
Do Psychedelic Drug Laws Violate Human Rights? - Hooke
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/psychedelic-drugs/471603/?single_page=true
======
nefitty
> The individual shouldn’t be required to prove that these substances are
> risk-free, because few things in life are—rather it should be up to the
> state to prove, with scientific evidence, that the risks justify the damage
> to our civil liberties. In the absence of that, it is impossible that say
> that this is truly a free society.

It's fascinating that the European Convention on Human Rights has a section on
freedom of thought. That is such a radical idea, especially in the face of the
strength of tradition in Western countries.

Looking at this problem from the 6-dimensional moral foundation theory
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_s...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_six_foundations)),
I see the main factors holding these drugs hostage to be the particularly
conservative values of deference to authority (they're bad because they're
illegal) and the desire for group purity (only criminals and bums use drugs,
not us good people). A good place to start is what Walsh outlines,
scrutinizing the implications for liberty that these prohibitions have. I
think wider public discourse would move us closer toward more rational laws.
If people see that normal, well-adjusted, successful people (Silicon Valley
kids, how's that microdosing going?) use drugs without problems, and also hear
from people in authority that they are safer than believed to be in the past,
we might make leeway. We have to figure out how to hit as many of those six
dimensions as possible to move things forward.

~~~
awinter-py
And you can't accurately perceive the problem in 6 dimensions without
substantial help from LSD. So, QED.

------
6stringmerc
When an undergrad, I had access to a quite impressive religious library
affiliated with a quite reputable protestant theology school. As part of the
undergrad criteria, taking a religious course of some sort was mandatory to
achieve graduation. I picked something along the lines of Chirstianity and
Public Life, and eventually needed a topic for a research essay for the
course.

Through my research, what I can definitively state is that numerous
psychoactive substances - drugs, if you will - are mentioned by and
incorporated into nearly every noteworthy world religion in some way, shape,
or form. Yes, mostly for the use of the 'visionary' class like the priests and
shamans, but it's all right there in the texts that such things had a
legitimate role in the respective religious pursuits. I recall a couple cases
regarding Native Tribal rights with psychoactives, but those were very limited
in scope in the grand scheme of things.

Thus, overall I came to the conclusion that US drug laws are fundamentally at
odds with the notion of religious freedom from persecution. I plan on doing
nothing of importance with this perpsective however. It's just one of those
situations that make me go pause and say "Huh, how about that."

------
mathattack
If you follow this train of thought, don't all drug laws (or really any laws
that restrict what 2 consenting adults can trade with each other or put in
their bodies) violate human rights?

I'm not taking either side - life's too complicated - it's interesting to
watch.

~~~
sdegutis
It's interesting how so many people say "let individuals do what they want"
without accepting the fact that society is made up of individuals who do not
live in a vacuum. My wife always used to say that it should be, "your rights
end where someone else's begin," but that's a difficult line to draw without
risking incorrectly removing someone's legitimate rights.

~~~
api
I used to think you can draw sharp lines here, but not anymore.

Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat
out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or
malice.

I definitely think that non-addictive psychedelic drugs with no demonstrated
human toxicity (or not exceeding OTC drug toxicity) should be legal. Perhaps
there should be some restrictions. I would be in favor of some form of
licensing or gating to set some minimum level of personal responsibility.
Maybe if you freak out and end up in a psych ward or commit a crime you lose
your license. I'd put it in the same category as driving a car, riding a
motorcycle, operating a motorboat, etc. People are going to be stupid with LSD
but people are stupid with motorcycles and rock climbing and those are legal.

Harder drugs? I'm open minded. I used to be against the legalization of
heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, etc., but then I read up on Portugal's
experience with heroin and now I'm more open to the idea of a pure harm-
reduction approach. But I am wary of these. Alcohol is legal and there are
alcoholics everywhere. I don't think criminal prosecution is the right tool
for the job, but I also am not sure we want _more_ of that.

