that I think
has been beaten to death. Your comment, however, made reading the thread
worthwhile.

------
viach
Everything is driven by incentives. Alcohol is cheaper for mass production and
guaranteed to have good sales and huge consumer base. A state can't just allow
to flow money away by legalizing a new drug which is, probably, mutually
exclusive to alcohol.

It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven
by incentives.

~~~
justinator
I'm sorry that you're being downvoted, but you're right. You can't easily
sell, and make a profit on acid (you certainly can't patent it). The dose
needed for a trip is so small; a "therapeutic" dose is even tinier.

The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely
ridiculous.

~~~
TylerE
Huh?

Sandoz Labs produced pharmaceutical LSD for decades

~~~
lev99
I think the parent comment is saying that a person taking legal lsd would
spend significantly less money than a person drinking. Lsd and alcohol would
compete for recreational time. Lsd would reduce the tax income from alcohol
sales, and not be able to replace it with new tax revenue. Governments have a
fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal.

~~~
ryanmercer
>Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal.

They'd be taxing the sales of everything used to create it, they could require
testing for purity, they could create an LSD tax, etc just like with tobacco
and alcohol (and if they'd get their head out of their backside, THC
containing products).

~~~
viach
Take into account that alcohol comes in comparably big bottles and you need
quite some of it to get drunk (if you are a professional of course). So, it is
easier to control it's traffic than hunting for small pills which can be in
everyones pockets.

~~~
ryanmercer
Drug manufacturing isn't easy, most of the stuff is controlled and purchases
of quantities of many required compounds will often immediately involve one or
more government agencies, generally the DEA.

See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEA_list_of_chemicals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEA_list_of_chemicals)

I see this a lot at work, I clear international freight through Customs (and
any other applicable government agencies) for a living, and a lot of tariff
numbers will flag as potential precursors by DEA.

------
foolfoolz
I don’t think it will get the attention of marijuana, but I have hope we will
legalize them again.

Most psychedelic drugs are very niche. Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or
telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions.
The stigma around it will have trouble wearing off because psychedelics are
such an unknown. Most people don’t do them but have heard about people having
bad experiences. I hope the overall idea of moving past the War on Drugs can
make things like LSD less foreign and delinquent

~~~
toomanybeersies
If you think the reaction from telling people you've dropped acid is weird,
just wait until you see the reaction when you say that you enjoy the odd spot
of ketamine!

I think that for most people, the closest experience they've ever had with LSD
or other psychedelics is the movies, where they're portrayed as this wacky
drug that makes you see dragons and other weird shit. They've all heard
stories about how someone dropped a tab and their trip never ended or how they
became possessed by demons or some other urban myth that they heard from
someone years ago.

------
bedane
After being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for years for coping with issues a
single dose of psilocybin managed to wipe out in 3 hours, I say yes.

~~~
tzahola
What about the people being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for life to cope
with the issues brought on by a single does of psilocybin/LSD/salvia/DMT/etc?

~~~
saas_co_de
They don't exist. Continuing to repeat reefer madness propaganda does not make
it any more true.

Show one scientific study that shows any long term effect from a single dose
of any of your listed substances and I will be happy to take your comment
seriously.

~~~
tzahola
"Perceptual disturbances may last for 5 years or more and represent a real
psychosocial distress. We reported here a case of a 18-year-old young man
presenting HPPD after a mixed intoxication with psylocibin and cannabis. This
report shows symptomatic recurrences persisting more than 8 months."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699)

[https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-
doesnt-e...](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-doesnt-end)

"Evidence supports the association of LSD use with panic reactions, prolonged
schizoaffective psychoses and post-hallucinogen perceptual disorder, the
latter being present continually for as long as 5 years."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869)

"Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome
characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of
acute hallucinogen effects. HPPD was associated with a broader range of LSD
(lysergic acid diethylamide)-like substances, cannabis,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, mescaline, and
psychostimulants."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235)

"The Association of Salvia divinorum and Psychotic Disorders: A Review of the
Literature and Case Series"

