
Why Are Psychedelics Illegal? - rk0567
http://www.vice.com/read/why-are-psychedelics-illegal-368
======
syllogism
> To better understand why, in McKenna’s view, psychedelics are illegal, it
> may be helpful to examine why the world today operates on a dominator
> instead of a partnership model, and what exactly these terms mean.

What?? No! That won't be helpful at all!

Why not start with the discourse at the time they were banned. What was said?
Should we take it at face value? Did the illegality emerge once and spread, or
did it "evolve" separately, in lots of different places?

Plenty of policy gets passed due to specific, contingent circumstances right
at that moment. It often comes down to the judgment of a few people thinking
on a very short time-horizon.

Before reaching for some sort of grand dialectic theory, we should at least
find out whether the "reasons" aren't wholly contingent. What if we just got
stuck with this policy because of some specific set of circumstances, and we
still have it due to sheer inertia?

~~~
davidtanner
It's true that there were contingent circumstances that led to the modern
prohibition of psychedelics back in the 60s.

However, you seem to be overlooking the overarching theme of prohibition that
goes back many, many centuries in Western culture. There is a lot more to this
than simply a modern governmental overreaction.

Jonathan Ott, in his Proemium, says it far better than I can:

" Despite overwhelming scientific and experiential evidence to the contrary,
human beings are conceived of as a special creation apart from other animals,
and we are enjoined to subdue the world, which is matter. This horrible
superstition has led to the despoiling and ruin of our biosphere, and to the
crippling neurosis and guilt of modern people (Hofmann 1980). I call this a
superstition because when people have direct, personal access to entheogenic,
religious experiences, they never conceive of humankind as a separate
creation, apart from the rest of the universe. "Every thing that lives is
Holy," us included, and the divine infuses all the creation of which we are an
integral part. As the dualistic superstition took root in our ancestors'
minds, their first task was to destroy all aspects of ecstatic, experiential
religion from the archaic ("pagan") world. The destruction of the sanctuary of
Eleusis at the end of the fourth century of our era (Mylonas 1961) marked the
final downfall of the ancient world in Europe, and for the next millennium the
theocratic Catholic Church vigorously persecuted every vestige of ecstatic
religion which survived, including revival movements. By the time of the
"discovery" of the New World, Europe had been beaten into submission, the
"witches" and "heretics" mostly burned, and ecstasy was virtually expunged
from the memory of the survivors. For the Catholics, and for the Protestants
after them, to experience ecstasy, to have religious experiences, was the most
heinous heresy, justifying torture and being burned alive. Is it any wonder
that today we have no place for ecstasy?

In the New World, however, the Age of Entheogens and ecstasy lived on, and
although in 1620 the Inquisition in Mexico formally declared the use of
entheogenic plants like peyotl (see Chapter 1) to be heresy and the Church
vigorously extirpated this use and tortured and executed Indian shamans,
ecstasy survives there even now. It bears witness to the integrity of the New
World Indians that they braved torture and death to continue with their
ecstatic religion- they must have been bitterly disappointed in the "placebo
sacrament" of the Christian Eucharist, which is a placebo entheogen (Ott
1979b)- and it is largely as a result of the modern rediscovery of the
shamanic cult of teonanacatl (see Chapter 5) by R. Gordon Wasson in Mexico in
1955 that the modern use of entheogens, in many respects a revival of ecstatic
religion, began. Even though myriad justifications for the modern laws against
the entheogens have been offered up, the problem modern societies have with
these drugs is fundamentally the same problem the Inquisition had with them,
the same problem the early Christians had with the Eleusinian Mysteries-
religious rivalry. Since these drugs tend to open people's eyes and hearts to
an experience of the holiness of the universe... yes, enable people to have
personal religious experiences without the intercession of a priesthood of the
preconditioning of a liturgy, some psychonauts or epoptes will perceive the
emptiness and shallowness of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition; even
begin to see through the secular governments which use religious symbols to
manipulate people; begin to see that by so ruthlessly subduing the earth we
are killing the planet and destroying ourselves. A "counterculture" having
ecstatic experiences in California is quite as subversive (Einhorn 1970) and
threatens the power structures in Sacramento or Washington just as much as the
rebellious Albigensians or Cathars, Bogomiles, Fraticelli "de opinione,"
Knights Templar and Waldenisians threatened the power structure in Rome and
Mediaeval times (Cohn 1975)."

[http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pharmacotheon/pha...](http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pharmacotheon/pharmacotheon_proemium.shtml)

