Re: =>Albert Hofmann, Inventor of LSD, Embarks on Final Trip <=

On May 8, 5:27 pm, pj <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:

> >> He might be wrong, but it certainly isn't a "clearly ridiculous
> >> theory". I don't really know why LSD was originally banned, whether
> >> those in authority genuinely thought it was a threat to the people,
to
> >> themselves, or for some other reason. I've read a lot abot it, but I
> >> still don't claim to know the answer.
>
> >> However... in related news.... fresh (i.e. not dried) magic mushrooms
> >> were made illegal in the UK recently. They went from being completely
> >> legal, to having the same status in law as Heroin, Cocaine (and LSD
or
> >> MDMA for that matter). The reason *was* simply to make the law more
> >> consistent. They were already Class A drugs if "prepared" for
> >> consumption. Prosecutions were brought for the sale of fresh
> >> mushrooms, and at least one was thrown out by the magistrate hearing
> >> the case on the grounds that the law was ambiguous. [...]
>
> >False parallel. That sort of consistency is a very different animal
> >than a consistency that Joel alleges led to LSD being banned because
> >it reached a level of usage comparable to the levels at which other
> >drugs had been banned.
>
> I don't think that's a false parallel - if no-one in the UK had been
> using or selling shrooms then the law wouldn't have been changed.
> There was a period however when they were widely sold in headshops
> (something that some people - including some adp posters have
> criticised as provoking the government into banning them - personally
> I think that's like saying owning an ipod is provoking muggers). It
> was only when that happened that a number of prosecutions occurred,
> minor courts refused to convict, on the grounds that the law was
> ambiguous, and the government had to legislate. Then, instead of
> *****sing the risks involved (the british system of classifying
> illegal drugs is supposedly based on the danger each particular
> substance exposes the public to - a principle which has quite
> obviously not been adherered to), the law was altered in the simplest
> possible way to make it unambiguous.

How many other substance bans came about as simplest-possible
resolutions of ambiguities? None that I know of, whereas Joel's claim
was about many different bans.

> >> So if one government (dominated by lawyers, as they tend to be these
> >> days) can make a perfectly legal, and almost completely harmlesss (if
> >> not beneficial) into one that can be punished with a life sentence,
> >> then I don't think it's "clearly ridiculous" that another government
> >> once did a similar thing...
>
> >Straw man.
>
> I know what that means, but it's such a ****ing tedious cliche*....
>
> >Of course I didn't say it was "clearly ridiculous" that the
> >U.S. government did that, because it's a simple historical fact that
> >they did.
>
> sorry,  I omitted the crucial bit - that our government made the
> change in the law in order to make the law consistent, not to make
> people safer. So I see no reason why other governments shouldn't do
> similar things.

Conclusions based on different forms of the same substance can't
directly be applied to completely different substances.

> pj
>
> *  to the extent that, I'm afraid, it makes me completely lose
> interest in the thread.

There's the door; I'm sure you know how to use it.