Why it's more politically correct to ban drugs than religion

Post Reply New Topic

No body smoke weed and slam airplane to towers
No body eats xtc and kill those who disagree with them
People don't consume LSD and murder those that think their LSD is better

It seems that religions have far more danger than most drugs that are hardly harmful at all.

Yet it's politically correct to ban drugs but not religion.

One factor is choice factor.

You choose your drug. You don't "really" choose your religions. Religions is then like a race. Hating people due to their religions is then like being racists.

Is there a math model that can explains?

Another theory I can think of is that there are simply more money on drugs than on religions. If the people prohibit it, the cops that allow it will get bribe. If drugs are legal, the mafia will have their margin slashed. If drugs were taxed the money will go to people.

So it's toward the best interest of those who have power to promote criminalization of anything with high economic value. Prostitution, drugs, etc.

However, most countries are democratic. The majority of people will be better off if drugs are taxed than if drugs are illegal. The "tax" money simply go to corrupt officials if drugs are criminalized.

So we have religions that trick the mass that drugs are dangerous so it can be made illegal and politicians can get kickbacks.

For one I can't tell if you're just expressing where you think we idealistically should be, ie. in a more just world per your opinion, or whether you're expressing that you don't understand why we are where we are.

For the later, if that's the case, it's really important to understand that cultures are very slow moving things. The IQ span of 95% of the population (excluding the top and bottom 2 1/2 percent each way) is 60 points. You have a polyglot of voices trying to express themselves on what reality is or isn't real, what policies are good or bad, all sides seeming to disqualify or ignore facts which aren't helpful to their own narratives, and you also have to consider that the state of human knowledge is a constantly moving target - that what we know now about key aspects of what you brought up are different from what we knew 20 years ago (a great example - the state of marijuana research).

The other part - accurate knowledge on tabooed topics moves REALLY slowly. Part of this is that there are certain things in our cultures that we hold more important than truth, ie. for example whether being for against something brands someone a 'loser'. That's not necessarily just a social conservative or 'Republican' force, it's something everyone uses and, since time immemorial, societies have essentially been extortion rackets. Think about times and places, even within the last century, where if a guy didn't serve in war he might receive white feathers for his cowardice and in other places earlier there were plenty of places a person could end up where society agreed that they owed their family and ancestors an honor suicide - whether it was the Japanese samurai, a Roman general who failed a military campaign, etc. etc..

Also important - societal 'winner' or 'loser' behavior is an evolutionary thing, ie. survival of the fittest. It's why type A personalities, aggression, etc. is seen as the behavior of champions and why type B personalities, being mellow, creative, etc. is seen as the stuff of wimps and losers. IMHO it's not a good thing that things are like that - unfortunately though it's something that came from the filtering of, for thousands of years, what made a man's sperm worthy of siring another generation, and it's another place where post-modernism will likely have no effect on what people find attractive.

This brings me to religion - it's a way people can be herded and controlled. Most of it is horribly inaccurate even if there were per chance a spiritual reality underlying things. It is a social institution, being a believer has been held as 'winner' behavior for centuries, it only came under assault in the last couple centuries, even then only slowly, some of that attack went too far in that it treated the holy books of the past as complete nutter imbecile manuals rather than tomes of cultural experience and what might be described as pattern-truisms that talked about cause and effect in the human condition in at least some useful ways. I think we're fixing a lot of that mess right now and starting to reconcile the opposites but - it's slow work and only so many people are paying attention to that or even know that it's happening.


My guess - you will see increasing legalization of drugs. My guess also, there will be plenty of stark realization that just like some people really can't govern themselves and need a parental figure (based on intelligence) to handle their lives for them, like a government or fundamentalist religion, there are plenty of people who will - with legal drugs - pile them to the eyeballs and destroy themselves and their environments. That last bit isn't scare-mongering, it's human diversity.

My opinion - it's bothered me for a long time that psychedellic or 'hallucinogen' class drugs have been illegal. They're incredibly useful creative tools and you can essentially get your subconscious mind up to rock on three or four monitors. I think a lot of other drugs have great social utilities as well. What I really think should be done, with things 'harder' than alcohol or marijuana, would be equivalent to licensing concealed carry when it comes to fire-arms. When I think of the CCW model I think of people taking classes, being tested on their knowledge, and accordingly being given the twin pairing of a right with a responsibility - ie. the right to carry a concealed fire arm along with the right to put their hands on the wheel if stopped or give in to additional search requirements if stopped by the police. I think that could put the people who lets say could use substances like mushrooms, mescaline, LSD, DXM, ketamine, etc. in the hands of people who've been evaluated in certain ways and who can manage their relationships with these chemicals. It's the only way I think you can give one person rights and avoid it being another person's funeral.

My opinion is that both should be banned and the addicts offered the help they need.

Maybe we can compromise.

Tolerate Conservative and Reform druggies. But outlaw the Orthodox druggies.


Crystal meth use would be "Orthodox", or "Fundamentalist", druggyism.

Smoking pot, and drinking fine wine, would be "Conservative". And using Flintstone Vitamins, and aspirin, would be "Reform".