For a governing body, its logical to automatically be suspicious of any recreational drug. Being recrestional means it'll be used more often than a non-recreational or non-addictive drug. The effects of use will be much more widespread.
Even if you have liberal/libertarian beliefs about personal choice and responsibility, the fact is that its not possible to know if a drug is poisonous without careful testing. Putting things in yoyr body by any means is rarely healthy. I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that the odds for any given chemical are objectively long. Its not unreasonable for the government to outlaw a new substance that would be very popular.
Thats how all pharmaceuticals are done; to sell medicine you have to prove not just that it works and is safe but that it works better than the competition. They certainly scoff at the experiences of joe public, and they clearly should. Joe public may know what makes him sick, but he has no idea what may give him liver damage, cancer, etc. Etc.
Once youre on the FDAs bad list, it takes real concerted effort to get off for any drug. The bar should not be lowered for generic remedies. The only problem is that there is no incentive to prove that drugs like this are safe. High profile illegal drugs are not the only examples of this either- melatonin is one of the best sleep aids period, but nobody had any incentive to push it through the FDA until recently, so doctors legally couldn't prescribe an excellent medication.
People making decisions about their own health is a separate issue- there is no data on these drugs (from the governments pov). I'll also note that people having full control over their health is a terrible idea. Sure, it works okay for testosterone, probably. But what about antibiotics? Antibiotic resistance would be a global crisis.
The root of the problem you mean is that theres no process to go from a therapeutic drug like weed to a legal vice like alcohol. The government doednt even have a category for that. Call it moralizing, but still, how would tgat even work? IMO its nontrivial to draw a line there. Weed is definitely on one side, but is testosterone supplementation, or HGH? You can serioudly fuck up your brain taking SSRIs wrong, and you can do much worse with steroids or HGH, and thats without considering extremely dangerous AND addictive drugs like opioids.
I would argue the government has some interest in preventing the abuse of certain drugs. Specifically when a person is addicted and endangering themselves, they are no longer acting like a rational person and its reasonable to assume that they are not in control of themselves. Personally I think the line should be with effect, not cause. If you are an alcoholic I think the government should be able to cut you off. If you want to get high, they should let you. If you want to modify your body, it should be legal until your life is endangered.
For a governing body, its logical to automatically be suspicious of any recreational drug. Being recrestional means it'll be used more often than a non-recreational or non-addictive drug. The effects of use will be much more widespread.
Even if you have liberal/libertarian beliefs about personal choice and responsibility, the fact is that its not possible to know if a drug is poisonous without careful testing. Putting things in yoyr body by any means is rarely healthy. I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that the odds for any given chemical are objectively long. Its not unreasonable for the government to outlaw a new substance that would be very popular.
Thats how all pharmaceuticals are done; to sell medicine you have to prove not just that it works and is safe but that it works better than the competition. They certainly scoff at the experiences of joe public, and they clearly should. Joe public may know what makes him sick, but he has no idea what may give him liver damage, cancer, etc. Etc.
Once youre on the FDAs bad list, it takes real concerted effort to get off for any drug. The bar should not be lowered for generic remedies. The only problem is that there is no incentive to prove that drugs like this are safe. High profile illegal drugs are not the only examples of this either- melatonin is one of the best sleep aids period, but nobody had any incentive to push it through the FDA until recently, so doctors legally couldn't prescribe an excellent medication.
People making decisions about their own health is a separate issue- there is no data on these drugs (from the governments pov). I'll also note that people having full control over their health is a terrible idea. Sure, it works okay for testosterone, probably. But what about antibiotics? Antibiotic resistance would be a global crisis.
The root of the problem you mean is that theres no process to go from a therapeutic drug like weed to a legal vice like alcohol. The government doednt even have a category for that. Call it moralizing, but still, how would tgat even work? IMO its nontrivial to draw a line there. Weed is definitely on one side, but is testosterone supplementation, or HGH? You can serioudly fuck up your brain taking SSRIs wrong, and you can do much worse with steroids or HGH, and thats without considering extremely dangerous AND addictive drugs like opioids.
I would argue the government has some interest in preventing the abuse of certain drugs. Specifically when a person is addicted and endangering themselves, they are no longer acting like a rational person and its reasonable to assume that they are not in control of themselves. Personally I think the line should be with effect, not cause. If you are an alcoholic I think the government should be able to cut you off. If you want to get high, they should let you. If you want to modify your body, it should be legal until your life is endangered.