Let Elon Musk Enjoy Drugs
Intoxicants might be a source of problems—or enhance our ability to cope.

Elon Musk inspires strong emotions in people. Some admire his pugnacious entrepreneurial spirit, advocacy of open debate, and willingness to challenge politicians. Others question his business practices, oppose his embrace of free speech (or tire of his inconsistency on the issue), or recoil from his hard-to-pin-down politics. But even as states embrace marijuana legalization and lawmakers who fight over everything else find common ground over the therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs, Musk is coming under attack for his taste in intoxicants.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Drug Panic
"The world's wealthiest person has used LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, often at private parties around the world, where attendees sign nondisclosure agreements or give up their phones to enter," Emily Glazer and Kirsten Grind reported over the weekend for The Wall Street Journal. "Musk has previously smoked marijuana in public and has said he has a prescription for the psychedelic-like ketamine."
Tales of drug use are attributed "to people who have witnessed his drug use and others with knowledge of it," which sounds like another term for folks with an axe to grind. Of course, Musk has been open about at least some drug use, including smoking marijuana with Joe Rogan. Last summer, he suggested ketamine is a better treatment option than antidepressants after the Journal reported he "microdoses ketamine for depression, and he also takes full doses of ketamine at parties."
And good for Elon Musk. He's not alone in seeing both recreational and therapeutic benefits in many intoxicants disapproved of by lawmakers and scolds.
"Two-thirds of Americans with treatment-resistant anxiety, depression or PTSD believe that psychedelics should be made available for therapeutic means," according to a 2021 survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Delic Holdings Corp., which incorporates psychedelics in treatments at its clinics.
A 2022 YouGov poll found that 28 percent of Americans have actually tried one or more psychedelic drugs, including LSD, psilocybin (mushrooms), MDMA, mescaline, ketamine, DMT, and salvia. More than half (54 percent) of respondents supported allowing research into psychedelic substances for military members with PTSD.
Therapeutic Promise
Such efforts are already underway and have been promising. Research published last summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that a single 25-mg dose of psilocybin "was associated with a rapid and sustained antidepressant effect." Researchers reported "no serious treatment-emergent adverse events."
In September 2023, a paper published in Nature Medicine reported that, relative to therapy alone, therapy accompanied by MDMA "reduced PTSD symptoms and functional impairment in a diverse population with moderate to severe PTSD and was generally well tolerated."
In 2022, writing for a Harvard Medical School blog, Dr. Peter Grinspoon noted that, while ketamine should be used under medical supervision, "relief from [treatment-resistant depression] with ketamine happens rapidly. Instead of waiting for an SSRI to hopefully provide some relief over the course of weeks, people who are suffering under the crushing weight of depression can start to feel the benefits of ketamine within about 40 minutes."
The therapeutic potential of these drugs is one of the few things that get U.S. politicians to work across party lines (at least when it comes to increasing rather than decreasing liberty). Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sens. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) and Rand Paul (R–Ky.) have sought to make it easier to study the medical benefits of psychedelics with an eye to making them more readily available for legal use. They haven't had much success at the federal level, though some states have been more open.
And the feds pose a problem.
"Illegal drug use would likely be a violation of federal policies that could jeopardize SpaceX's billions of dollars in government contracts," add the Journal's Glazer and Grind.
Let's remember that SpaceX largely dominates America's presence beyond the atmosphere. That's why the Planetary Society observed that "without SpaceX, the only U.S. company currently capable of carrying cargo to the ISS would currently be Northrop Grumman, and NASA would still be reliant on the Russian Soyuz for crew transportation."
If we're going to link performance to attitudes about drugs, maybe Musk should be setting the tone for NASA. Perhaps a microdosing schedule would get federal employees out of their ruts and set their creative juices flowing.
Glazer and Grind also report that "some executives and board members at his companies and others close to the billionaire" are concerned that drugs may be responsible for "his contrarian views, unfiltered speech and provocative antics."
Problem or Solution?
Maybe that's true; intoxicants can certainly change our behavior, sometimes for the worse. Or maybe the tech entrepreneur is naturally contrarian, unfiltered, and provocative. In 2022, Musk told an interviewer that he and other SpaceX employees were required by the feds to submit to random drug tests for a year after he publicly smoked weed with Joe Rogan. Whatever he's doing now, that probably would have curbed his chemical indulgences for a while. There's little evidence that Musk's critics consider that period a golden age when they were happier with his conduct.