[https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815](https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815)

~~~
ada1981
“New Studies Fail To Find Associations Between Psychedelic Drugs And Mental
Health Problems“

[http://www.iflscience.com/brain/new-studies-fail-find-
associ...](http://www.iflscience.com/brain/new-studies-fail-find-associations-
between-psychedelic-drugs-and-mental-health-problems/)

------
Karishma1234
From criminalising we need to move to regulating these drugs so more people
could use it and new type of products could come into existence while people
who buy them get full disclosure of what they are getting into.

Linking Tobacco with Cancer was not a simple battle and was possible only
because it was legal and people were open about its use. The lower tobacco
consumption in developing countries was achieved because of regulation and not
criminalisation.

------
qwerty456127
Psychedelics are a good thing yet sure as hell not for everyone. I really
doubt selling them freely in every supermarket is a good idea but I believe
nobody should ever get arrested for possessing them nor even for producing
them for personal consumption or sharing it with friends IMHO. I think
Schedule IV is probably the most adequate status for things like LSD (which is
safe physiologically but can harm some mentally sick people psyche/adequacy
seriously). As for things like MDMA (which can hardly cause any psychological
harm and only causes physiological harm if used improperly) or 6-APB (which
has effects similar to those of MDMA but isn't known to inflict any harm at
all) I would vote to legalize recreational use. And there also are some more
exotic psychedelics like 5-MeO-DMT (don't confuse with regular DMT! ordinary
DMT can indeed harm some people psyche though this doesn't happen often) that
have little if any abuse potential for which I can see no reason to control
them at all.

------
Fnoord
I'm not sure about the legal status of san pedro and peyote cactus in the USA
but it doesn't seem like the original native Americans should be oppressed
further [1]. So specifically about the USA, these should be legal for
religious reasons.

There was a court case in The Netherlands concerning the legal status of these
cactus by a religious group who used these during rituals. They won; they were
allowed to use these for religious reasons. Ever since, smartshops sell these
cactus. I owned a san pedro and peyote cactus myself. The peyote didn't last
long, but the san pedro become _huge_. Eventually it was easily 2,5 meters
tall. Unfortunately, it did have "spint" (red spider mite?). I never used them
for drugs-related reasons.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church)

------
sova
YES absolutely. The research potential is there, the therapeutic potential is
there, the archetypal research into the collective unconscious is there, the
field is ripe and the benefits can be many many.

------
forkLding
I've tried psychedelics before, and I've found them pretty boring in terms of
their effects (like a minor VR experience that doesn't go away and leaves
headaches) and don't see the point of their classification. I have also since
avoided psychedelics because they last so long and you aren't productive
during those hours.

------
BadassFractal
Wonder what the story with Salvia should be, you don't see people talk much
about it. Seems like it's still legal in some states.

~~~
andai
The "good" thing about salvia (re: people here talking about addiction and
abuse) is that once you try it, there's a an even chance you'll never want to
try psychedelics again.

~~~
collyw
People don't get addicted to psychedelics.

~~~
andai
Indeed, they've helped me overcome many of my addictions.

------
1000units
META:

Many people like psychedelics because they hate themselves.

Permanently rewire your personality, maybe blow out your mind entirely? No big
deal.

------
kjgkjhfkjf
To the extent that drug users are burdens on society, drug use should be
regulated.

------
drawkbox
Yes, a great look into some of them is on Hamilton's Pharmacopeia on VICELAND
[1] and early version of the show on Youtube [2] that delves into many of
psychedelics and other drugs. Hamilton Morris does the show and is the son of
Errol Morris who is a great documentary filmmaker. The documentary show takes
an honest look at the origins, stories and science of substances from a
scientific objective point of view.

The point across many of the episodes is that locking up drugs in the
immutable prison of the Controlled Substances scheduling is possibly locking
up cures that might be useful down the line, besides the obvious issue of the
state telling people what they can and can't put in their body, the drug wars
are a unnecessary violence and costly enforcement over a health matter.

The war on vegetables and plants should end and this generation should do it.
Adults are responsible enough to know what they put in their body and for the
ones that have trouble with addiction, the focus should be on healthcare not
executive criminal force that is very costly in funds and possible uses of
drugs that are locked up in the prison of the Controlled Substances Act as a
controlled substance. In a free country you are responsible for yourself, the
state should back off on drugs because they are more dangerous illegal than
legal due to black markets, cartels, legal issues harsher than the drug and
more.

Due to the hard line, we miss out on scientific health advantages of these
drugs and people aim to make more synthetics that mimic them that may be more
harmful than the original with unknown effects.

Unfortunately it looks like the US is doubling down on the drug war with the
new Schedule A that allows them to put on biologically similar drugs and
synthetics on the list with SITSA [3].

My take is that drugs should be legal or at a minimum entirely decriminalized,
there should be substance warnings but ultimately the liability of the user
taking the drug is on the user, not a doctor. The only time a producer should
get in legal issues is when they are selling what isn't on the label just like
with food. A big problem with overdoses and drug deaths is due to people
getting the wrong substance, for instance fentanyl because it is cheaper in
other opioids. The hardline of putting liability on the doctors and pharma
companies is also leading to patients looking for alternatives after their
doctor stops their prescription for fear of legal issues, what follows is
where most overdoses and trouble happens as there is no addiction help after
even legal use of drugs. The hardline on opioids even further exacerbate the
problem.

We need a new Bill of Rights amendment for Right to Body to do this. This is a
health issue not a criminal one and it is too costly to possible health
advances to lock up helpful chemical configurations that need more study. We
need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and
make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one.

The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable
nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a
health issue not a criminal one.

Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every year to be medically
dangerous to be kept on the list.

The problem is that once drugs get classified as a controlled substance, it is
very difficult to get them out because neither the public nor legislature can
easily remove it. The CSA list is managed entirely wrong. The CSA was setup to
target certain dissidents initially by Nixon, it is nearly criminal that the
drug war is ran by an organization that is untouchable and maintained by the
enforcer not the health institutions.