~~~
bytecoin
This was an excellent insightful post thank you

~~~
davidtanner
Thank you very, very much! Promoting these sorts of ideas is my main
contribution to HN (since I am not a professional programmer, but merely a
techie dabbler and lover of mathematics)

However, the real credit should go to people like Jonathan Ott, Charles Grob,
Stanislav Groff, James Fadiman and Benny Shanon. Terence McKenna too, of
course, but I find his views are less appealing and less convincing to the
typical HN demographic. There are far more academically credible authors who
write deeply about these things than TM.

------
ivanca
One thing that wasn't mention by the article is that drug prohibition is (at
least partly) based on racist beliefs[0], here is a famous quote from Harry
Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (an early
predecessor of the DEA):

> There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes,
> Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing
> result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual
> relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. [...] its effect on the
> degenerate races.

[0][http://io9.com/anti-marijuana-laws-were-based-on-racism-
not-...](http://io9.com/anti-marijuana-laws-were-based-on-racism-not-
science-1500321449)

~~~
musicaldope
This is terribly hilarious -- thanks for sharing.

------
revscat
> Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that
> you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because
> they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior
> and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that
> everything you know is wrong.

This in my opinion is exactly right. I do not have wide experience with
psychedelics, but I have experienced a few, and the common element among all
of them was how much it opened my mind up to new lines of thinking, and these
paths were tended lead in directions that were not amicable towards our
neoliberal capitalist society.

~~~
JASchilz
> They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong.

In mathematical modeling, they say that every model is wrong, but some are
useful.

Insofar as psychedelics are dissociatives, they can cause harm by convincing
us to discard our wrong but useful models of the world. And I have experienced
that when no associations seem significant, _all_ associations gain
significance, independent of usefulness.

Our brain works pretty well with our incomplete-but-useful heuristics, and the
ability to discover these heuristics and transmit them culturally is one of
our central powers as a species. I don't have the perspective of a state to
say why exactly they have been banned, and I don't have the perspective of a
god to say whether the lubrication of psychedelics might slip us into a
greater local optimum. But I do have enough personal experience to say that
bad things can happen to an unmoored mind.

~~~
Zigurd
That's an interesting conjecture, but is there any evidence at all? Say, in
the form of dysfunction in cases where users of psychedelics come into
leadership positions or positions of influence? Or among communities where use
of psychedelics is common?

~~~
JASchilz
Respectfully, I make no conjectures. When I say that psychedelics can cause
_us_ harm, I mean that psychedelics can cause the individual harm, and I
generalize from my own (extremely mild) experience.

------
poulsbohemian
> Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that
> you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because
> they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior
> and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that
> everything you know is wrong.

Counterpoint: Isn't that pretty obvious even without psychedelics?

~~~
proveanegative
>Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and
culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

If true, what this says to me is that a ban on psychodelics is justified if
you are interested in maintaining civilization.

~~~
RangerScience
Not quite - the subtler point of that is _this_ civilization versus _a_
civilization, which in turn is part of the larger point that civilization is a
made thing (and continuously, at that - like Sartre's consciousness) that we
have the option of doing differently. That your cultural opinions are
opinions, not facts, and that most of "consensus reality" has that kind of
relationship with actual reality.

Like when economists talk about the Market like it's some oracular weather
system instead of a bunch of things people made and do.

This is also the actual meaning behind the "drop out" of "turn on, tune in,
drop out" \- not to leave all civilization entirely, but to leave /this/
civilization in order to participate in your own.

------
whoopdedo
I tend to look at drug prohibitions by governments as akin to kosher
restrictions. I once heard a rabbi explain why kosher exists. (These are his
words, recalled from my memory so certainly not exactly correct.) There is no
inherent meaning to the prohibition. Not eating pork doesn't make you a better
person, nor does eating it make you a bad person. But by not eating pork you
are demonstrating your obedience to God. The law says "do not kill" and for
most men it is easy to obey that law. If that was all one needed to do to be a
servant of God there would be little point to religion. Your personal faith
would rarely be tested. So God tests us in a small way, with kosher laws.
These are easy to obey, but also more difficult because the temptation is more
common. When you abstain from eating pork you are strengthening your faith and
preparing for when you may be faced with a more serious temptation. It is a
daily affirmation of your obedience to God. (end quotation)

So I also think that government prohibitions exist largely to allow
governments to assert their authority. If you can't be trusted to follow a
simple law like "don't use this recreational drug" then you can't be trusted
to follow more serious laws like "don't stab someone in the face".

(Not saying I agree with it. I'm just making an observation.)