That's not to say Elon Musk is immune from criticism. He's been called out as a recipient of corporate welfare, attacked for championing free speech, criticized for inconsistency in his tolerance for free speech, and questioned over his business ethics. Some executives apparently find him hard to work with. If he's a human train wreck, he wouldn't be the first one to find success despite (or maybe even because of) character flaws.
Reports that Musk uses drugs recreationally and therapeutically aren't, in themselves, proof that they're the source of his quirks. If he's indulging rather than overindulging, they may enhance his ability to function. A straight-edge Elon Musk would not necessarily be an improvement.
It's possible that Musk really does need to sober up. Or maybe he's a flawed person functioning better than he would otherwise because of the relaxation offered by the occasional hit of acid and the relief from microdosing ketamine. Drugs are tools, and reports that somebody likes reaching into the toolbox doesn't tell us whether they're being misused or just used to good effect.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have no problem with Elon Musk using drugs: he is an adult with the financial means to support himself even if he becomes unable to work.
I do have a problem with people using drugs who are covered by government mandated/regulated health and disability insurance and who socialize the costs and consequences of their behaviors.
But surely that also applies to anyone "covered by government mandated/regulated health and disability insurance" who engages in other risk-enhancing activities, like sporting activities, off-roading, mountain climbing, SCUBA diving, riding motorcycles or owning guns?
The problem, if any, lies in the "government mandated/regulated health and disability insurance", not in the use of recreational drugs, etc.
Mystical National Socialist racheteers rely on existing government bans, subsidies and meddling as excuses for MORE coercion, never less. Repealing drug laws and repealing laws enslaving women into involuntary reproduction were the pillars of the true and original Libertarian Party. Only by infiltration and dishonesty have looters contrived to turn us into what they were when we first opposed them.
I've been a Libertarian for at least 3 decades now. The right and left never actually convert to the cause of individual liberty, they use us like a guy uses a slutty chick to make the real target of his affections jealous.
All they are doing is trying to get some leverage on their own party so they will be noticed. When the pendulum swings toward the right, as it is starting to do, these conservatives will leave us and those on the left will start to join for the same reason.
We need to stop thinking these people actually want individual liberty for everyone and realize they want liberty for themselves and the power to force the other side to dance to their tune.
We need to remain the real party of individual liberty for all, no matter how that liberty may turn our individual stomachs.
We need to stop thinking these people actually want individual liberty for everyone and realize they want liberty for themselves and the power to force the other side to dance to their tune.
And by "these people", you mean "people like yourself", because that's what you and the LP have always stood for: free drugs, free sex, free movement, while shifting the costs to others.
We need to remain the real party of individual liberty for all, no matter how that liberty may turn our individual stomachs.
The LP is what it is: a bunch of useful idiots for authoritarian socialists and communists. It's been like that for decades.
Anybody who actually cares about individual liberties in the US needs to stay away from the LP like the poison it is.
I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me Qf how lots cash they could make online so I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by follow instructions====>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Whatever, you don't strike me as someone with all their oars in the water so it's not worth trying to dissuade you from your delusions.
And you strike me as a run of the mill statist who fancies himself a libertarian because you want to legalize drugs.
Fuck you nutbar. You get the block now. You're useless.
I’ve been a Libertarian for at least 3 decades now. The right and left never actually convert to the cause of individual liberty, they use us like a guy uses a slutty chick to make the real target of his affections jealous.
More like the Libertarian Party you claim to be a part of for 3 decades now is your girlfriend who lives in Canada.
John Hospers - Libertarian, Republican
Roger MacBride - Libertarian, Republican
Ed Clark - Libertarian, Republican
Gary Johnson - Libertarian, Republican
Justin Amash - Libertarian, Republican
Thomas Massie - Libertarian-leaning Republican
Ron Paul - Republican, Libertarian, Republican, Libertarian
Rand Paul - Libertarian-leaning Republican
The closest you get from the Democrats is Bob Barr, who still has Republican among his affiliations and to say nothing of Republicans like Barry Goldwater who never actually ran on behalf of the LP but whom the LP shared and/or cribbed much of their own ideologies. Either way, the LP and its history would look little different without leftists/socialists/democrats but almost certainly wouldn't even exist without Republicans.
