In Case You Were Wondering
Pot makes me want to have oral sex with a pan of brownies and then take a three-year nap.
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) September 27, 2017
I'd rather smoke kale, thanks. (And sometimes do -- with the occasional small accidental fire in my microwave, when I cook the kale in a Pyrex dish in bacon grease.)
On a related note, "The Case For Psychedelics," by W. Keith Campbell and Brandon Weiss:
Before they were banned, psychedelics had given us insight into human nature. In 1943 Albert Hoffman's discovery of LSD propelled the understanding of the role that neurochemistry plays in mental illness and brain function. The discovery was highly controversial because it sat outside the behaviourist paradigm that was dominant within psychology at the time. Hoffman's discovery proved prescient. Over the next half-century, drugs were developed to treat disorders like depression, the most popular of which are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Yet while these are effective, they are often taken for a lifetime, cost a great deal of money, and have compromising side effects such as sexual dysfunction. After 1966, creatives could still drink coffee and alcohol and smoke cigarettes, but even cannabis was banned as Schedule I. By the 1970s, prisons had filled up with offenders convicted of drug crimes, and we received the cultural blessings of cocaine and disco.We argue that the decision to ban therapeutic use of psychedelics was a tragic mistake. As was the massive restriction of the scientific investigation of these drugs. Doing so clearly--if unintentionally--benefited operators of the prison system, pharmaceutical companies and people who just wanted to bust hippies. It harmed everyone else. And as supervised therapeutic use and scientific investigation stalled, people still continued to use the drugs recreationally, so the actual risk to citizens probably increased.
We hope to make the case to legalize psychedelics for therapeutic use, including for psychotherapy, self-discovery and creativity, and for research. We will not make a case for recreational use or use by minors. This is part of a larger discussion of how much freedom people should have and at what level of maturity--the argument for freedom is crucially important but falls under a much larger concept of liberty. We are making what is essentially a pragmatic argument. Legalizing psychedelics will ease suffering, promote economic progress, and propel religious and or spiritual growth.
And no, the government does not have a right to tell you what you can put in your body and where you can go in your mind.
The government's rightful role is protecting other people from any harms -- like if you take LSD and the try to turn your Prius into a flying car.
The rule for drugs is the same as the rule for a whole lot of things: Take precautions so you aren't a dangerous asshole.
And no, the government does not have a right to tell you what you can put in your body and where you can go in your mind.
I agree with this almost 100%. The only exception I'd make is if a substance is virtually guaranteed to make you dangerous to others. Perhaps PCP would qualify, but certainly not pot, hallucinogens or narcotics.
Rex Little at September 28, 2017 12:17 AM
Pot makes me want to have oral sex with a pan of brownies and then take a three-year nap.
6:04 AM - Sep 28, 2017
Well for me it is a margarita and a bag of tortilla chips, but yea, I get what you mean.
Isab at September 28, 2017 12:39 AM
Your indignantly harrumphing that the government has no right to tell you what you can put in your body doesn't change the fact that, yes, they do have that right.
Dump illegal drugs into your body and argue your position all the way to the Supreme Court. I will visit you in prison.
Pot smokers tend to be a pretty chill bunch. They sit around, get high, and when they run out, they wait until the next paycheck and get some more.
Crackheads, on the other hand, tend to think that you should be funding their crack habit and aren't above injuring or killing you should you object to paying.
Don't you ever make another complaint about your soaring medical costs. Because if you think crack should be legal, then you can finance their habit, and you can pay for the treatment for their mutated children.
Patrick at September 28, 2017 5:36 AM
No, Patrick, the government doesn't have the right to control what you put in your body--it has the power. Not the same thing.
Rex Little at September 28, 2017 6:22 AM
Rex Little: No, Patrick, the government doesn't have the right to control what you put in your body--it has the power.
Take that rationale to the Supreme Court. Let me know how it works for you.
Patrick at September 28, 2017 6:38 AM
Now, we're getting into the debate about what powers were given to the government to "provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Heavy drug use and rising crime rates are statistically correlated. California decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs and its petty crime rate is soaring as tweakers commit vandalism crimes to obtain something to sell to fund their next fix. Breaking into cars, stealing items from people's mailboxes, and other nuisance crimes are skyrocketing as addicts seek enough money to buy another fix.
Does allowing a large portion of the population to spend its days strung out and committing petty crimes provide for the general welfare? Does having a spiraling crime rate provide for the common defense? Or does the government have and obligation to act?
The most easily abused clause in the Constitution is "provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." It seemingly gives the government a blank check, as Hamilton argued. Madison argued it did not give the government a blank check. So far, it seems Hamilton is winning.
Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2017 7:12 AM
Drugs as a free for all proponents always talk about how people should be able to use what they want, with the assumption that these addicts will suddenly begin using these substances in moderation, or that new users will not turn into hard core addicts. I highly doubt crack, meth and heroin users with just keep it recreational and not inflict their issues on others. The drug war obviously hasn't worked, but thinking that making these substances legal is not going to suddenly make them harmless. As far as pot smokers go, I have never met one that did not depend on it and epitomize the unmotivated, burnout with wicked anxiety that they thought the pot was helping, when it was actually causing it.
Stormy at September 28, 2017 8:11 AM
"The government's rightful role is protecting other people from any harms -- like if you take LSD and the try to turn your Prius into a flying car."
What I have been asking for years is simple:
How do you do that?
BEFORE you make something more available, you should think of the consequences. Some of these drugs have no upside for millions of people.
Radwaste at September 28, 2017 8:38 AM
Ah, drugs!
In theory, I'd like to be a proponent of adults being able to use whatever substance they want. However, I work in downtown Austin, and right now the junkies and crackheads and methheads are so numerous it's scary in the middle of the day. I walk down Congress to the sandwich shop and this dude-always on the same bench- tries calling me over to give him money. Sometimes, on my way back up, he's already nodded off. Yesterday I walked down a different street (Brazos) to avoid the Congress panhandlers. There was a group of at least a dozen methheads (white, buzz-cut, skinny, shirtless, wild-eyed) congregated in front of the methodist church. So, I took the return path up Congress and witnessed a crackwhore run up to a car with an open window, reach in and grab something, and run off. This is all between noon and one, in the middle of the day. Cops have been kicking the troublemakers out of the homeless shelter and now they're moving into the business district. These people aren't loser Uncle Joe who still lives at Grandma's house and smokes dope in the garage; these are people who will corner a woman in an alley and knock her teeth out to steal her purse. So, point is, actual grown-up life experience has made me way less libertarian on the drug thing.
As for hallucinogens: I can see how there might be some thereputic uses, but only in limited, monitored circumstances. Ever met an old acid burnout? I have. It's awful. We know people who had to be institutionalized because their whole reality turned into one constant acid flashback. Then there's shit like MDMA that's lots of fun until it wears off and you're so down you can't get out of bed and you have boils all over your face. Yum.
Stoners: I know lots. Most of them are gainfully employed middle-class folk, or contractors of some type. But, since WE are educated middle-class people with decent careers, that's what we're surrounded by, anyway. I know there are plenty of useless stoner types, but I think that might be a chicken and egg thing. Certain people were going to be unmotivated and lazy no matter what. (Obviously the pot doesn't help.) My dad was a stoner an alcoholic. But his dad was also an alcoholic (who drank himself to death by 45). I honestly don't know if dad would have been anything other than a loser, even if he'd been sober. Are shitty attitudes heritable traits?
ahw at September 28, 2017 9:16 AM
Not all drugs are the same. Crack, meth, and heroin have huge obvious issues. Same with pcp. But pot and some others aren't the same. They do have personal downsides but the societal ones are much less obvious. Which is why people used the 'gateway drug' argument. But time has shown that to be pretty much false.
Stormy, I've met lots of potheads. And lots of former potheads. A lot of them just stop using all on their own. It just doesn't do anything for them anymore and they just aren't interested in it so they stop. But old potheads are different. It never hit that point for them. Far as I can tell even if the pot went away or was never there to begin with they would still be useless people with no future. So I'm with Ahw. Some people are just a waste of space and there isn't much you can do about it.
"Are shitty attitudes heritable traits?"
Yes. Through multiple ways. But just because something is heritable doesn't mean it is inevitable.
Ben at September 28, 2017 9:47 AM
"junkies and crackheads and methheads"
Toss 'em in the rehab, unless they're committing violent crimes, in which case toss 'em in the rehab and then send them to prison.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 28, 2017 11:03 AM
@Gog: There's too many of them. I don't think it's that simple. And who's going to pay for it? We don't even take care of our NON-addict mentally ill around here.
ahw at September 28, 2017 11:16 AM
As if rehab really works.....
Stormy at September 28, 2017 11:54 AM
I was surprised there was no mention of Dr. Eric Kast. Well, here you go.
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/dying.htm
...In spite of what to an LSD therapist might at present appear as shortcomings in Kast's studies, the historical value of his pioneering effort is unquestionable. He not only discovered the analgesic value of LSD for some patients with intractable pain, but he also brought forth the first experimental evidence for Aldous Huxley's suggestion that the administration of LSD might ease the encounter with death in persons suffering from cancer. Kast concluded the last of his studies by stating that, according to his observations, LSD is capable not only of improving the lot of dying individuals by making them more responsive to their environment and family, but it also enhances their ability to appreciate the nuances and subtleties of everyday life. It gives them aesthetic satisfaction and "creates a new will to live and a zest for experience, which, against a background of dismal darkness and preoccupying fear, produces an exciting and promising outlook."
