|
|
|
|
|
|
by PragmaticPulp
1089 days ago
|
|
|
> Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". I don’t see how this is at all equivalent, given that “psychedelics” is a well-known term that can be found throughout decades of literature and that gibberish word you just made up has no attached meaning. If you’re equating random gibberish words to well-known words in literature then why does anything have any meaning? Why would a new word have meaning? Regardless, the laws generally don’t refer to “psychedelics”, they refer to specific chemicals by their name. There are numerous compounds that would be considered psychedelics that are, nevertheless, not illegal because they’re not covered by any laws (including analog acts) |
|
|
> Regardless, the laws... refer to specific chemicals by their name.
Not directly, very often. I doubt there's any specific law around Lipitor. Rather, drugs are grouped into categories and then the laws that permit or restrict them are mostly around those categories. Otherwise it would all be incredibly redundant (with exceptions for certain incredibly common drugs like alcohol). And the question here is how to categorize pyschadelics for legal purposes. And saying that we just call them psychadelics answers as many legal questions as saying we call them quooquaquams -- i.e. zero.