You aren't lying to us about your girlfriend who lives in Canada because you really want us to believe she's real or because you really love individual liberty, you're lying to us about your Girlfriend who lives in Canada because you want to control the narrative and/or us.
Repealing drug laws and repealing laws enslaving women into involuntary reproduction were the pillars of the true and original Libertarian Party.
Unless those policies are accompanied by also eliminating social welfare and insurance programs, they are not libertarian.
Only by infiltration and dishonesty have looters contrived to turn us into what they were when we first opposed them.
Big-L Libertarians are basically authoritarian socialists, since you want the same thing: maximum individual liberties with minimum personal responsibility. Don't worry, actual libertarians want nothing to do with people like you.
But surely that also applies to anyone “covered by government mandated/regulated health and disability insurance”
That is correct.
engages in other risk-enhancing activities, like sporting activities, off-roading, mountain climbing, SCUBA diving, riding motorcycles or owning guns?
All of which have become heavily government controlled and regulated.
The problem, if any, lies in the “government mandated/regulated health and disability insurance”, not in the use of recreational drugs, etc.
No, the problem lies in socializing the cost of drug use while having permissive drug use policies, the kind of idiotic approach you seem to advocate.
All of which have become heavily government controlled and regulated.
Uh, not quite all. And the policies around all those things are at least as permissive as those around drugs (most of which, outside of some highly dysfunctional cities, are still quite illegal and will land you in jail if caught). And so what? They are still risky activities that often lead to injuries, whose costs are socialized just as much as the costs of drug use. So how is it any different from the case of drugs?
Uh, not quite all.
Yes, all of those are heavily regulated: licensing, permits, location, equipment, etc.
They are still risky activities that often lead to injuries, whose costs are socialized just as much as the costs of drug use. So how is it any different from the case of drugs?
It isn't any different from drugs. Great you realize that! We live in a progressive social welfare state. Any activity you engage in is subject to government regulation and socialization of cost.
Yet, for some reason, so-called "Libertarians" want special exemptions for a few things: curiously, the same things that radical leftist youth want exemptions for.
Get rid of the socialization of costs and risks first, then we can legalize and deregulate all the rest.
I have never needed any kind of license or permit to go rock climbing or ride a bicycle or do any number of risky outdoor activities. Equipment is regulated for some of those things, but I am free to climb with no equipment if I'm foolish enough to want to do so.
If your position is that drugs should remain illegal (I'm not completely sure if that is your position, I don't want to put words into your mouth), would it also not be justifiable to make risky sporting activities? Or having a bad diet (which is probably responsible for more socialized medical costs than drugs or risky sports)?
I've done a lot of drugs, legal and illegal. I've never managed to put myself in a hospital or even a doctors office because of any of them.
Outdoor sports. That's another story. Work related injuries, I've had plenty. I've managed to get a broken wrist playing with kids in the back yard and the worst cut I ever got was while doing dishes. (4 stitches)
Since these days I'm on Medicare that means NOYB2 paid for my surgery to fix my arm, the physical therapy for recovering functionality and all of the casts and doctor visits. No drugs involved, just forgetting that I am old and not as quick on my feet as I used to be.
Well, so you took risks both with drugs and with outdoors sports, and you happily socialized the cost of all of them.
Thank you for illustrating my point that you are not a libertarian.
I have never needed any kind of license or permit to go rock climbing or ride a bicycle or do any number of risky outdoor activities.
Climbing gyms are subject to government safety regulations. So are bicycle manufacturers. While on your bike, you are subject to traffic regulations and enforcement, including mandatory safety equipment on your bike.
If your position is that drugs should remain illegal (I’m not completely sure if that is your position, I don’t want to put words into your mouth),
I am just saying that drug legalization on its own is not a libertarian position, and that furthermore, most Americans don't give a f*ck about it anyway and that libertarians should stop wasting their time on such b.s.
My position is the libertarian one: FIRST abolish government-mandated socialization of health/disability costs and THEN legalize drugs.
Exactly! What you said. I keep trying to tell him this, but he won't listen.
Came in to say exactly this.
Well, it certainly explains the weird symbol name he gave his kid.
Contrary to what you think, I don't want the costs of drug use socialized either. Or the cost of any health-related expense.
RakumuraITSolutions
Rakumura IT Solutions is an accomplished startup with a solid 5-year track record in catalyzing digital transformation for clients.
Musk is unlikely to end up a ward of the state or a victim pig feeding at the trough of coercively funded welfare.