The encouraging results of Kast's studies inspired Sidney Cohen, a prominent Los Angeles psychiatrist, friend of Aldous Huxley, and one of the pioneers in LSD research, to start a program of psychedelic therapy for individuals dying of cancer. Unfortunately the results of his study and the details of his treatment procedure have never been published. In a 1965 article Cohen expressed his feelings about the potential of psychedelic therapy for the dying, based on his pilot experiments with a small group of patients. He stated that his own work confirmed Kast's findings about the beneficial effect of LSD on severe physical pain and suggested that LSD may one day provide a technique for altering the experience of dying. Cohen saw clearly the importance of this research endeavor: "Death must become a more human experience. To preserve the dignity of death and prevent the living from abandoning or distancing themselves from the dying is one of the great dilemmas of modern medicine."...
(end)
lenona at September 28, 2017 12:06 PM
From 2013 (about similar experiments in the 1970s):
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychology-yesterday/201310/death-trip
...How and why did the psychedelic experience lessen the psychological anguish of dying? Rather than be seen as the loss of self or “me-ness” and disappearance into a black void that so many feared, death often became viewed as a transition into a different kind of existence. That consciousness continued after the body died was a wonderful revelation, as was the discovery that one was part of an all-encompassing “cosmic unity.” Leaders of the project at Catonsville admitted they did not know if what patients experienced was real or a drug-induced delusion but, given the very real therapeutic benefits, that was almost irrelevant. Interestingly, whether one was religious or not did not seem to matter, the results similar among atheists and the devout. What the terminally ill experienced while on psychedelics paralleled concepts found in Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, and various forms of mysticism, however, more reason to believe that the trips they were taking were deeply spiritual journeys...
lenona at September 28, 2017 12:08 PM
Your indignantly harrumphing that the government has no right to tell you what you can put in your body doesn't change the fact that, yes, they do have that right.
OK then, why were you against the government telling you you couldnt put cock in your body, or your cock in another mans body?
lujlp at September 28, 2017 12:21 PM
"And no, the government does not have a right to tell you what you can put in your body and where you can go in your mind."
Well perhaps not in a country where everyone is responsible for their own (and their children's) medical care costs this might be true, but where I live we all pay taxes to support everyone's medical care and I'd rather the government told you that you can't use some drugs (or how you can use them) than know that my hard earned money is going to pay for the results of your irresponsible, thoughtless pleasure time activities (as well as having to support your damaged children for their entire lives).
Robin at September 28, 2017 4:38 PM
Good news Robin, one day soon the government will tell people whether or not they can have kids
lujlp at September 28, 2017 9:34 PM
In some nations Lujlp it has been mandatory.
Ben at September 29, 2017 5:51 AM
Luj, you think that hasn't happened already in the U.S., MANY times, in the 20th century?
https://www.google.com/search?q=forced+sterilization+nih+&oq=forced+sterilization+nih+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...40324.42563.0.42841.27.12.0.0.0.0.185.1101.7j4.11.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..22.0.0....0.LNpOKLe3rQk
(the first few articles come from the National Institutes of Health)
lenona at September 29, 2017 9:26 AM
Also:
https://www.google.com/search?q=forced+sterilization+in+the+us&oq=forced+sterilization+in&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l10.28751.85195.0.86290.3.3.0.0.0.0.90.241.3.3.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.238...0i67k1.0.EO2zVkKRvh8
I'm all in favor of saying that people shouldn't be deliberately having children they can't feed. (Last I heard, there's no shortage of neglected, abused children.) However, I don't understand conservative politicians who whine about the low birthrate in the U.S., as if there's something wrong with people who AGREE with what I said! That is, if some middle-class people choose not to have more than 1.5 children - if any at all - because they can't afford more or don't want any in the first place, AND that's starting to hurt the economy, it seems that the only ethical options are to loosen the immigration laws or pay a lot more attention to the physical and educational needs of the poor. It's well-known by now that poor people often have child after child because reproducing FEELS like the only positive thing they can do with their lives, given that much of the time, they feel nothing but despair. ("Cracked" sort of hinted at that, last October, when it printed a much-talked about article on why Trump was becoming so popular. That is, it didn't mention babies, but it did mention despair. Lots of it.)
lenona at September 29, 2017 9:38 AM
or pay a lot more attention to the physical and educational needs of the poor.
______________________________________
As well as the needs of the lower middle class, of course.
lenona at September 29, 2017 9:41 AM
Pot makes me want to have oral sex with a pan of brownies and then take a three-year nap.
Very funny (as usual)!
Vive la difference. I've had some of the best sex of my life while high. Pot always enhances my senses and sex is one of the most sensual experiences there is.
JD at September 30, 2017 10:32 AM
Leave a comment