~~~
bitwize
So kosher laws and all those other random little mitzvot are God's version of
brown M&Ms?

~~~
smcnally
I've heard -- and am biased to believe -- there are some practical bases for
kosher laws. Some people got trichinosis from mishandled pork, e.g., and
prohibition is simpler than quality assurance; Other, non-Hebrew cultures
cooked lambs in their mothers' milk as a "sacrament;" not doing so was a
practical cultural differentiator.

~~~
whoopdedo
My suspicion is that it started as an economic move. The Israelites were sheep
herders trying to carve a niche in a dominant culture of pig and cattle
herders. Telling them they couldn't eat pork and certain sacrifices had to be
lambs was a way of subsidizing the sheep farmers. I came to this conclusion
after reading a long chapter in the bible that talks about the breeding. Even
back then they understood husbandry and economics. I doubt anyone had a clue
about germ theory.

------
jrapdx3
In the article, and many of the comments here, the thrust is that illegality
is primarily a political matter. I certainly can't argue that isn't a factor,
but I can say it's not the only salient issue.

All drugs have multiple effects, most of which receive little or no study.
Particular effects may be useful, and the others we call "side-effects". The
problem with drugs is determining these characteristics, a notably difficult
task since individual responses vary widely. BTW, the US FDA considers AE
occurrence of >=1% to be "frequent", that is, a major/signficant side-effect
of the drug.

Systematic study is extremely laborious. That's the reason therapeutic drugs
require such expensive and time-consuming development. Potential severe but
rare effects may not come to the fore until millions of people are exposed to
the drug. If it comes to light that >=1/10^6 recipients have a fatal response,
that may represent too big a risk to leave the drug on the market.

Hallucinogenic drugs are _not_ risk free. Spend a few days in the ED where
such drugs are being widely used and there will be multiple instances of
panic, dissociative responses and psychosis. This is something I've personally
observed. Yes, it's anecdotal, but large, well-structured, placebo-controlled
trials have not yet been done.

In the absence of such studies, is it ethical to assert the use of any drug is
"safe"? Even if serious adverse effects are "infrequent" (<1%), encouraging
people to use a drug (particularly for non-essential purposes) could
conceivably result in thousands of people trying it, and consequently a
substantial number suffering harm. Such advocacy would almost certainly not
meet standards of responsible behavior.

------
petersellers
It's been well over a decade since I've dabbled in this. My viewpoint is that
while psychedelics are mostly harmless, there is a small chance for some
latent psychological "damage" if you will.

There's not much evidence that psychedelics cause any physical harm to the
body or risk of death/overdose, but there is evidence that psychedelics can
have lasting psychological effects. I think most of the time (as in my case,
personally) the effects are generally positive. However, I think that
excessive use (which is uncommon due to the nature of these substances being
generally non-addictive) can increase the chance of adverse effects.

HPPD
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percept...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_perception_disorder))
for example is the occurrence of latent "sensory disturbances" that people can
experience years after psychedelic drug use.

Anecdotally, a friend of mine had to be temporarily hospitalized for a week or
so due to a "psychotic break" that occurred after a year or two of fairly
heavy psychedelic drug use. He had been otherwise mentally sound and
physically healthy leading up to that point, and to this day he believes that
the psychedelic drug use either directly contributed to the meltdown or
otherwised exacerbated some previous unknown condition. Thankfully he's been
mostly fine ever since.

I don't think that this evidence is reason enough to ban psychedelics. I think
there is some genuine benefit that they can provide, and that more research
should be done so the positive and negative effects can be better determined.

~~~
RangerScience
While it sounds like your friend did actually run afoul of these substances...

How would you distinguish between lasting psychological effects from
psychedelics, and lasting effects from other impactful experiences? (World
travel, adventure tourism, cults, psychiatry...)

In other words, do you have any ideas about to distinguish between the lasting
effects of the _chemical_ versus lasting effects of the _experience_?

~~~
petersellers
Interesting point you bring up. I don't know if we know enough about how these
substances work that we can make those distinctions.