Consumption of drugs should be an individual adult decision as should whether one wants to fund government welfare, amongst their other programs.
"Consumption of drugs should be an individual adult decision"
It should be an informed decision. Self medication of any drug is risky. If you are prescribed drugs, you should follow the instructions on the prescription, and not try to second guess the doctor who wrote it. Elon Musk is an engineer, and I doubt he knows much about how to safely self administer cocaine, LSD, or whatever black market substances he's given.
Thank you hall monitor. Let adults make adult decisions for themselves.
Being an adult doesn't confer expertise. Doctors who write prescriptions are certainly adults, but it's their medical expertise, the fact they've studied medicine, that allows them to write prescriptions. It's much the same in other fields. Merely being an adult doesn't entitle you to fly a jumbo jet.
Thank you jeff poor analogy.
He’s probably smart enough to figure that out. Especially with his resources. I’ve independently figured out how to self medicate for a number of minor issues over the years, and I don’t have anywhere near Musk’s resources.
"He’s probably smart enough to figure that out."
Being smart is not the issue. Neither is being rich. There are extremely smart and rich people who are drug addicts, gambling addicts, obese, etc. Being smart and rich doesn't necessarily mean we can exercise self control, or give us the wisdom to know when enough is enough.
I'm reminded of the sad case of Robin Williams, an extremely smart and wealthy entertainer, surrounded by people who loved him. He was also a drug user and suffered from various mental disabilities. His talent, money and intelligence didn't stop him from hanging himself.
So when the doctors said you should have gotten a COVID shot and a half dozen boosters you ran right in and got them all, right?
I haven't consulted a doctor since way before the pandemic. I didn't run anywhere, get a covid shot, or any boosters. So, in a word, wrong.
So you made a personal decision to not be vaccinated when the government, the medical community and a good number of your fellow Americans said to not vaccinate, wear a mask, social distance and all the other things was just like drinking and driving or playing with a loaded gun or whatever the media made up?
That's pretty antisocial of you to ignore medical advise being you are so concerned with the impact irresponsible behavior can have on your fellow citizens and on the burden to taxpayers.
"So you made a personal decision to not be vaccinated when the government, the medical community and a good number of your fellow Americans said to not vaccinate, wear a mask, social distance and all the other things"
You should read my comments with more care. I live in Mexico where the approach to covid was half assed, to say the least. I wore a mask to enter shops like OXXO (7/11). I carried on my business same as before, though at much reduced volume, never consulted doctors, never was harangued about vaccinations. Mask wearing seems to have become something of a fashion accessory here. Particularly with young men, even today.
I've no idea where I was to get the idea that you live in Mexico from any posts you made here. As for other posts you've made in other threads.i don't care enough to create files on each poster to best craft arguments.
Clearly you think yourself far more important than you really are.
"I’ve no idea where I was to get the idea that you live in Mexico from any posts you made here. As for other posts you’ve made in other threads.i don’t care enough to create files on each poster to best craft arguments. "
Fair enough. Now you know.
"Clearly you think yourself far more important than you really are."
You assumed I lived in the States. I corrected you. The approach to covid in Mexico is a lot more lax than what you experienced. I don't think I am more important than I really am. I'm urging you to read my comments with more care. Most of the other comments here are an echo chamber of garbage.
Anyone who doubts Tuccille is welcome to read the daily news from Ecuador--competely censored by Kleptocracy media. Christian National Socialism counts the ballots and the entire country is a prison. Nobody can drive a car ten feet without first checking gubmint rules. Doors are kicked in daily in a hail of bullets and the Patrick Henrys, Paul Reveres, Molly Pitchers and Mad Anthony Waynes of that victim of exported Monroe Doctrine prohibitionism are branded terrorists before being vaporized by Washington's puppets. See: Nacionales or Noticias de Ecuador online
People like you suffer from the delusion that you can turn a country libertarian by just putting the right people in charge.
But a libertarian-style minimal government is the consequence of an individualistic, self-reliant culture. Ecuador does not have such a culture (neither does the US anymore). Its choices of government are limited to authoritarian conservatives and authoritarian leftists. And the same is increasingly true for the US.
neither does the US anymore
It never did.
Government spending used to be less than 5% of GDP in the US. By necessity, Americans were individualistic and self-reliant until about WWI.