~~~
adrusi
I agree with what you've said, though I tend more toward the liberal side. I'd
point out though that "not exceeding OTC drug toxicity" is a very low
threshold: just a few more acetominophen tablets or asprins than recommended
can induce acute liver failure. This is exacerbated if you also drink alcohol.
It's one of the most common forms of poisoning and the top cause of acute
liver failure in the US.

It's not easy to accidentally overdose on a drug when it's sold in standard
doses, especially if dosage information is presented honestly. The
government's position on drugs only serves to increase the rate of overdose
among the population using them.

~~~
api
Yeah, I just said that to draw a line somewhere. You could eat LSD powder with
a spoon and be technically okay, provided you could contend with the spoon's
Ka in the liminal realm.

------
mirimir
Anti-drug laws plainly violate human rights. And so they breed general
disrespect for the law.

------
justsaysmthng
Psychedelics or entheogens are extremely dangerous for the establishment,
because they (might) affect the user's worldview and ultimately users end up
challenging the "truths" that the establishment so dearly spoon fed them since
they were born.

They start to question authority... of the the State, of the Church, of the
Justice system, of core societal values... These substances alter the user's
brains in unpredictable ways - generating deviant art, music, literature,
movies, comedy!

Fuck no. Ban everything. Throw them in jails. Dirty hippies. Get jobs.

Go to work. Obey. Consume. Repeat.

And when the ideology needs fresh blood, send your children to war. Let them
die in battle, like real men.

The establishment doesn't care about your human rights, never has. They - the
makers and players of the game - care about their own well being, driven by
the desire to control everything combined with the fear of losing it all.

When enough people start playing this game, war becomes inevitable. Human
rights don't apply on the battlefield.

This sickness can be treated or prevented with the "medicine for the soul"..

If wearing glasses is a human right, then using entheogens should also be a
human right.

~~~
Retra
I'm pretty sure the internet has done far more for changing peoples' worldview
than drugs ever have or could. Actually, I find it completely unrealistic that
drug use would change anything at all in the realm of what you're talking
about. I mean, none of what you've said requires drugs in any way, and most
people are perfectly capable in seeing a billion faults in the status quo
without them.

~~~
justsaysmthng
You're pretty sure, but I think you're not seeing the bigger picture.

Most of those bands that have enhanced the lives of everyone ( _society_ )
over the years? Really high..

Would the world still be around if it weren't for the cultural revolution of
the '60s - during the height of the cold war, with slogans like "make love not
war" and "Imagine" ? Possibly not.

The Internet ?

Did you know that Doug Engelbart and many other engineers working on the
ARPANet were also participating in LSD experiments ? Look it up, it's out
there on the Internet.

The Internet could have been another secret military technology, you know...
It took some acid heads to imagine the whole world "turned on and tuned in".
So there was Steve Jobs and his team of psychonauts who jumped in to make that
vision real.

Check out Google's first ever doodle. Do you notice the Burning Man logo in it
? I guess Larry and Sergey were so inspired by the psychedelic festival that
they decided to use it as their startup's logo.

3D animation, Pixar, ILM, Virtual Reality ? Damn hippies.

That's the most interesting part about psychedelics is that the trip never
ends.. Once you take it, it changes you forever - you might be sober, but the
psychedelic experience goes on - in what you say, what you do, what you
sing...

I could go on and on, but again - you can look these things up yourself.

~~~
Retra
Of course you could go on and on. But you'd be saying the same useless "wake
up sheeple" non-answer that has been the rallying cry of useless people since
forever. Or maybe just stop picking attractive cherries for yourself and start
learning about how actually reliable and consistent data works.

