Scientific Truth VS Religious Truth - Dr Jordan Peterson on

Post Reply New Topic

We might want to have a discussion perhaps about biological vulnerability to addiction vs. situational. The situational aspects of addiction - such as living a miserable dead-end life to begin with - are more malleable, and plentiful perhaps, than the biological causes. That might be good cause for limited context legality but it doesn't obliterate the importance of the benefits to the people who'd use them correctly.


I already said something about that when I brought up something similar to the ccw licensing. That might not have made sense across the pond perhaps, a ccw is a license Americans can get to carry fire arms. That license comes with a lot of responsibilities, stiffer jail time for fire arms infractions, and a lot of extra demanded procedures - on the motorist who has a ccw - if they're ever pulled over, ie. they have to put their hands on the steering wheel and tell the police officer that they are ccw licensed and where their gun is at.

There are a lot of settings as well that would more loosely apply as therapy, ie. they'd be more public or comfortable than a doctor's office, would attempt as many of the same safety restraints as possible, but also would not demand a prescription based on an illness. I'd think of that as something more like a licensed retreat model. In that context you could perhaps still have such substances illegal if traded on the street but legal in a context similar to the ayahuasca resorts found in places like Brazil or Peru.

It might, if our options are limited. I can't see the idea of non-medicinal licenses flying. Particularly if you have to exclude people on genetic testing or whether or not they are poor and or miserable (they'd argue discrimination).

There's another part of this argument that you might not have considered. That of mandatory drug testing, which will become a necessity in many professions after full legalisation. No one who has any kind of position of responsibility can be assumed to be drug free after full legalisation. The onus will fall on insurance companies and employers and everyone from bus drivers to pilots to doctors to teachers will be pissing in a cup once a week, just to make sure they aren't indulging their legal right. Likewise possession of one of your hypothetical licenses would mean automatic exclusion from many professions. Is that much of an improvement for the responsible freedom loving drug taker? The law is often a very blunt object, as you said it might be Singapore or bust.

I never recommended genetic testing for organized/facilitated psychedelic use. I think they might recommend people with schizophrenia and similar mental health issues avoid it and similarly you wouldn't license someone as, lets say, a certified holder or user if they have such medical issues because they often can be exacerbated by use.


I can't tell what's happening in this paragraph, ie. whether you're suggesting that you think I believe that LSD, cocaine, heroin, meth, all the same and all are great and should be legal or if this is still your chunked 'all drugs = narcotics' thinking.

Your argument that such licenses would be some sort of impediment to employment would assume that these are meth or heroine licenses for people to lose their hair, teeth, and volition. Again - can't tell if you're taking it that I mean all drugs or that this is again chunked narcotics thinking.

For your concern that use equals exclusion - we'll be able to watch how this works for marijuana use. I'd have to confirm but I have heard somewhere that the secret service is no longer barring people on whether they've ever tried marijuana, ie. that it's disqualifying too many otherwise qualified personnel. This really comes down to us wrestling with cultural taboo and stigma to sort out what makes people nonfunctional as employees and what we've just demonized for prior sociological reasons. Meth, crack, and heroine are clearly demonized for good reasons, marijuana far less so and psychedelics mostly because they are earth-shaking and scary in just how much they can shift perspective but most of the problem there was a cultural primacy from the late 1960's where there were no guidelines, you had people like Timothy Leary running around proselytizing, and the result was a backlash strong enough to have an indisriminant 'war on drugs', rolling them all up as 'narcotics', and part of the reason why such a hasty thing happened is because no one could tell where it was going, it moved way too fast, and it scared the heck out of people who rightfully worried about such velocities rattling society apart. That social velocity problem is a known issue now, a historical lesson, and it's one where psychedelic researchers and proponents are moving slowly - trying to balance their work at the same time as doing what they can to mature public orientation to these substances.

I'm not thinking that, I'm thinking like a lawyer.