That doesn't follow at all. A society whose economy is based on slavery, for example, might need minimal government expenditures and yet it is the very antithesis of individualism and self-reliance
Well, I'm not going to debate the meaning of individualism in slave societies. But that's not necessary, since large parts of the US did not, in fact, have slavery.
Well, your ideal Stepford Subsidiarity isn't a very "individualistic, self-reliant culture" either.
That is all fine and good for 'First World Billionaires' = personal, recreational drug use. Works for them.
Ask Ecuador how it is working out, contending with drug gangs.
Do alcohol gangs exist?
Just in Maine. Pretty small 1 person gang though.
Sarc?
🙂
😉
Yes, the Buds and the Coors. Though the Buds have been having a bit of a recruiting issue after they changed their jump-in (initiation) rules.
Not anymore. It stopped being profitable when it became legal. There are some cigarette gangs who illegaly bring cigarettes from Mexico to Canada because the taxes on the cigarettes are so high black market cigarettes are a profitable business.
Some drug use is harmful in itself but much, if not most, of the harm by drugs today is because it is illegal and outside protection for everyone. That said, there is also a cost to be paid for legalization in added healthcare but I think we already pay most of that without recognizing it.
It's not just healthcare. It's the reduced quality of life because addicts crap on your doorstep or lawn, steal anything not chained down, make it difficult for you and children to be in public without coping with stoned people on a regular basis, or cause business to close up shop or relocate. It's the increased prevalence of death and injury from people driving or working while high. It's the transformation of school bathrooms into drug rooms, when all your kids wanted to do was take a leak.
As near as I can tell, unbridled drug legalization results in situations that might as well be zombie movies.
That all happens now with drugs being illegal.
And drug dealing and drug use and their bad consequences exist even in Red China where drug dealing and drug using means the death penalty.
With legalization, drugs are manufactured in factories instead of home labs that can intoxicate a whole neighborhood, and drugs are inspected for dosage, purity, and quality.
With legal drugs, they ship in mass quantities on clean trucks instead on in tiny baggies and balloons shoved up somebody's ass.
With legal drugs, you get them from competing pharmacies who only sell to adults instead of in back alleys, prices are governed by Supply and Demand instead of by mob monopoly, and every drug deal is a drug deal gone good.
And with legal drugs, any disputes between any parties involved are settled in court rather than with guns or gang turf wars, and addicts can seek help without fearing prosecution for merely having or using drugs.
A world with legal drugs wouldn't be perfect, but problems would be more manageable and it would be step up from what exists now.
Not to mention all the liberty-destroying consequences of giving the police the power to rob and imprison citizens who haven't harmed the life, liberty or property of others.
As near as I can tell, unbridled drug legalization results in situations that might as well be zombie movies
How would you know? You have never seen unbridled drug legalization. What is going on in certain cities is not legalization. It's removal of consequences. If drugs were legalized and laws regarding property crime and vagrancy were vigorously enforced, and if people had strongly protected self defense rights, things would look very different. Leaving criminals in charge of supply and letting drug scenes run rampant in public places is pretty much the worst of all possible options.
Oddly enough in Spearfish SD the kids are doing and selling drugs in the school bathrooms. We haven't legalized the drugs, the kids are breaking the law. I have trouble seeing how legalizing the drugs would make it worse. Would they then use the drugs in class? Judging by the shit job the schools are doing at teaching kids I doubt it would make things worse.
Drug laws are not enforced against users right now, just like immigration laws are not enforced against illegal migrants. So, in that sense, "legalizing drugs" wouldn't make things worse because it wouldn't really change anything.
Some drug use is harmful in itself but much, if not most, of the harm by drugs today is because it is illegal and outside protection for everyone.
JFC, you people know that opium has been associated with numbness, asphyxiation, and death since before ancient Rome and has been a part of drug trade that birthed our conception of various mafias across three continents half a millennium before Nixon took office, right?
People die because the drugs kill them. It’s not the law putting the drugs into their veins. The relative number of people who are killed by the State, directly or indirectly, because of drugs is small as compared to the number of people who die of self-inflicted overdose, even under the guise of your premise. To your own fucking point you can, across civilizations, watch regulations rise, and fall, without OD deaths falling *or rising* concomitantly. You morons are as retarded as any cop who catches a whiff of carfentanyl and proceeds to imitate immediately passing out and going into cardiac arrest.
