Why do world governments forbid the experimentation of your own mind using psicoactive means ?

Question

Why can´t you experiment and reach different mental states using what are in these days illegal drugs ,even if of natural origin?

Is it because world governments would loose grip of perhaps millions of slaves that support politicians and corporations that actually rule-and destroy the world at the same time?

Answer 1

Maybe there frightened of what we would find out.Mind we would need to know how to use the drugs properly.

Answer 2

What if the 'government people' started doing it too?

Answer 3

Actually, no one in the entire world controls or regulates the sale or consumption of psychoactive ingredients.  The whole "drugs are illegal" thing is just a really heavy, really BAD trip you're on right now after buying some wicked s--t from this guy named Carlos who wears a Knicks cap.

Answer 4

for the most part because most are extremely destructive, and the idea that it would wipe out a good portion of our mor stupid population therein giving them less power. That and the fact that most of these drugs were already legal at one time or another and had been studied at that point the thing that makes a drug illegal in the united states is if it does more harm than good, now dont ask me how pot can do more harm than good but ive used all the others  and well pots the only one that wont make you a zombie after prolonged lifetime use. all but pot are highly addictive, also cause loss of brain matter which contradicts the whole point of using it to expand your horizons.

Answer 5

" Do societies like or prefer to think that ALL HUMAN BEINGS are stupid,........."

Unfortunately, when you look at their collective actions,.. they are.

SUVs are still being sold.

People signed adjustible rate mortgages they can't manage in the face

of a small, reasonably forseeable, rise in interest rates.

You think these people are capable of experimenting with neuro-chemistry???????

Ordinarily, I find the whole idea of the Government presuming to stand 'In Loco Parentis' distasteful.

Questions like this make my position untennable.

Answer 6

The formal answer is this:

A citizens government has certain duties. One of these duties is to protect it's constituents, in this case citizens, from harms that can be possibly prevented or foreseen. i.e When you go to a river that has the sign that reads 'Danger: No Swimming, toxic water'. While a citizen still can swim in such a river - albeit unlawfully - the government, nonetheless, has a responsibility to it's citizens to provide a means by which it protects them from possible harm. The purpose of making acts like 'swimming in so-and-so river' illegal is not to simply punish the people who do not obey the command of the governments laws, rather, it is a function to prevent (primarily) people from harming themselves, and also a deterant for people who would otherwise harm themselves.

In your case, with mind-altering drugs, the law-makers have decided that the possible outcome of harm is greater than the risk of allowing citizens to legally ingest mind-altering drugs. It is not the case that they think we are to stupid to think this on our own, and make the decision for ourselves, rather the government is doing their duty of protecting it's citizens against possible harms that do not out-weight the benefit of having the use of such drugs legally usable. As far as the law-makers think, mind-altering drugs can be personally harmful to users, have little to no medicinal value, could disrupt regular tasks, and could serve as a social-hazard.

They do it for the same reason that car manufactuers have to produce vehicles with seat-belts. Of course it is up to the citizen to either wear it or not, but the car makers must provide seat belts as a necessary protection by law.

Theoretically, the common law and gov't that enforces that law was designed to establish protection for it's citizens, and provide guidance and service when necessary for those citizens.

In any case, one of the main reason why such drugs are illegal is because clinical testing on human-beings is largely out of the question, and the risk of harm is too great for the public at large. Guns are legal, isn't that bad enough?

Answer 7

Okay, let's think about this from a purely rational point of view.

Let me rephrase the question like this: "Is it okay to decide to use a substance that may have a direct influence on the primary mechanism for making decisions?"

The answer to this is yes, it's okay. However, it's not very wise. It's much better to weigh the consequences of doing so, and to obtain feedback from others, both who use and who don't.

However, most people who use such substances just aren't responsible like that. Additionally, people like to have control. They fear the reactions that some people have had (however rare) where a psychoactive substance is responsible (whether directly or as a side effect) for death. This fear leads them to want to prevent death and promote life. They believe that most people are ill-informed about the effects of most of these substances (and, from my own experience with drugs, I have to say I think they're right on that particular score).

Being that we allow them to govern us, we give them power. They use this power with the intent of promoting life by making a law that prohibits use of a substance that may detract from life.

However, they are (being human) prone to error and may actually believe much of the misinformation that is produced. Also, political agendas get in the way and influence the way that results are reported (as a good example of this, the EPA study on secondhand cigarette smoke that's used as the primary justification for the Indoor Clean Air Act on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim that secondhand smoke increases cancer risks). The lack of sufficient study of a substance before deciding to make it illegal tends to lower public trust in the government.

The intent is positive, even if the result is that others directly misinterpret the law and create something negative from it.

Additionally, there are industries with a solid agenda against self-medication, unless it's their medications. It's similar with things like online p****y, where a loss is claimed but never actually proved (methodologies for their claims has never been revealed and may be faulty), and so the politicians whose agendas rely on the ability of the entertainment industry to provide things for them must remain slaves to the industry.

Ultimately, people who choose to break the law with these substances believe that there is no detrimental effect because they can't feel one. However, the detriment in such cases may be the influence that these substances have on the mind, and the overall changes to perception that these substances produce are not always in line with the greatest interests of the promotion of life.

Answer 8

becasue it can permanently damage your mentla health, and it costs a lot of money to treat people in a pscychiatric hospital.

If the drugs were legal there would be an outcry from those of us concerned about the  nations well being.

Why shouldn't users be subject to the same laws and consequences   as everyone else?

True that people have a fear of finding themselves and also have a fear of losing themselves forever - I have never found myself in a a wine glass or with psychoactive drugs -  only in the sheer hard work of counseling. There is no quick way or the government would really be onto it and taxing it up to the hilt.