I don't have a problem with hippies or drugs. I have a problem with the
irrational, baseless worship of hippies and drugs.

~~~
justsaysmthng
Something tells me that no amount of "reliable and consistent data" will
convince some people, because they already know what they want to know.

Despite the fact that these things are illegal, there are many scientific
studies published, books written and a myriad of personal accounts and
interpretations given within literature, art, music, film, design, etc. Just
ask google.

But do you want to really know the "truth" ?

It's very easy to discover it yourself. No cherry picking. Just go experience
it.

That's all there is to it.

------
tn13
I am Indian Hindu and I find the western world's laws (which influence others)
w.r.t. drugs nothing but racist and prejudiced. Of course it is none of my
business how UK/US manage their own country but it is really sad to see that
those colonial laws are enforced in my home country and has altered perception
of Indians so far away from their roots. I think if start talking about Drug
prohibition laws in the perspective of human freedom it is much easier for
people like me to go back to my roots.

Marijuana and few other forms of mind altering substances have been like a
stepping stone towards spiritual progress in several sects of Hinduism and
tribal practices. Drugs like Marijuana were often used to those who started
off on the tantra path to make them understand that there is more to human
mind than they might have thought. Once the mind is opened the students can
explore more possibilities and realities.

Here is an excellent article by Indologist Dr. Elst

------
Retric
Human Rights are arbitrary. So, the only question is what people agree that it
means; making this a rather circular justification for anything.

EX: Is breathing air free from pollution a human right?

~~~
LesZedCB
FWIW, I would take the strong stance that it damn well should be.

~~~
achamayou
But what's pollution-free? Taken to the extreme, this implies nobody can
drive, or light a camp fire for that matter.

It's all about quantity, and balancing the conflicting freedoms of
individuals. Your right to breathe perfectly clean air goes against my right
to produce energy and heat myself or go places.

Likewise, there's a general consensus that the state can detain you
temporarily. It's an affront to the freedom of the person detained, but most
individuals agree that it's necessary to preserve their freedom to go about
safely and without fear of violence.

There's a process around it, to try and balance the rights on both sides. It's
all in the details and the implementation.

------
arprocter
The piece mentions David Nutt who was infamously fired by the British
government for his use of inconvenient facts

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_position...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_positions)

~~~
GordonS
Yes, it's sad, but drug policy in the UK is not defined based on evidence -
rather, it seems to be based on the whims of politicians who understand very
little about the drugs that they outlaw.

------
hosh
The section of the article discussing paternalism, infantilization, has some
interesting connection with that other article on HN, about debunking the ego-
depletion theory:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11239674)

I can easily see the ego-depletion theory being used as a basis for the idea
that people just can't control themselves.

Though the problem is also that drug policy makers have been ignoring
research. The current argument, as brought up in the interview, is that
"illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal."

------
awinter-py
Don't all restrictive laws by their definition violate human rights? 'Rights'
is the sphere of activity the law agrees not to encroach. This question is
tautological.

Better question -- given that legalizing psychedelics will make 1% of us
healthier or better at our jobs at the cost of doubling the pedestrian strike
rate in large cities, do metropolitan mayors want to make that trade?

------
guard-of-terra
Yes they do, and I hope to live to the day when people behind these laws are
violated in return, at least the memory of them.

------
panzagl
Are there laws which prohibit the actual taking of drugs? I thought they all
targeted manufacture, distribution, and sale, which are definitely in the
purview of the state to limit. I guess simple possession would be the grey
area here, but there are plenty of other substances whose possession is
regulated as well.

~~~
adrusi
If you completely eliminate all avenues to acquiring something, then you're
taking away the right to have or use it. Imagine if the government had banned
the manufacture, distribution and sale of printing presses.

Also possession of drugs is hardly a gray area. It's quite explicitly illegal
in all countries but a few.

------
gorpomon
It's heart breaking watching the UK walk further and further away from
liberalism.

~~~
GordonS
The USA has surely been the biggest progenitor of the 'war on drugs', and yet
even they are, state by state, legalising cannabis.

At a time when other countries are finally seeing the folly of fighting an
unwinnable 'war', it is even more ludicrous that the UK should continue down
this path (e.g. the Psychoactive Substances Bill which comes into effect in
April).

------
transfire
Yes.

