[nounaut]

It was sort of hailed as a possible antibiotics of the mind before the war on drugs started and basically all research was halted.

I think it's likely that that's what caused the bad rep more so than how the dealers mixed it. All drugs that were used in a recreational way was deemed as bad.

[Nasrudith]

The prohibition of ecstasy makes me furious given the has caused how many millions to suffer needlessly for generations? And this in addition to the sheer obliviousness of starting the war on Drugs after Prohibition showed what happens when you try to do so.

[ssijak]

Alcohol, cigarettes, sugary snacks...?

[froogie]

A weak point. Alcohol can not be taken away, it has been tried.

Had we not had alcohol in the first place, we'd likely have other things a-ok'd, and alcohol would be treated by its merits compared to other recreational substances. By all reason it would be illegal far before many other substances.

Personally I am conflicted: on one hand we can see that the more we let people to have certain drugs, the less functional they are as human beings. On the other hand, if above point was really important, it would make sense to try to let people have the least harmful of these substances, so that, on average, the damage caused by their consumption is lower.

A growing part of me thinks that drug policies aren't as much about preventing harms as it seems to be about "playing games". We could do better all around the world. But things move slowly, so slowly. Stigmas hold, people fall to the soothing lull of prejudice and simplistic arguments.

This is all just business as usual.