I will say that I personally think the experiences themselves are powerful
enough psychologically on their own to have lasting effects, similar to the
effects you would get from other worldly experiences. Psychedelics do differ
from "real" experiences in that they are comparatively brief, more intense,
and have other unique characteristics (such as ego loss). I think that the
intensity of those experiences, if repeated enough times, definitely has the
potential to permanently change you psychologically (and potentially
negatively). Fortunately, that intensity also has built in anti-addictive
properties, so most users would not be endangering themselves in that way.

~~~
RangerScience
While I do agree with you that there are differences unique to psychedelic
experiences versions "real" experiences, your enumeration isn't quite accurate
- Most psychedelics last 1-12 hours, intensity is almost entirely dependent on
dosage, and most meditation exercises are also about ego loss. And that's
before you get into things like sensory deprivation or binaural beats,
although for this discussion I'd put them on the psychedelic side of the line
because they do similar things in the brain.

It's actually a pretty common comment from experienced "psychonauts": that you
can have the same experience without the substances, it just takes years or
decades of training and quite a bit of per-experience preparation. This is
also because, on a chemical level, a number of psychedelics actually just get
your brain to do something it'll normally (but rarely) do - the substance you
take doesn't actually create the experience, the substance your brain
releases/creates/doesn't absorb due to what you've taken does the work.

That all said? In a normal life, by a normal person? Yeah, those three you
mention are what I'd expect to seriously differentiate the psychedelic and
non-psychedelic experiences.

~~~
petersellers
Regarding the comment about intensity: I agree that the intensity is dosage
dependent. What I was getting at was that with a sufficient dosage,
psychedelics can provide a level of intensity that is for the most part not
matched by "real" experiences that most people would encounter. Also, the peak
effects of most psychedelics last only a few hours at most. I imagine a 12
hour peak would be rather uncomfortable.

I think my response is colored by my relative lack of life experience. I agree
with you that it is likely possible to achieve a similarly intense experience
via activities like skilled meditation, though I haven't done it myself.

~~~
girvo
A 12 hour peak can definitely be described as uncomfortable. It was certainly
interesting, at least. The DOX class of drugs are weird.

------
Animats
As, over time, there's less of a need for low-end workers, we will probably
see restrictions on recreational drugs relaxed. We're seeing that now with
marijuana. It's a good drug for keeping the useless part of the population
happy and quiet.

Read:
[http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/themes.html](http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/themes.html)

~~~
programmarchy
You're being downvoted, but it is true that drugs have been and are used to
control populations, whether through prohibition or supply. There are strong
links between the intelligence community and the drug "counterculture",
including evidence that the government has actively promoted psychedelic drugs
as a means of controlling the population. This should raise concerns. Some
salient points:

The CIA was testing LSD as a mind control drug under the MKULTRA program in
the sixties and seventies. [1]

Gordon Wasson, who was VP of Public Relations at JP Morgan and had close ties
to Allen Dulles (head of CIA), introduced Americans to magic mushrooms in 1957
on the cover of Life magazine, a JP Morgan company. This effectively kicked
off the psychedelic movement in the US. [2]

Terrance McKenna, an evangelist for psychedelics and the "archaic revival",
admitted to being a "bard" and working for the FBI as a background agent. [3]

These points barely scratch the surface, but there does appear to be a
concerted effort to promote psychedelics as a spiritual rite of passage or
initiation, into a New Age religion of sorts. Similar to how the Eleusinian
Mysteries in Greece ushered in the Greek Dark Age, it is likely that the
Psychedelic Revolution will be used to usher in another dark age, as a way to
get people to accept a new form of feudalism and totalitarian state control.

