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

On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m_p@[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.

>> 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*....
one which thankfully seems to be confined to usenet. It's a bit like
the phrase "the situation on the ground", which (at least in the UK)
was used by a couple of military types during the Balkans conflict
(and referring of course to eye witness accounts as opposed to
hearsay), and which has now become a mainstay of british journalistic
prose..... 

>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. 

pj


*  to the extent that, I'm afraid, it makes me completely lose
interest in the thread. Nothing personal. To your credit, you haven't,
so far as I can see, written "teh" instead of "the" anywhere (another
usenet cliche that wakes me up from my complacency and makes me ask
what I'm doing here when there are other things I could be doing).