I know it's easier to say "it's obviously bad, so we must ban it"... but I wanted to share some thoughts too.
(I don't use drugs, I stopped smoking, I still drink alcohol)
Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work... For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.
But I don't think a ban on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I think drug prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far stretched, but please read on.
We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits.
People who decide to use drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the law. If you accept a high risk of death, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you.
The fact that a majority of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition only allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse.
Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict kills/hurts/steals from you, he risks jail anyway for that (not so much for using drugs!). Prohibition doesn't protect us.
Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. Research could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe a startup could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society would start teaching people about psychology and altered states of mind... Maybe drug traffics would plummet, leading to less violence. Maybe we could then treat all addictions, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is probably barring some from seeking help. And I believe I'm not creative/clever enough to imagine all those changes that would occur.
Lastly, it's widely accepted on HN that we must measure the effects of the actions we take. Reconsidering prohibition will allow such measurement and we'll build our future more wisely.
There will still be casualties, but think again about that cantaloupe... You can't ban cantaloupe to save me from myself.
I don't think that people using potentially dangerous drugs want the drug to kill them, or have a complete disrespect of the law. While alcohol isn't an illegal drug let there be no mistake that it is absolutely a drug in every sense of the word and there is high risk of abuse, dependence, and harm. A huge number of people die each year from the abuse of alcohol. AA exists for a reason and you can buy beer almost anywhere.
But let's not talk about drugs that pose a mortal risk for a moment. Instead, let's focus on the topic at hand which is psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, etc... These all carry different risk profiles individually but overall it is safe to say that risk of dependence or lethal overdose are several magnitudes less than that of alcohol, cocaine, nicotine, or opiates. Yes, there is always the chance of a bad trip and it is entirely possible that poor decisions are made on LSD or mushrooms (if you are making poor decisions while on DMT, it would only be in conversations you're having in your head as you aren't walking about on that drug). I also don't know anyone addicted to LSD.
And while I've heard of few people having life-changing positive breakthroughs while trash drunk on alcohol or buzzing from nicotine, I have met scores of people who have had such experiences on comparatively safe psychedelics.
As you say, prohibition has run its course especially for psychedelic drugs and must end. Are there 'bad' drugs out there? Absolutely! But there are many more positive ways to deal with them through education and resources.
I agree with you, on every point. As for risks, it's just a risk, a probability... Cantaloupe won't kill me instantly either. And I've tried hash/weed before (as well as another unidentified drug poured into my glass. my girlfriend bought the glass. Probably GHB. I actually liked it, I only regret not choosing it).
And I must say I'd like to try LSD.
Yet there's a risk. I've suffered a cerebral stroke 10 years ago, and that condition could raise that risk. I'm aware of it. Anyway, I decide.
Prohibition? yes, it's hugely inefficient. We grow as we learn to deal with our lives by ourself... Prohibition tries to prevent the society from coping with problems, without avoiding the problems themselves. How is it supposed to even work?
> Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work... For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.
OT, but why do you drink if you feel this way? Alcohol is perhaps one of the least safe recreational drugs there is. Of course, with proper dosage management and supervision from a sober individual, the risk is minimal. But that applies to all drugs, doesn't it?
But I'm not pro-drugs in the sense that I won't promote drugs. But I'm not anti-drugs either.
I guess if anti==prohibition then pro==promotion... If that's a scale, it's not binary, and I'm just not at one of the extremes.
If drugs were marvelous, enlightening and risk-free, of course I'd be pro drugs! Who wouldn't? So yes, it's a scale.
It is my opinion that prohibition remains in effect because too many powerful groups profit from it. Even small-time marijuana growers in California were against legalization because it would affect their livelihood.
Trade in illicit drugs is estimated at over $300 billion per year or about 1% of global trade. That's huge...and it doesn't even account for the other side of the coin which is the amount of tax dollars that the DEA, your local police and other groups can take control of to "fight" the war on drugs which they don't really want to end. Furthermore, I am convinced that governmental intelligence agencies who need secret money to run their "black ops" do indeed take profits from the sale of illicit drugs. Nobody can prove it of course (well, maybe Gary Webb could have, but he's dead now).
So, I think that arguing from the standpoint that laws are made to protect the public just doesn't work here.
Government agencies like the DEA benefit greatly from penalization of drugs. And governments hate closing agencies and firing people. Governments love a good fight, a costly one. And governments don't care about efficiency: it could be negative, they'd throw more of our money at it to get results.
But I think we can't reject as a whole that "laws are made to protect the public". Some laws are stupid, when they try to protect you from yourself. Laws that protect you from others' enactments on you are mostly sane. Laws should be restricted to preventing prejudice I think.
Without prohibition, drug dealers could still be prosecuted for not informing customers properly or, in extreme cases, for poisoning their clients. And that's good, because it would mean they'd have responsibility. They'd make their products better, safer... like every other business must do.
Prohibition removes the responsibility argument in favor of a stupid "it's forbidden"... It's like a shortcut that doesn't take you where you wanted.
Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work... For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.
But I don't think a ban on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I think drug prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far stretched, but please read on.
We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits. People who decide to use drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the law. If you accept a high risk of death, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you.
The fact that a majority of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition only allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse.
Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict kills/hurts/steals from you, he risks jail anyway for that (not so much for using drugs!). Prohibition doesn't protect us.
Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. Research could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe a startup could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society would start teaching people about psychology and altered states of mind... Maybe drug traffics would plummet, leading to less violence. Maybe we could then treat all addictions, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is probably barring some from seeking help. And I believe I'm not creative/clever enough to imagine all those changes that would occur.
Lastly, it's widely accepted on HN that we must measure the effects of the actions we take. Reconsidering prohibition will allow such measurement and we'll build our future more wisely.
There will still be casualties, but think again about that cantaloupe... You can't ban cantaloupe to save me from myself.