[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.

[TheCoelacanth]

What we should do for people who are addicted to drugs is unclear. What we should not do to people who are addicted to drugs is clear and that is to put them in prison.

[blubb-fish]

People become addicted for psychological reasons and because of hopelessness. Those reasons need to be addressed by counseling.

Of course when talking about a society dealing with drugs in a liberal fashion one quickly ends up imagining utopias where people don't have reasons to escape their sad reality. Thinking about better worlds is not a bad thing at all - it's just painful realizing how faaaaar away we are from it.

[Retric]

Markets are not limited to buyers, which means their would be sellers benefiting from and promoting damaging behavior.

Now, if the government is manufacturing and selling without advertising that might be closer to the platonic ideal you're describing.

[blubb-fish]

Regulated manufacturing - like with food and then controlled selling like with alcohol, cigarettes or medical drugs.

I mean nothing is bad by itself - we don't prohibit knives b/c people stab each other.

[tomchristie]

> For me this is a simple philosophical question.

It really shouldn't be. It's a pragmatic question, based on what the likely outcomes and benefits or harms would be for deregulation.

> second of all it is a maturing experience.

Psychedelics put you at far higher risk of experiencing psychosis and other mental health issues. Don't rose-tint it as "maturing experience". You might not have an adverse response. Plenty have.

[blubb-fish]

My stance it to place the responsibility for educating yourself about LSD before taking it on an adult. If that adult doesn't do that - then that's no different to me from driving too fast and causing an accident or trying to climb a mountain without proper preparation and equipment.

Adults have the right to die, to suffer and to harm themselves - I prefer to not get there. But I don't see why the state should base laws on this b/c this will also affect the freedom of me and others who act responsible.