• Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.

    This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.

    • Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn’t agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.

        Could you elaborate on what you mean?

        • Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn’t be favorable for all parties.

    • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It does not matter morally, but does rhetorically and politically. The result of neglecting the latter is your rhetoric can be abused, see OP

    • dolle@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If the end result is that psychedelics get used as an excuse to take power away from the FDA, then everybody’s safety gets compromised in all areas of healthcare.