So silly, considering all the noise and accidents alcohol directly causes. But then a single bad case after someone taking psychedelics, and they reverse.
Its not silly, for some psychedelics are fine and they can handle them ok. But others have psychotic breaks that are irreversible. I feel like SF is already a city that is very dysfunctional with crazies screaming at nothing, why make a really bad situation worse?
Some people who drink alcohol are fine and they can handle it okay. Others drink and drive and kill people, or become addicted and/or kill themselves. Should we go back to prohibition?
This is a straw man argument, having a permanent mental change after having a "bad trip" on psychedelics is not analogous to drinking a beer or too much whisky and doing something dumb(or worse). There is not evidence that a person consumes one drink and goes into psychosis or has permanent mental changes like with psychedelics. I am not against having psychedelics for certain situations(under controlled situations) but you are playing with fire and your mind and sanity are the tinder and are rolling the dice so to speak.
Citation required. I have yet to see a single reputable paper or study that describes a 'permanent mental change' for the worse, like psychosis, after a single encounter with psychedelics.
Perhaps not a single bad trip, but a couple years of bad drug habits can lead to permanent brain damage among those who aren't careful and knowledgeable about what they ingest and the dosage. It is a factor in the homelessness crisis.
Yes, and both substances should be controlled. Uncontrolled hard drugs are harmful to society, but it seems like the ignorant, naive youth of today are going to have to learn some hard lessons on the topic from first principles.
Organized crime doesn't profit from murder to anywhere close to the same degree it did from illicit alcohol sales or still does from illicit drug sales.
Crying "whataboutism" isn't a rhetorical shortcut to dismiss a reasonable argument. It's hypocritical and silly to allow alcohol and not other recreational drugs with similar safety profiles. It's also untenable to completely restrict alcohol.
Yes, but hallucinations aren't the main problem. Assaulting people and zigzaging on the road after just a few drinks is a bigger problem than having blurry vision and seeing weird colors. I took a shitton of psychedelics, I never saw anything that wasn't there.
Psychedelics never made me black out, piss on the floor/all over the room, never made me want to assault someone, or made me act like an asshole, but alcohol on the other hand....
You might be overestimating the effects of hallucination. Someone who's hallucinating is not necessarily more impaired than someone who is drunk.
Imagine this- you hear something behind you (a real sound), and for a moment you are startled, thinking someone else is in the room. You soon realize that this isn't the case.
Someone on hallucinogens might take a moment longer to realize that there is nobody there. They imagine the intruder a little more vividly, their heart rate goes up a bit more. But just for a moment.
In contrast, if there actually is someone there, a drunk person might not realize it. Their senses are dulled. Instead of seeing things that aren't there, they fail to notice things that are there. It's the opposite.
You're right that the safety profiles are dissimilar, but if anything it's the other way around: alcohol is significantly more likely to result in long-term illness or death than e.g. LSD.
That said, alcohol is a lot more predictable in its effects for a given dosage. And also the dosages are a lot more reliable. There's a reason it's perceived "not as bad" as hallucinogenic drugs.
"Similar" does not mean "identical." Yes, they affect the brain in different ways. The net safety profile for individuals and society is (arguably) similar.
One drug is possibly more harmful but is already legal almost everywhere, deeply ingrained in many aspects of Western society and has a history of issues regarding criminalization
The other is possibly less harmful but it is currently illegal/controlled pretty much everywhere and has a niche demand.
I think its entirely reasonable to think that we should not open up a whole new can of worms.
How is the can of worms not already open? The War on Drugs has failed to put a dent in drug consumption habits.
My suspicion why there was an uptick of incidents in NL/Amsterdam was the influx of people specifically seeking those substances out, with little safety education or experience. If they were more widely available, the incidents would be far more diffuse, and likely fall below the noise floor. Plus, wider awareness means better overall substance education and understanding, meaning fewer folks getting in over their heads and acting a fool.
The same "can of worms" argument was leveled against cannabis legalization, and turned out to be overblown, there was no outbreak of reefer madness.
Good time to quote the cosmic bard, Terence McKenna.
"Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong."
