[maverick451]

> Tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than LSD, GSB or ecstasy

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They are more harmfull because they are legal

Nope, they are chemically more harmful and dependence forming. LSD, in particular, is impossible to get addicted to.

> good trips cannot justify the legalization of hard drugs

I’m refuting the point that there is no upside.

> 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

Are you sure you aren’t projecting personal experiences?

> book in question is just one opinion amongst many

The author was the head of the U.K.’s ACMD.

I don’t think you’re a misanthrope. But I hope you get the help you need.

[maverick451]

> Nope, they are chemically more harmful and dependence forming.

So are you saying that tobacco and alcohol are also drugs? Good, I too consider them drugs. Tobacco should also be criminalized and hard liquor restricted. Their current legal status does not mean that other drugs are fine, that is a logical fallacy.

> LSD, in particular, is impossible to get addicted to.

So what, it is harmfull enough as it is. No need to become addicted to fry up your brains and sanity. Since you haven't tried it, I don't get why such fuss about it.

> I’m refuting the point that there is no upside.

No, you are grasping at straws by presenting something borderline and irrelevant as important. LSD is irrelevant for the problem of drug addiction and legalization. If the junkies were taking LSD instead of meth and fentanyl, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

> Are you sure you aren’t projecting personal experiences?

Are you sure you're not living under a rock, in an echo chamber or in a protective bubble?

> The author was the head of the U.K.’s ACMD.

And Fauci was the head of NIAID. That's the good ole "trust the experts" logical fallacy. Anyway, I said that his opinion might be interesting. I didn't know it was like a scriptural reference for you, my apologies, friend. There are many other experts with the same level of expertise and quite different opinions, you know, you shouldn't fixate on just that single one.

> I don’t think you’re a misanthrope.

Why not? I would consider that a compliment. A moderate realist is a "misanthrope" for a deranged society. I don't care much for groupthink anyway, I don't herd.

> But I hope you get the help you need.

Well, at least I have no need for drugs or manufactured artificial needs and state-approved life sweeteners like a drug legalization proponents.

So perhaps it is you who are projecting, with all that jazz about drug legalization etc, eh? Well, may you find the magic pill you need, good luck with that. Who am I to reassure you. Although it won't help you much in life.

“The biggest question may be in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people. The problem would be boredom and how, what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless. My best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games." -Yuval Noah Harari (just add pornography to the mix and stir)

[JumpCrisscross]

> are you saying that tobacco and alcohol are also drugs?

Yes.

> Tobacco should also be criminalized and hard liquor restricted

I want to ban crotchetiness.

> Since you haven't tried it, I don't get why such fuss about it

Have you tried every hard drug?

> LSD is irrelevant for the problem of drug addiction and legalization

Yet you still want to ban it.

> the good ole "trust the experts" logical fallacy

Over zero or hyperbolic evidence, yes. This is rational.

Also, you’re arguing against argument from authority by arguing for continuing to ban already-banned substances? You’re on the authority’s side!

> Why not? I would consider that a compliment

This is fair, but you shouldn’t have an input on policy. Society is not a misanthropic enterprise.

> useless people

I’ll choose the world with Steve Jobs, Paul Erdõs and Robin Williams over a hardline Sharia vision of humanity.