LSD Legalization

As expected, Con's arguments fall precisely into the two categories I outlined. Extend my entire constructive case -- under any moral framework, the only actions which the government is justified in criminalizing are those which are inherently inclined to inflict harm upon others. Taking a pill obviously doesn't fall into this category, and therefore the only rational course of action is to legalize it. == Harm to the Self == Con heavily exaggerates the harms of LSD. If we take a look at his sources, all he's cited is a couple of isolated instances in which LSD caused harm. Why is that the best that Con could come up with to support his case? It's because the amount of substantial harm that LSD generates is so incredibly low that there aren't any aggregate statistics about it. Try looking it up yourself. Even swimming pools have aggregate statistics regarding their harms, yet no such stats exist for LSD [1]. As if he's a spokesperson from a medical advertisement, Con goes on to provide a laundry list of every single potential side-effect that LSD could possibly have, but he says nothing about the frequency of those side-effects. Without that information, this isn't compelling evidence that LSD is actually harmful. I could put together a similarly scary case for the horribly negative effects of Tylenol, which include nausea, vomiting, rashes, swelling, difficulty breathing, jaundice, severe liver damage, and even death [2]. Does this convince you that Tylenol is dangerous? If not, then it shouldn't for LSD either. We should be especially suspicious of Con's claims because empirical studies of the actual LSD-using population flatly contradict them; one such study, which incorporated results from about 22,000 users "found no link between the use of psychedelic drugs and a range of mental health problems. Instead they found some significant associations between the use of psychedelic drugs and fewer mental health problems" [3]. Con's attempts at proving LSD to be harmful fail. As for "bad trips" -- Timothy Leary, a psychologist from Harvard, reports that "a crisis can be a result of wrong set and setting. Leary advised that users of psychedelics be sure that they are comfortable before taking the drugs. Leary claimed that the frequency of difficult trips was highly exaggerated by anecdotes and fabrications in the popular press, and was actually about 1 in 1000" [4]. Bad trips aren't particularly common, and they only occur under special, avoidable contexts. Dr. Leary is actually quite famous for his extensive research into the effects of psychedelic drugs, and he has found that "in proper doses, in a stable setting ... [LSD] could alter behavior in beneficial ways not easily attainable through regular therapy... Many of his research subjects told of profound mystical and spiritual experiences which they said permanently and positively altered their lives ... 300 professors, graduate students, writers, and philosophers had taken LSD, and 75% reported the experience as one of the most educational and revealing ones of their lives" [5]. The implication of all this is that LSD, on balance, actually tends to be *beneficial* to its users, as long as they use it properly. In fact, this can be viewed as a point in favor of LSD legalization because, once LSD is legalized, LSD manufacturers will be regulated by the FDA, and can be required to include information (e.g. warning labels, instruction manuals, etc) which minimize improper LSD usage. Legalization would harness the benefits of LSD while drastically reducing the harms. == Harm to Others == Again, Con merely cites a few isolated instances in which LSD use facilitated harm to others, but that just works against him because it shows how exceedingly rare it is for things like that to happen -- it hasn't been significant enough of a problem for anyone to bother compiling aggregate statistics. Remember that virtually every action has the potential to harm other people under special circumstances -- driving cars, playing dodgeball, using a stapler, or even eating a peanut-butter sandwich. That is obviously not a sufficient reason to make those actions illegal, and it isn't in the case of LSD usage either. Moreover, the incidents that Con cited occurred *despite* LSD being illegal. No matter how many precautions the government takes, LSD is always gonna be around to some extent, and the people who use it are those who are already willing to break the law -- i.e. criminally-inclined individuals -- the people who are most at-risk for being involved in incidents like the ones Con cites. In other words, incidents like this will happen at roughly the same (very low) rate regardless of whether or not LSD is legal, so we might as well legalize the drug and let law-abiding people reap its benefits too. Con also briefly mentions how flashbacks might cause motor vehicle accidents, but (1) he hasn't cited even isolated instances of this happening, and (2) he hasn't done enough to establish that flashbacks are a common effect of LSD usage. All things considered, the "harm to others" argument just doesn't provide a compelling reason to keep LSD illegal. - 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.everydayhealth.com... 3. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org...