drg - drugs 2.0

before we see any of the interesting theories people come up with, I'm going to point out the boring answer - when Prohibition ended, and I guess because the cigarette companies were always there, it became an economic incentive for legal drug sellers to shut down all their competitors - certain puritan values were appropriated in the process and now we're left with the totalitarian drug laws you know today.

The media kicked up a huge storm about them before (and after) they were derezzed. They heavily focused on any injuries/problems caused by it (you can see the same thing happening targeting "bath salts" in the US or mephedrone in the UK). They were also most heavily used by counter-culture groups who were often opposed to the establishment.

Nixon was anti-hippy. This was probably more of a political move than anything else for him. After him more of the prohibitionists (to everything but alcohol & cigs) have opposed every mind altering drug.

Overall I think it's sort of a perception thing. The general public see psychedelics as a dangerous drug. Once the public's perception changes on a issue then the laws will slowly change too.


Though, just for the hell of it, here's a pic. Public perception ≠ factual reality.

>>1291
>cyberpunk image board
>not realizing that capitalism has nothing to do with justice
because the legislators are already in bed with the companies that sell the legal drugs.

It's an ideological thing against intoxication in concept. The drugs may not be very dangerous, but they are extremely strong in effect, thus are considered immoral.

>>1294
Where is this data coming from? And what defines harm?

>>1303
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/abstract
Fulltext: https://d.maxfile.ro/mrwawifkzp.pdf

>>1291
not to say there is anything wrong with LSD but please bare with my waifu
In the early 1900s, when LSD was derezzed a bunch of other psychotropic drugs were getting derezzed with it. America has a track record of placing prohibitions or bans on soykaf it has never even had a problem with. Weed was derezzed because americans were scared of the mexicans coming in after the mexican revolution and blamed their "violent behaviour" on weed. They derezzed it without knowing soykaf about it. LSD had a few anti-LSD ads run against it and it didnt take long for the govs to ban it even though the downsides of lsd were only a few rumors and occasional bad trips. Shrooms were brought into this mass ban of psychotropics too, and my waifu cant remember a second in American history where shrooms were mentioned, popular, or causing harm. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs in existence, however it is socially accepted so there really isnt a problem with the govs, especially with all the money it would bring. So to answer your question
psychotropics are derezzed because of a huge scare that America had of LSD that led to the banning of all psychotropics currently available with exception to a very small few. This is also why the plants to make certain lesser known drugs like ayahuasca are legal but the active ingredients arent(govs throw random ass bans when they are in the midst of a scare and dont even know the fuarrrking plants they can ban)

>>1304
I thought this was related to David Nutt. I'm sure I first saw it when I watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYcBxYe7X-s
Well worth watching. He was sacked from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as chairman because he suggested that cannabis' class B reclassification wasn't in line with how harmful it was.

The only thing that stuck out at me in that video was that graph. It was the only thing that seemed kind of wrong. I can't imagine alcohol being that high and far above some of the other drugs there unless level of use was a factor in the harm rating. But in that case, I would assume tobacco would be higher as those two are the only legal drugs considered (this is focused on the UK). From the fulltext:
>The extent of individual harm is shown by the criteria listed as to users, whereas most criteria listed as to others take account indirectly of the numbers of users. An ACMD report explains the process of developing this model.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that.

Anyway, the relevant take from David in this case is that prohibition is perpetuated by politics for the ignorant 'Hard on drugs' vote. Taking a realistic view of drugs would make it too easy for the opposition to accuse you of being soft on drugs. As to how we came to this point in the first place, there are a lot of contributing factors. Let me see if I can find some good videos for you. I was watching a lot of documentaries about drugs in general and specific drugs a few months ago. I think MDMA specifically was pretty interesting.

>>1338
Ecstasy Rising
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps

Inside LSD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgUFqAdGN24

Dirty Pictures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXHyKyoHJzo

They're not focused on prohibition, but they do go over the history of Ecstacy and LSD including their ban. Dirty Pictures is more about Shulgin but it also talks about the effect the bans have on the research of these drugs. There are probably better films specifically about prohibition and the War on Drugs™ but I haven't looked for them.

Does it matter?

Fringe groups engage in fringe activities. You can't stop this kind of thing.

The way I see it, modern politics feels the need to concern itself with the average man. In this world, the average man does not need psychedelic drugs and, given the choice, probably wouldn't take them.

For the chosen few, however, this means very little. Policing of psychedelic drug use is usually pretty minimal. It's damn hard to pick most of that stuff up on a drug test, and in terms of damage caused to oneself, property and others, psychs are pretty harmless compared to other drugs.

As a result of that, these specific fringe groups can carry on with their fringe activities relatively unmolested. Just because homosexuality was legislated against various times in various places would absolutely not have meant that people who felt that way inclined wouldn't have found some way of getting their fix.

To take this to a more abstract sociological level, I believe their are roles in society (at all levels of development) that can only be adequately filled by those who swim against the current or march to the beat of their own drum. Pioneers, priests, shamans, artists, inventors, conquerors and theoretical scientists have all benefited from doing so.

>>1291
>Psilocybin, LSD and DMT are practically non-toxic
Yes if you rule out the cases of people stabbing themselves.

>>1586
I don't think a substance's toxicity is determined by the things people do to themselves while under the influence of said substance.

You can't argue that the classic psychedelics are pretty much harmless to your physique.

It's all to do with the CIA's MKULTRA program, before that LSD was legal.

When the US government realised the horrible things that the CIA did to people with LSD, it was made illegal to bury the whole thing.

Any other countries apart of the five eyes alliance would have done the same stuff the CIA did no doubt.

is just age old politics still having a say in what goes on in the 21st century

like reefer madness and mexican immigrant paranoia

The government wants to ban anything that directly effects the way you think and act. Alcohol would of been illegal too if it wasn't for the massive shitstorm that prohibition caused.

>>1292
this


>>1631
alcohol is legal because it's an old, traditional drug with very powerful corporations behind it, and it's impossible to criminalize it in the western world without some dictator-level political clout.

People always give these "because they expand your mind and the government doesn't want that!" responses, but I really don't think that's the case.
The anti-drug mentality is typically steeped in ignorance and prejudice as well as a feeling of superiority. The people in charge looked at hippies in the 60s (remember that LSD was legal back then and mushrooms could be grown at home legally) and said "Look at these dirty idiots. They're wasting their lives consuming these drugs and ruining society. We need to ban drugs."
And that's exactly what they did. Timothy Leary and company running around going "ACID IS THE BEST THING EVER!" did not help either.
And now drugs continue to get derezzed (RC get scheduled after a few years of popularity) because the current people in charge are maintaining the status quo. They do this either because they believe the same things that their predecessors though, or because they are looking to please other people who do (their superiors or the voting public).

“I'm glad mushrooms are against the law, because I took them one time, and you know what happened to me? I laid in a field of green grass for four hours going, "My God! I love everything." Yeah, now if that isn't a hazard to our country... How are we gonna justify arms dealing when we realize that we're all one?” --Bill Hicks

>>1294
>suggesting ghb is less harmful than weed
>suggesting fuarrrking butane is less harmful than weed
This is a really shitty chart, the primary issue I see is that prevalence and actual "harmfulness" are not clearly distinguished

>>1294
its obvious these stats are flawed.
not as many people do illegal drugs compared to those who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.

>>1986
No soykaf . The harm statistics are obviously put to scale.
>heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.

>>1738
yes this