LSD should be legal under license

Rebuttals: “Those three reasons are pointless as they hardly indicate danger at all.” I presented the reason: “The inconsistent effects and potential adverse reactions lead to erratic use of LSD. This can be seen as exciting and users will not become bored.” This is potentially dangerous in that it encourages repeated behavior that is potentially hazardous to themselves or others. If you legalize the drug it will only become more frequent and hazardous consequences will happen. Even “bad trips” currently only happens 14.5% (gathered from your source: http://www.erowid.org...) of the time that will be amplified with the greater number of cases. “No one has ever become an LSD addict in the sense that they feel the have to have LSD.” LSD is not addictive but it can have a strong dependency. Like any drug with hallucinogenic and altered consciousness effects it can have a dependency like with marijuana. “There is 0% of overdosing.” Overdosing is possible. Source: - http://www.projectknow.com... - http://www.indyweek.com... “LSD users know what they are taking and the side effects it has. Just because its labeled an adverse affect doesn't mean its not a intended effect. Many people of the psychedelic community would have a goal of achieve ego death or becoming nothingness.” That may be true, however, that does not mean it is safe. A person on a powerful hallucinogen is not coherent or rational and, therefore, potentially dangerous. The adverse effects are called “adverse” because it is generally bad and even if it is intended by the user that does not mean it is always safe even with someone who may be experienced. LSD is a powerful drug that is unpredictable and playing with it is dangerous regardless of who you are. Firefighters have experience with raging fires but that does not mean they are invincible or will never get harmed from it because fire is a powerful force of nature. “These other drugs you listed have had proven dangers to a much greater state than LSD…” I would not say they are greater than LSD. Those dangers also only exist when those drugs are improperly prescribed. Benzodiazepines are only intended to be prescribed for short periods of time. Many doctors are letting their patients remain taking them for much longer than what the drug is intended. That is a result of lazy doctoring, not poor drugs. Doctors also may not prescribe the best drug for that specific case since there is a list to choose from. A similar scenario could happen with LSD if it is prescribed incorrectly. LSD has a long ways to go in research and dozens of adverse effects have already risen and risk for abuse is higher than with benzodiazepines. “Much of the same effects that have been misrepresented for LSD but only on untested and unproven theories.” I want to see a source for this. I didn’t find this in any of your listed sources. From what I have found the adverse effects are clearly supported by studies largely from the University of Maryland. Source: http://www.cesar.umd.edu... “Since LSD is so restricted and classed on the same level as heroin and even an higher level than methamphetamine or cocaine, that it is very hard to even give it a fair test or experiment.” That is not true. As a Schedule I drug meaning it is illegal to possess outside of a laboratory. This allows for studies to be done freely. There are universities that are experimenting with LSD so this claim in unfounded. “Far more lives have been ruined by these prescribed drugs than LSD (per captia).” That is only because LSD has far fewer recorded cases of use. Millions of people are prescribed benzodiazepines while less than a million are known to have taken LSD. If you raised the number of people regularly using LSD I am sure you would find more issues with that drug as well. “Making it legal only heightens safety in the way or eliminated drug deals and teaching people safety classes.” That is not necessarily true. Making drugs that are potentially dangerous to the users and to others legal to attempt regulating it does not always work. Suggested Reading: https://en.wikipedia.org... As I said before, how do you know the safety classes would work? Once someone starts their “trip” their reason and coherence drops significantly and anything they may have learned in their class will no longer matter. Their “trip sitter” may not be able to control them and may irresponsible as well as in potential danger. “People also reported that out of their entire history only 5% had ever had a bad trip.” According to your own source (http://www.erowid.org...) “14.5% report having experienced at least one “very” or “extremely” “bad trip””. Issues with Legislation: “Possession of LSD penalty can range from 6 months to 5 years and trafficking can range from 5 years to a death sentence.” That is wrong according to your own source (http://www.legalmatch.com...). There is no capital punishment with LSD trafficking. There is life imprisonment and with drug offenses parole is relatively easily obtained during the sentence. The life sentence is also for if a death or serious injury occurs to someone due to the crime. With LSD being a drug that can cause violent behavior to users it is possible. “There is no plaintiff. No one reported this crime. There is no victim.” There does not necessarily need to be an individual plaintiff in court. The government or the local community can be thought as the plaintiff in this type of trial. You will still be subject to a jury of your peers. In many cases someone does report the crime because they do not want LSD users in their neighborhood. There can be clear-cut victims if someone is harmed due to the crime. Otherwise, the fact that you were encouraging the use of LSD among other people makes the community as a whole your victim because the people do not want it occurring around them. That is majority rule in democracy. Questions of Legislation: The law as it stands now is well made for a drug that is potentially harmful to society and I do not agree with your solutions. You also have not answered all my questions before about your ideas of regulating the drug legalization. I do agree that we should be discussing that more than the effects of the drug itself as I think we have made our cases with that clear. You claim LSD makes lives better for people and will apparently improve society. How would our society be improved by legalizing a powerful hallucinogen for recreational use? I believe only the dangers of LSD use escalating if the drug is legalized. I am sure that is what the government has concluded as well which is why it is listed as a Schedule I drug. Questions from previous argument: How strict will your test be? What will be tested? What would be covered in the safety class? You should also consider the fact that this program you are suggesting may popularize LSD across the board. How do you know that people who are rejected from the program will still find a way to get the drug through illegal means? You are now giving out licenses for people to buy LSD legally if they pass your program. What will stop them from illegally selling it to people who could not pass your program? They can legally buy it and then secretly sell it for a profit to people who your program would have declared unfit or dangerous to have LSD. That would very likely increase the use of LSD because of its newfound convenience to find dealers who are now legally possessing LSD. You are effectively making LSD trafficking partly legal with your method.