Because psychedelics = 'getting high' and (by implication) having a good time, which will be unacceptable to puritans. The idea pharmaceutical changes your behavior without making you feel any better. I will not be the least but surprised if some slow news day in Congress is filled by a Rand Paul type complaining that people are becoming alcoholics to trick doctors into giving them party drugs.
I agree with your point about puritanism, however the following bit doesn't make sense to me:
> I will not be the least but surprised if some slow news day in Congress is filled by a Rand Paul type complaining that people are becoming alcoholics to trick doctors into giving them party drugs.
Rand Paul is a doctor by trade, I'd find it strange if doctors didn't have something to say about that, or if doctors that became politicians had nothing to say about it. Should doctors not care that people are abusing the system and lying to them in order to get prescriptions?
This is Paul's position on cannabis[0]:
> you ought to be able to pretty much do what you want to do as long as you don't hurt somebody else
and "has supported efforts to legalize in Kentucky"[0].
Though he professes to be libertarian I don't think he's very sincere. By all means substitute him with someone else, though. He was just the first person that sprang to mind when I thought of 'politicians making specious arguments'.
I wouldn't have thought that "you ought to be able to pretty much do what you want to do as long as you don't hurt somebody else" was a specious argument but there you go.
I'm pretty sure the (hypothetical) specious argument referred to was "people are becoming alcoholics to trick doctors into giving them party drugs".
And in addition to that, anigbrowl believes Paul isn't sincere when he professes to believe that "you ought to be able to pretty much do what you want to do as long as you don't hurt somebody else", which is why they chose him as an example, but that wasn't the important part.
Fair enough, though since anigbrowl is continuing their absurd argument regardless of any opposition, I think replacing “hypothetical” with “straw man” would be more appropriate.
A straw man does not need to be intentional, it's easily done through ignorance. I do wonder why you'd be bothered about having an off-hand remark that is clearly wrong corrected? If it was truly offhand I'd think it would be easy to accept such correction.
Maybe you'll tell me more about your belief that Paul is insincere but I don't count mind reading among my beliefs, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and - hopefully - agree that wilfully ignorant offhand remarks add nothing to HN. Perhaps take the time to find a non-libertarian, non-doctor from the Republicans to use in future and the tribalism will at least be less blatant and egregious.
Look at his questioning in COVID-related oversight hearings, there's a lot of grandstanding - given that he has a medical education it's disappointing that he leans so heavily on rhetoric instead. I would not be at all surprised to see him vote against a cannabis legalization bill, citing some obscure technicality or averring that it doesn't go far enough. We might even find out this session.
His questions were certainly valid - why were we pushing a jab on kids who don't need it, of which we don't know the long-term effects, for a "vaccine" that's rendered mostly ineffective after 4 months, against a disease that almost never kills kids (less than 100 in the U.S. who had serious health problems).
The rushed rollout and forced mandates of these products across the country invited much criticism. If that's a tough pill to swallow, maybe you'd be happier in Canada or Australia, or China, for that matter - their COVID policies are basically the same in abnegating personal choice and freedom for bodily autonomy.
Careful, your opinions might be considered heresy by some.
It's been shocking to observe how quickly society descended into "trust the science", when time and again the public has been betrayed for trusting these institutions, the pharmaceutical companies, the politicians and even scientists.
I'm not saying I agree with one side or the other completely, but it's a relief to see the tide of public opinion turning toward critical thinking. (Maybe not though, the manufacture of consent is as powerful as ever.)