Just something to think about the next time you drop some acid. Are you really
having a "god manifesting" spiritual experience, or being taken on a carnival
ride of socially engineered mythology?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra)
[2] [http://www.gnosticmedia.com/public-notice-appeal-to-the-
cia-...](http://www.gnosticmedia.com/public-notice-appeal-to-the-cia-
regarding-classification-of-r-gordon-wasson-documents-related-mkultra-
subproject-58/) [3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1yFZRmFsw#t=15753](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1yFZRmFsw#t=15753)

~~~
davidtanner
I've seen some of these claims before and find them interesting.

The TM quote is pretty hilarious/strange - "they" either means the government
or whatever tryptamine fueled fantasies he encountered in South America.

Could you cite something regarding the Eleusian Mysteries ushering in the
Greek Dark Age?

Cicero supposedly said: "Among the many excellent and divine institutions that
your Athens has developed and contributed to human life, there is none, in my
opinion, better than these mysteries, by which we have been brought forth from
our rustic and savage mode of existence, cultivated and refined to a state of
civilization; and as these rites are called "initiations" so, in truth, we
have learned from them the first principles of life and have gained the
understanding, not only to live happily, but also to die with better hope. "

[http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/eleusinian_myst...](http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/eleusinian_mysteries.html)

Of course, since I can't read Latin or Greek, I can't really verify that this
quote truly was written by Cicero.

Regarding the strain of opinion that thinks modern entheogen advocates are
being systematically manipulated by government agents - there might be some
truth to it, but I feel like it must be an inadequate explanation.

Entheogens have been used well before modern USA governments. Governments in
general seem to expend much more energy trying to prohibit them than they do
covertly advocating their use. I just find the whole thing to be very
implausible.

~~~
programmarchy
I would not doubt Cicero would have said that regarding Eleusian Mysteries. He
was a politician during a time when the Caesar was worshipped as a god, and
massive bureaucracies of priests evangelized his divinity as "Pontifex
Maximus", highest priest of the Roman state religion. Like the Greeks, the
Romans had similar initiation rituals and mysteries to inculcate the
population into their mythologies espousing Caesar as god. To me, it sounds
like Cicero is simply admiring the implementation of the Eleusian Mysteries,
the result of which was a "cultivated", "refined", "happy" population -- all
synonymous with an obedient population.

Regarding a citation of the Eleusian Mysteries ushering in the dark age, I
don't have anything specific other than the fact that they were correlated in
time. Since they were mysteries, the curators of which went to great lengths
to guard their secrets, facts are hard to come by. Substitute Eleusis for
Egyptian magic rituals, the Roman imperial cult, or other state religions, and
I think you'll see similar patterns.

But I think it's useful to ask, why did these mystery religions use occulted
knowledge? Why keep knowledge from groups of people, if not to keep them in
the dark as a means of controlling them? Are these mysteries not akin to the
noble lie which Plato discussed in The Republic?

Myths, combined with psychedelic drugs, which provide emotional catharsis and
grandiose visions, are an effective way to /mystify/ people. Mysticism, by way
of confusing, offers a means to control an individual by providing an
opportunity to substitute or suggest the reality the hierophants want their
initiates to believe.

This is the opposite of the scientific discovery, reason, and the challenging
of traditional authority that marked The Enlightement.

~~~
davidtanner
Good point on Cicero's political affiliations. I'm sure that must have greatly
influenced much of his writing.

I'm curious if you are at all familiar with the theories Micheal Hoffman
discusses at his website egodeath.com

His ideas are extremely difficult to summarize, but they are of great
relevance to the issues we are discussing (Eleusis, Egyptian mysteries, Roman
state religion, Plato, myths, mysticism, etc)

[http://egodeath.com/emperorworshipjesusfigure.htm](http://egodeath.com/emperorworshipjesusfigure.htm)

[http://egodeath.com/index.html#_Myth-
Religion_and_Mystic](http://egodeath.com/index.html#_Myth-Religion_and_Mystic)

[http://egodeath.com/#_Entheogen_Diminishment_Fallacies_1](http://egodeath.com/#_Entheogen_Diminishment_Fallacies_1)

This intro page is his attempt at explaining his theory in broad terms:
[http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm](http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm)

He would probably answer your question "Why did they keep knowledge from
groups of people, if not to keep them in the dark as a means of controlling
them?" by saying that, while political control was, of course, a real thing in
those times, the original function of mystery cults was actually to initiate
participants into true knowledge of the transcendent through the use of ritual
and entheogenic drugs.

You also might find this interesting:
[http://csp.org/experience/experience.html](http://csp.org/experience/experience.html)

Have you had a unity/mystical/transcendent type experience with chemicals or
other methods?

