First off I'd like to make psychedelics available for virtually all ages. Except maybe ecstasy since it's much more abuseable than the others. I can't even begin to imagine how much I would have matured had I taken the drug when I was 14...
Speaking of maturity. I find this whole "maturity test" thing kind of bs. This is my opinion: I think that there's no test for maturity. It's something you learn from mistakes. The maturity test is already there for you, it's growing up, it's life. Maturity is what you learned from your mistakes. The only way to test maturity is to let someone make mistakes, which defeats the purpose of a maturity test, because the definition of the maturity test is becoming mature. Hope that makes sense...
A few thoughts:
1. Who writes the test? Ideas like this always sound great in theory when you get to make up all the rules but in practice, who would you trust to decide which arbitrary questions must receive which arbitrary answers in order for people to be allowed to use their bodies in a certain way? Your example questions are good ones for my purpose, because neither has a single, objectively correct response.
There ARE questions that can take the bulk of the danger away.
I would go to the Good Drugs Guide FAQ for each drug and ask questions based on that. It doesn't need to be hard - just informative - to make sure whoever's doing it knows what he's getting into.
What are the dangers of psychedelics?
I don't think the questions are really an argument.
2. Cars and firearms require licenses because they can easily cause great harm to *other people*. Doing things that may be unsafe to yourself isn't something the government traditionally steps in on. Why do psychedelics need to be the one personal decision that people are not allowed to make on their own?
The entire point of licensing psychedelics is so that it doesn't harm other people. The fact that the person is educated is more of a plus. If he wants to eat 1000mcg of LSD and he was somehow isolated from society - that would be fine. However, if he decides to wander a street and cars start honking and he may get run over. Or maybe if he for some reason wanted to drive while under the influence, that would be a problem. That's what the licensing would be to prevent. Like I said, the government should theoretically have nothing against someone doing something to his own body, the only reason for the licensing is to protect others and keep society calm.
3. If the test is at all difficult to pass, people would just buy the drugs illegally like they do now. If it's easy to pass for anyone, then it's just a waste of time and money.
You're looking at the negative sides of both situations. Ideally there would be a quota, maybe a few hits per month, so illegal dealing wouldn't be ideal. And put yourself in the shoes of a customer. Either he passes a test - which he knows is for his own good and the good of others, or he gets an unknown substance from a sketchy dealer. Or if it's his friend - it would be pointless, because his friend would probably tell him everything needed to pass the test before he starts a trip.
4. This sounds rather like literacy tests for voting. It sounds good in theory (it's better for society if people have to at least educate themselves to some basic minimum standard before participating in Activity X), but in practice literacy tests were manipulated by racist political forces to exclude minorities. Similar problems are found in standardized testing; pretty much any way of asking pretty much any question will be at least a little biased toward some social/cultural groups over others, independent of how well the individuals know the material they're being tested on. Simply put, you can't just devise a list of questions that will fairly and accurately assess which individuals are or are not responsible and educated enough for safe drug use.
You seem to be exaggerating a very minor problem.
And I can devise a list of questions that will fairly and accurately assess which individuals are or are not responsible and educated enough for safe drug use. At least psychedelics.
5. There's no reason any legalization program should apply to psychedelics only. I'm assuming your comment about how anyone who disagrees is an addict was in jest, but if not, that is an incredibly arrogant and closed-minded way to look at things. All psychoactives have the potential to be psychedelic in the sense of mind-expanding or mind-manifesting, and just because you don't see the value in a substance doesn't mean it or its users are bad or wrong or stupid. From a policy standpoint, legalization and harms reduction programs are far MORE important for things like coke and heroin, simply because the harms produced by things like impure product, lack of education, etc. is far greater.
Good point. I was being knowingly closed minded, mostly because I don't know much about dopey drugs.
I think many people would agree that psychedelics are far more mind expanding and far safer than heroin, coke, etc. If these dope drugs do have some mind manifesting properties, then I'll look in to them later. It makes sense that society can get clean drugs, but I don't think they should be available for first-time users (only addicts). Unless the user is CLEARLY aware that the substances are highly addictive. Anyway, I'm not discussing other drugs right now because I don't know much about them.
6. The US prescription system is bunk. If anything, legalized psychedelics should be taxed and regulated more like tobacco and alcohol. You can still have restrictions and regulations on manufacture and sale, but that way it doesn't need to go through the dated and restrictive framework of the Controlled Substances Act. Besides, pharmacists are not in the business of training recreational users for harms reduction or distributing recreational intoxicants. If a program like this were to start, it should be attached to new organizations specifically dedicated to providing these services, not tacked on to our medical infrastructure.
Not prescription, just over-the-counter license required drug.
Better idea: make drugs legal with no license, but include harms reduction info in standard health class curricula. We already teach people harms reduction techniques for things like alcohol and sex; why not psychedelics?
100% Agree that that's a good idea.
I still think people should pass an easy test before having access to drugs though.
