[grive]

> I imagine that 200 years from now we might look back at using all these substances as something as dumb as drawing blood with leeches for a migraine or something.

The reason to take those substance is to get a modified state of mind. In that effect, they are successful. It's not comparable to something that was just doing 'nothing' toward its stated goal. The goal is not to live to 120+ years. No one takes coffee thinking 'this will help me live an exceedingly long life'.

On the other hand, it's not so much imagining a society with this list banned that is difficult. It's to imagine a government capable of enforcing such banning.

I think it is infinitely more likely that in 50 years, it will be recognized as a folly to have spent so much money into trying to ban those substance. If the goal is to effectively reduce consumption, outright banning is not the way to go. Also, I have a personal belief that mental health is on the verge of revolution, and psilocybin in particular will be made more available, possibly even for recreational use.

I have not seen a good reason for now to reduce my caffeine consumption. I drink two cups per days, one of which is decaffeinated. I try to read regularly to see if new info arises there, and so far nothing. The only justification I might have to stop this consumption is the work condition for the producers and having to import it from afar.

[oblio]

I agree with you, the goal is obviously instant gratification. Which is the problem. Most of the stuff that is good for us is in the delayed gratification camp.

We're discovering that due to increased aggression (alcohol), increased aging rates and increased cancer risk (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, vaping, etc), these substances as a whole contribute to lower life expectancies. For alcohol and tobacco it's usually the worst kind, their users reduce life expectancies for <<others>>.

It's not super clear cut and research is still ongoing. Plus a government ban without popular support was the Prohibition, which everyone considers a dumb move these days.

This whole thing would need popular support, even more than that, <<consensus>>. People need to realize these problems and find solutions for them, and only then ban them, to formalize this decision.