Comment on BACK IT UP
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 month agoI 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?
Comment on BACK IT UP
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 month agoI 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 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 1 month 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.