Comment by zeta0134
2 days ago
I suppose this is a dangerous counterargument to make, especially as I'm not a substance user at all myself, but... what's wrong with wanting to seek out novel experiences? I'd much rather folks who wish to do this be able to do so safely, with good sources of information about those risks and with a support network that is allowed to talk about it. I feel like the taboo nature of substances in general causes folks with this interest to hide it from their peers, exactly the people who would otherwise be first in line to spot problems and offer assistance. Shouldn't it be okay to talk about it?
Four entered the garden: Ben Azzi, Ben Zoma, Acher and Akiva. One looked and died. One looked and was harmed. One cut down all the trees. And one entered in peace and departed in peace.
I didn't know this story, but thanks for pointing this out. It's scary how people in this thread talk about hallucinogens like they could not ruin your life.
Citing Sam Harris:
“Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going, and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis.”
“This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, some people cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.”
Lemme guess, Ben Zoma was the peaceful one?
Nope! Rabbi Akiva, who, as the story goes, was an illiterate shepherd until he started studying in his 40s, and went on to become one of the most renowned scholars of his era. This is why some Jewish tradition teaches that for mystical study, one should wait until the age of 40
They are totally OK as long as healthcare is not socialized.
There's angles to socialization. If a person with brain issues gets free doctor visits and a medicine, that is at cost to society.
If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.
If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.
You are assuming treatment benefits, but the comment was about "recreational" use and its consequences.
Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.
I think motorcyclists should pay more for health insurance insurance considering they will use it way more often no matter how well a driver they are, the risks are simply always present.
2 replies →
> things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes?
motorcycles...? in... my eyes?
What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)
EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding
1 reply →
I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
8 replies →