~~~
programmarchy
Yes, I'm familiar with Michael Hoffman's egodeath theory, and I agree with
many of his historical perspectives and interpretations of religious
experience. Like you say, his theory is hard to summarize. Relating to this
thread, I think psychoactives can be a double-edged sword used for good or
evil. Quoting Hoffman:

> Given that the Empire used entheogenic mystery-religion initiation to
> dominate socially and oppressively, Christianity used mystery-religion
> initiation to emancipate/liberate ... The religions of Jesus and Caesar were
> in a battle over the meaning and application of mystery-religion initiation.
> It's a battle about what to do with the fact of mystery-religion initiation.
> [1]

Perhaps there were mystery cults with the best of intentions, such as the
Gnostics for example, who would have had good reasons to conduct their
initiations in secrecy to avoid persecution. And perhaps psychoactives can be
used for "short path enlightenment" as Watts would say, as well as for
political control.

What gives me pause for concern is the evidence of deep involvement on the
part of the CIA with the drug counterculture. This is the same agency with a
history of overthrowing democratically elected governments, conducting heinous
psychological experiments on Americans, and not to mention torturing and
murdering people around the world. They're simply not to be trusted.

Yet we find the fingerprints of the CIA all over the origins of the so-called
psychedelic revolution, even carefully crafting the terms and definitions in
which to frame the discussion:

> In the early years of research into these drugs, psychology researchers and
> military intelligence communities sometimes called them, aside from
> “hallucinogen,” by the name “psychotomimetic” –which means psychosis
> mimicking. The word hallucinogen, “to generate hallucinations,” came just a
> few years before psychotomimetic. The same year that psychotomimetic was
> created we also saw the creation of the word “psychedelic” – which means “to
> manifest the mind.” The last stage of this etymological evolution, as we’ll
> see, was the word “entheogen” – which means “to generate god within.”

The word "entheogen" was a creation of Wasson and Ruck [2], which has the
intended effect of framing discussions about psychoactives as spiritual
phenomenon. Like Leary said, it's all about set and setting.

Jan Irvin, a researcher in this field who I quoted above, has said that
"mysticism is the tool of tyrants". It's hard to find cases in history of
mysticism liberating individuals with so-called true knowledge. Usually, it's
been the opposite: rational, scientifically-based discovery has been the
liberator from superstition, ignorance, prejudice, and authority.

I'll definitely check out csp.org since this is an area of interest for me.
And I'd be happy to talk about experiences via an email discussion with you at
donald dot ness at gmail dot com.

[1]
[http://www.egodeath.com/SocioPoliticalResistanceAsThematicLa...](http://www.egodeath.com/SocioPoliticalResistanceAsThematicLayer.htm)
[2]
[http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_Psychede...](http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA#_ednref105)

------
jqm
I'm thinking the banning was probably not a conspiracy to suppress
"enlightenment" for the benefit of the status quo. The people who did the
banning almost certainly never tried psychedelics (which they very well may
have if they really believed it would give them extra super powers and make
them smarter... a view sometimes seen on HN which I believe may be a bit
overblown).

I'm thinking the keyword is "unexpected". People who took psychedelics behaved
in an unexpected and unpredictable fashion. When it was a few Native Americans
and University researchers, no big deal. When it became a large percentage of
America's young people dressing up funny and doing weird things (i.e. anti-
social from the perspective at the time)... well, that's a different matter
and steps _had_ to be taken! Western civilization hates and fears the unknown.

So as usual with these types of things (terrorism, communism etc). everything
got all blown out of proportion and the person who screamed "Fire" the loudest
got the most air time while anyone who dissented was highly suspect and had
trouble staying employed. You know, the usual nonsense that seems to repeat
throughout history.

There probably was a (very small) seed of reality at the base of the hysteria.
Twisting everything around can on occasion produce undesired side effects
along with whatever benefits are claimed. The idea of drugs for extra powers
of perception is not new. Psychedelics have been used for thousands of years.
While I am in full agreement that they may on occasion lead to individual
realizations which can be useful, if psychedelics were a magic answer for
creative thinking, then it would have been a tribe of jungle natives sailing
over to greet the linear thinking palefaces rather than the other way
around....

Should psychedelics be legal? To that I answer... what are laws when time and
space are expanding? (real answer... I don't know. I guess I don't care
either. But I don't think people should be criminally prosecuted for drug use.
I believe I would be wary of mass commercial availability. Not for the masses
I think.)

~~~
dwiel
I agree with your initial sentiment that the unknown is frightening to the
status quo and that is why it was out lawed.

As to your later points though, in a magic mushroom study "Eighty per cent of
the volunteers reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or life
satisfaction." [1]

Also in regard to european conquest of the americas, it seems to be more a
sign of who was good at fighting and spreading than who was most creative or
some other more universal measure (if there is such a thing).

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-
families/...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-
families/health-news/magic-mushrooms-can-induce-mystical-effects-study-
finds-407475.html)

~~~
jqm
"Well being" and "life satisfaction" don't necessarily build boats...

