| > what all that have to do with drugs anyway? Alcohol and cannabis are drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than LSD, GSB or ecstasy [1][2]. > are neither fun nor novel nor especially risky from a legal point of view Seriously? I've never taken LSD, but there are exactly zero accounts that characterise it as "neither fun nor novel." Also, we're debating drugs' legality. Saying they're dangerous because they're illegal is tautological. > just degenerate and debilitating Amphetamines, opiates and tropane alkaloids have legitimate medical uses. And there are cultures with a long history of responsibly using them. I don't agree with OP in being overly permissive with their distribution; many people can't handle them, and until we can predict which people can't handle which drugs recreationally, due to neurochemistry or personality issues, I'm against broad legalisation. But plenty of people–including extremely productive, society-improving people (e.g. Paul Erdõs [3])–used drugs, while plenty of sober people are useless and boring. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/19068... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/De... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős |
.svg/300px-Development_of_a_rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_of_potential_misuse_(physical_harm_and_dependence,_NA_free_means).svg.png){kind=link}
Tobacco and alcohol are statistically probably more harmful than nuclear weaponry. They are more harmfull because they are legal. If people took ecstasy in the same quantities as tobacco and alcohol, then the picture would be different.
> I've never taken LSD, but there are exactly zero accounts that characterise it as "neither fun nor novel."
That example is not quite adequate. Acidheads are minority among drug users, and good trips cannot justify the legalization of hard drugs. Not to mention the bad trips. Or the mental disorders caused by LSD. https://www.biography.com/musicians/syd-barrett-pink-floyd
> Amphetamines, opiates and tropane alkaloids have legitimate medical uses. And there are cultures with a long history of responsibly using them. I don't agree with OP in being overly permissive with their distribution; many people can't handle them, and until we can predict which people can't handle which drugs recreationally, due to neurochemistry or personality issues, I'm against broad legalisation.
The automatic weaponry also have some legitimate uses, that does not mean everyone should own one. Yes, some cultures used some drugs responsibly. That drugs were treated as sacred plants and were not readily available to everyone. No, contemporary Western culture is not a responsible one. On the contrary. Most of society are shallow overly-hedonistic entitled simpletons, fighting among themselves like rats in a cage. If you give them free drugs you will just dig them deeper and worsen the situation. Too many dopamine burners around anyway.
The book in question is just one opinion amongst many. Interesting, perhaps. Decisive, no. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, plenty of fine (and some less fine) people have used drugs. No, that does not mean it should be legal. At least not when hard drugs are considered.