Research bans on any substances are the most ignorant laws in existence. Schedule 1 should not exist. How can we know how to treat addicts? People who are exposed to the substance? How can we...
Research bans on any substances are the most ignorant laws in existence. Schedule 1 should not exist. How can we know how to treat addicts? People who are exposed to the substance? How can we learn about the body and brain?
Definitely, they're great and minimally harmful. I'd argue that alcohol is more dangerous than most psychedelics, though I admit it's easier to "abuse" psychedelics in the sense that the dose is...
Definitely, they're great and minimally harmful. I'd argue that alcohol is more dangerous than most psychedelics, though I admit it's easier to "abuse" psychedelics in the sense that the dose is minuscule and can easily be taken in inappropriate situations.
It's a lot more than just that. This UK study does a good job of outlining how it costs the economy (the UK economy, in this case). The reaches of alcohol are far further than just "cultural...
Alcohol has a high cost in part because its usage (and abuse) is culturally ingrained
It's a lot more than just that. This UK study does a good job of outlining how it costs the economy (the UK economy, in this case). The reaches of alcohol are far further than just "cultural appropriateness".
The way alcohol works on the brain happens to be a bad combination when it comes to cost to society - things that both suppress motor functions and cognitive thought happen to have very costly side effects -increased violence, increased risk-taking behavior, etc.
I haven't a clue how psychedelics would scale
Luckily for you, scientists have already studied this. I will admit some of these studies have some inherent bias, but they do a pretty darn good job of objectively assessing the potential impact a drug has on a variety of levels.
But the crowd that uses psychedelics now would be very different from the one that uses it if it was legal.
You're right, but the inherent cost of a drug has more to do with how the drug influences the average person's mind and less to do with issues of scale. An easy way to think of this, is to look at a drug that has no effect on human cognition, such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen. The proliferation of these drugs has not cost society because they do not promote behavior that is negative, such as increasing violent behavior or impairing cognition.
While psychedelics can cause self injury/harm (especially if taken in large doses, often on accident or because of their poor quality control) they very rarely cause the harm of others because the way they effect the brain is just not the same as alcohol or other costly drugs. They are also not addictive, so there aren't any of the issues you see with addictive but relatively harmless (to society) drugs like opioids.
Alcohol is also addictive, is hepatoxic, overdoses can cause death, and has terrible withdrawal symptoms that are debilitating. Most psychedelics fit none of those criteria.
Alcohol is also addictive, is hepatoxic, overdoses can cause death, and has terrible withdrawal symptoms that are debilitating. Most psychedelics fit none of those criteria.
Not just psychedelics, but it's a shame how it's so hard to even get them for use in a therapeutic setting.
Research bans on any substances are the most ignorant laws in existence. Schedule 1 should not exist. How can we know how to treat addicts? People who are exposed to the substance? How can we learn about the body and brain?
We should always loosen the restrictions on Psychedelics. Except of course, when we enter bat country.
Definitely, they're great and minimally harmful. I'd argue that alcohol is more dangerous than most psychedelics, though I admit it's easier to "abuse" psychedelics in the sense that the dose is minuscule and can easily be taken in inappropriate situations.
You don't have to argue it, it's already been proven by science. Alcohol has a much higher cost on society than any psychedelic.
It's a lot more than just that. This UK study does a good job of outlining how it costs the economy (the UK economy, in this case). The reaches of alcohol are far further than just "cultural appropriateness".
The way alcohol works on the brain happens to be a bad combination when it comes to cost to society - things that both suppress motor functions and cognitive thought happen to have very costly side effects -increased violence, increased risk-taking behavior, etc.
Luckily for you, scientists have already studied this. I will admit some of these studies have some inherent bias, but they do a pretty darn good job of objectively assessing the potential impact a drug has on a variety of levels.
You're right, but the inherent cost of a drug has more to do with how the drug influences the average person's mind and less to do with issues of scale. An easy way to think of this, is to look at a drug that has no effect on human cognition, such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen. The proliferation of these drugs has not cost society because they do not promote behavior that is negative, such as increasing violent behavior or impairing cognition.
While psychedelics can cause self injury/harm (especially if taken in large doses, often on accident or because of their poor quality control) they very rarely cause the harm of others because the way they effect the brain is just not the same as alcohol or other costly drugs. They are also not addictive, so there aren't any of the issues you see with addictive but relatively harmless (to society) drugs like opioids.
Alcohol is also addictive, is hepatoxic, overdoses can cause death, and has terrible withdrawal symptoms that are debilitating. Most psychedelics fit none of those criteria.