The idea of psychedelics for mind expansion is not new nor is it novel. But as
civilization became complex, the idea was largely discarded or relegated to
arcane corners (and on occasion persecuted). I'm saying I believe there is a
reason this happened and in those societies in which it didn't, complexity
didn't develop.

There may be benefits for certain people at certain times and places. But I
believe psychedelics are not a magic bullet for out of the box thinking and
enlightenment which everyone should take. Not if we want to the trains to keep
coming on time.

------
stefantalpalaru
>Recently Riane Eisler in her important revisioning of history, The Chalice
and the Blade, has advanced the important notion of “partnership” models of
society being in competition and oppressed by “dominator” forms of social
organization. These latter are hierarchical, paternalistic, materialistic, and
male dominated.

The funny thing is that this book was published in 1987, 8 years into Margaret
Thatcher's rather violent domination of GB. But why let facts come in the way
of fantasies rooted in the size of very old clay statues?

~~~
gohrt
[https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=thatcher%20mannish](https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=thatcher%20mannish)

------
dghughes
I know it's not cool to say anything bad about drugs these days but maybe it's
because they are harder on your liver.

~~~
Igglyboo
Yea because alcohol is totally not bad for your liver.

~~~
dghughes
I didn't say that it wasn't, I'm well aware alcohol is a drug as is nicotine
but I am referring to the topic of discussion which is psychedelics.

I thought this was Hacker News not reddit.

------
pianoforted
"psychedelics had always been that they were illegal not because it troubles
anyone that you have visions but because there is something about them that
casts doubts on the validity of reality."

No. Psychedelics are illegal because they make you want to run in front of an
oncoming bus because its headlights sound like tchaikovsky and the wind tastes
like blueberries.

~~~
dalke
While vivid, is that true? Given all of the people who have taken LSD, I would
expect more reported accidents of the sort you describe.

According to
[http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-t...](http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-
trends) , about 0.4% of the US uses a hallucinogen each month. According to
[http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
con...](http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics) about 60% have had alcohol in the
same month.

Thats a ratio of about 150. Let's round it up to 200.

Nearly 88,000 people die from alcohol related deaths per year (see
[http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
con...](http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics) ).

Thus, if the risk factors for death related to hallucinogens is higher than
that of alcohol, I would expect to see about 440 such deaths per year.

10,322 died due to alcohol-impaired-driving. Using the same ratio, I would
expect to see about 50 such deaths related to hallucinogens.

I have failed to find deaths of the sort you described, which make me doubt
that there's a simple causal relationship between the number of fatalities and
the prohibition of a substance.

~~~
Symmetry
LSD certainly kills people, but it's down around the danger level (to the
user) of Cannabis or Ecstasy. Much safer than scary drugs like alcohol or
cocaine let alone even worse ones (to the user) like Meth or Heroin.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

(That list has alcohol at the top but that's mainly due to drunk people's
tendency to harm others via driving or violence)

~~~
MichaelGG
Alcohol is far worse than Heroin or the other opiates. Nearly all the problems
with opiates relate to having unknown quantities due to the lack of regulated
producers. The opiate side effect profile is rather tame, mainly constipation.
(Apart from respiratory depression, and the unfortunate people that get
nauseous.)

~~~
vichu
The most heinous thing about opiate overdoses is that there exists a drug
(Naloxone/Narcan) that if administered in a comfortable window of time will
completely negate the effects of the overdose and there are still states in
the US that don't condone or approve of its use among drug addicts.

Here's a link to a Vice documentary talking about it:
[http://www.vice.com/video/back-from-the-brink-heroins-
antido...](http://www.vice.com/video/back-from-the-brink-heroins-antidote-333)

~~~
chinpokomon
I bet Naloxone/Narcan isn't available over the counter so it isn't as
available as it should be. First I'm hearing of this.

~~~
girvo
It's available in Australia at the needle exchange. You do a 1 day course as a
training session, and you're allowed to purchase it. $5 for three doses, which
is pretty great.