I think it would affect any position of responsibility, not just the obvious like operating heavy machinery, particularly in our sue-tastic legal system dominated by the concerns of insurance companies. Mind-altering drugs are just that - mind altering, that is all you need to build a case. In our legal system you could easily argue that anyone under the influence of a drug might have made different decisions compared to the baseline. Before you can even raise a word in protest, insurance companies will refuse to cover companies and employees that aren't regularly tested for drugs (since we can no longer reasonably assume they don't go out of their way to break the law to obtain them).



The specifics of the license won't matter, this sort of thing will apply to any and all of the mind altering drugs (maybe even alcohol once the sue-a-palooza starts - though it's easier to detect drunkenness - I suspect that's the only reason we don't take blood samples from every pilot before he takes off). All you need one case where there is reasonable suspicion that a drug may have affected the defendant's judgement or abilities and it's over for "high functioning" drug takers. Enjoy stacking shelves.

That doesn't sound any different from our current policy of canning an employee whose found to be drunk on the job. What am I missing?

The difference is having to piss in a cup under supervision every week like a prisoner or a serf just to maintain employment.

Edit: I should also mention, this might extend to public gatherings. Some pubs and clubs are obligated by law or insurance policies to not admit entry to anyone who is too drunk (in case they smash up the place and cause lawsuits or die of alcohol poisoning - another potential lawsuit if improper care is offered). Much more difficult to tell if someone is on something else. So welcome to Club Med sir, please piss in the drug testing machine. What kind of Orwellian hell are you creating for us techstep!?

So what you meant to say was it would be every employer's job to figure out whether they were doing these things at home on their own time rather than at work. Am I now understanding that correctly?

Also, what on earth does that have to do with being in altered states at work?

I don't know if the exact specifics of the drug schedule would matter so much. Just any recent evidence in the body of drug taking would probably satisfy the needs of most insurance companies. I mean this isn't even a new thing. Some companies, private and public, do insist on drug tests for vital positions. I believe though, if drugs are legalised and that barrier disappears, where you can no longer assume your employees are lawful and not taking certain narcotics, where this default assumption of drug-sobriety disappears wholesale from a country, that this sort of thing will become much more common.

Nietzsche would applaud your position...

You've loaded something strange in this paragraph, I'll let you unpack it though.

What narcotics are you talking about? Drugs in this sense that have been legalized or still illegal drugs that you're assuming more people would take on top of drugs that have been legalized?

<High on caffeine>

Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I needed *cannabis* 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I left my *Mary* and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
*It's* the best *cannabis* l that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the
Robbin' people with a six-gun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I lost my *Mary* and I lost my fun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I left my baby and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
*Marys* the best *"girl"* that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

https://youtu.be/OgtQj8O92eI

Who need marijuana when you have caffiene?

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I meant mind altering drugs, currently illegal, but made legal, in whole or in part after a legalisation bonanza in this hypothetical future.

Then the whole second half of your paragraph makes no sense.

Also I don't know how 'hypothetical' it is. It's already here with marijuana and there's some argument that in the next ten years it could be increasingly so with psilocybin.

It makes perfect sense to me. I did a bit of looking around, I'm not the only one who has imagined this as a possible consequence.

Re: Canada
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sarah-e-l ... _23398845/

https://globalnews.ca/news/3954147/mari ... g-testing/

And as the legalization of recreational pot nears, their employers face a thankless puzzle: liability if a stoned employee causes an accident, pushback from workers who resist random drug and alcohol tests, and the lack of a settled standard around either how much cannabis is too much, or how to measure it.

It still makes no sense even in light of what you posted.

Translates: if they're taking legal drugs you can no longer assume they aren't breaking the law.

Narcotic: illegal drug

$%^*&(&*?

It might mean something to you, it's still vapor to me.

As of right now, today, if you're drunk at work and do something stupid or even if you have a valid reason to have a prescription for a sedative or an opiate and decide to take a recreational dose - on the job - and do something stupid enough for your employer to suspect your high on the job they can demand that you report to a drug testing facility if you want to keep your job. If they find you were high on the job they can fire you. If you refuse the drug test they can fire you.

People getting high on the job isn't allowed now, people getting stoned on the job wouldn't be allowed and would have similar consequence. Absolutely nothing new.