The CSA should be completely abolished or recreated with expiring
classifications, and the FDA can make recommendations on safety but then it is
up to the people to decide what they do with their bodies with the liability
on them.

Marijuana is an example where the Controlled Substances Act harms medical uses
of drugs on the list, if is very difficult to change it even with 93% medical
marijuana support [4] and 64% recreational marijuana support [5] in the US. It
is nearly criminal that marijuana/cannabis, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, and
other drugs and psychedelics that help people which are also safer than most
drugs and alcohol, based on the user themselves rather than what the state
says, are criminal and not medical.

[1] [https://www.hulu.com/hamiltons-
pharmacopeia](https://www.hulu.com/hamiltons-pharmacopeia)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GH9XhvsMrwH...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GH9XhvsMrwH7hC52LGWbXEQ)

[3] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/2851](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2851)

[4] [http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385018-poll-support-for-
leg...](http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385018-poll-support-for-legal-
marijuana-hits-all-time-high)

[5] [https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-
lega...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-
marijuana.aspx)

------
daviddahl
Yes, no victim, no crime.

~~~
blubb-fish
it really is that simple.

------
blubb-fish
For me this is a simple philosophical question.

An adult should be allowed to do whatever s/he likes as long as it is not
harming others. If harm to others is done - even under the influence - then
punishment is due. But as long as somebody just does something in private - it
must be okay.

I have plenty of experience with psychedlics - be it LSD, Psilocibin, DMT or
4-ACO-DMT. I know from own experience that a bad trip can be very unsettling.
But as an adult it is first of all my right to take that risk and second of
all it is a maturing experience.

The state should not be allowed to prohibit anything when done in private. The
concepts behind drug prohibition are pretty much the same as behind
prohibition of homosexual practices. People also say this should not be
allowed because it is bad and young children will be molested etc pp.

~~~
nfoz
For me it's a complex philosophical question without a clear answer.

Where I live (downtown of big city) there are a lot of people visibly addicted
to drugs, on the streets, generally living lives that appear tragic to
themselves and others. We can say "punishment is due" for each offense they
take (theft, violence, public nudity, etc.), but it's probably better to
describe those as symptoms of a drug addiction. "Punishment" rarely helps
people get out of a downward spiral.

Humans are complex. We do things that we know we don't want to do. Sometimes
we need help from ourselves. And the general society _does_ have an interest
in keeping people out of a life of addiction that leads to crime and self-
injury.

I'm not at all an expert on these matters and I don't advocate a particular
set of regulations or deregulations to try and "solve" these sets of problems.
But I'm not sold by your simple narrative, because there is a strong link
between (some types of) drug use and harm to others (and self). So it just
doesn't seem clear-cut.

~~~
blubb-fish
But with this approach to train adults to not take responsibility. I am all
for placing full responsibility on every adult - one has to learn to deal with
this of course and the current state of society is opposing it. Otherwise
people couldn't sue manufacturers for having put their pets into microwave
ovens or for getting cancer from smoking. I know this will cause colateral
damage from people doing stupid or bad things on drugs - but the opposite
isn't much better - to train a generation towards non-responsibility - this is
probably causing more damage. We are just used to it. If somebody decides to
take drugs and destroy his/her life - that is very sad - but so be it. Those
people should be helped - and even this will be easier when taking drugs is
not being criminalized.

~~~
nfoz
Does the idea of "training adults to not take responsibility" have merit? It
sounds like naive pop psychology.

We could remove all guard-rails (literal and figurative) from society. I guess
you could say I'd be more "responsible" for staying alive under this scenario.
But why is that good? It's just more inefficient and unpleasant for everyone
to have to carefully check their every move in case something's trying to scam
or possess them. The more you're tested, the more likely you'll fail. When
instead we can just generally agree, via democratic means, to fix those
systemic problems across-the-board. Then we can get on to solving better
problems.

My own pop psych: you don't "conquer" temptation, so much as it wears at you.
And it wears at some members of your community more than others. You solve it
by removing the temptation (or yourself from it), not by facing it over and
over.

As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails
us. I will gladly accept limitations on my own entertainment if it helps my
neighbour through a difficult struggle.

~~~
blubb-fish
well - with more responsibility the force of natural selection will become
more prominent - I don't think that is a bad thing.

and the idea of recent generations having to face less and less responsibility
is not just pop psychology. I think it is quite obvious with parents picking
up their children at school (helicopter parenting) despite public
transportation being more comfortable and crime rates being lower than in the
past.

> And it wears at some members of your community more than others.

Those may seek help or suffer - their choice.

> As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what
> ails us.

And this is not being done by prohibiting drugs but by working on the reasons
why people start to abuse drugs.

------
gre
Sure why not?

------
smadge
Yes.

------
WaxProlix
Link only goes to the "Observations" page, should probably point to
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-
we-...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-loosen-
the-restrictions-on-psychedelics/)

Content: Psychedelics are a purely political issue at this point, as far as I
know. Physiologically, they're far, far less dangerous than eg alcohol.

~~~
folli
You haven't read the content, then.

------
dheavy
Yes.