Can we admit there is no easy solution to drug use? No one wants "cure is worse than the disease" law enforcement. Few care that Elon Musk uses drugs(*). Yet we have a situation where recreational marijuana users are driving, and there's no ready roadside test for recent marijuana use. We already know that a cop's declaration of "I smelled weed" is not a good solution, and that won't help with edibles anyway. And this says nothing about the various opiates. Turning everything into a civil matter seems inappropriate: "My family will just sue the beejeebers out of the druggie who killed me in that car accident."
Then we have to talk about Portland, where legally-using drug addicts occupy street corners, underpasses, alleys, and parks throughout the city. They can't work, so they steal and generally wreck everything appealing about the place. (Portugal saw the exact same thing.) We prefer treatment over incarceration, but is there ever going to be enough money to treat all of these addicts? Attempts to dissuade, so you don't have to treat or incarcerate, seem to be losing ground. Is every city and town in America going to be allowed to turn into a shithole for everyone else because of the principled support of rights of adults to use drugs indiscriminately?
(*)One of Musks's companies, SpaceX, has significant federal contracts, every one of which comes with a mandatory drug testing requirement by law. What happens when it comes out that the testing scheme deliberately avoided a known drug user?
Decriminalization is not legalization. Not by a long shot. It just means users don’t go to jail. Every other aspect of prohibition (the cure that is worse than the disease) remains.
See my answer above.
"They can’t work, so they steal and generally wreck everything appealing about the place."
It's not just stealing. Users of illegal drugs often turn to dealing, selling to friends and acquaintances, to cover their costs and ensure a personal supply. This in turn leads to said friends and acquaintances turning to dealing themselves, which has a snowballing effect. Britain in the 1960s used to legally supply heroin to a few hundred registered addicts. I believe William S. Burroughs was among them. Purity and dosage were guaranteed at an affordable price. Then the government criminalized heroin use, I believe to align itself to international treaties, and the number of addicts soared.
Users of illegal drugs often turn to dealing, selling to friends and acquaintances, to cover their costs and ensure a personal supply. This in turn leads to said friends and acquaintances turning to dealing themselves, which has a snowballing effect.
In some cases that is indeed true. Thing is, most drug users are like most drinkers. They're not a problem so you don't hear about them. If the media treated alcohol the way it treats drugs, you'd think one drop turns someone into a hobo.
"Thing is, most drug users are like most drinkers."
Except that alcohol is affordable, easily obtained and unadulterated. No alcoholic has to start selling alcohol to others to support his or her habit.
Except that alcohol is affordable, easily obtained and unadulterated.
Only because it’s not prohibited.
No alcoholic has to start selling alcohol to others to support his or her habit.
They’d probably face more time for selling untaxed liquor than for selling illegal drugs.
You’re missing my point though. Most illegal drug users are the equivalent of social drinkers. If the adage “a user is an abuser” was applied to alcohol it would mean one beer makes anyone a problem drinker. But we know that’s not the case. There’s nothing magical about prohibited chemicals that makes them worse than alcohol.
Some people are more susceptible to addiction than others, and even then it depends on the addiction. Some people can do a few lines and smoke a few cigarettes at a party, and when they go home that's the end of it. Others will be at the convenience store the next morning picking up a pack of smokes and looking to score some powder. Depends on the person.
That's because booze is legal and the taxes don't make it profitable to bootleg.
The situation in Portland and other places exist because laws are not being enforced and people are not empowered to defend themselves and their property. All of your complaints are about druggies doing things that are illegal and should be illegal. The problem isn't primarily the de facto decriminalization that has happened. It is the refusal or inability to enforce laws against actual crimes with actual victims, often combined with idiotic programs that make it easier and more comfortable for people to exist in the tragic and disgusting open air drug scenes.
“often combined with idiotic programs that make it easier and more comfortable for people to exist in the tragic and disgusting open air drug scenes.”
You’re confusing homelessness with drug addiction. People can survive decades of opiate addiction if an affordable supply of pure, unadulterated drugs is available. They can live productive and fulfilling lives. Deprive these same people of a roof over their heads, and that’s where the problems start.
That doesn’t work so well with users of meth and some other substances. I’ve had costly, and disruptive recent experience with one of these people. The big problem is all the protection government gives them. Which is at the expense of infringing on the rights of everyone else.
"That doesn’t work so well with users of meth and some other substances."
Perhaps that's so. I'm not so familiar with meth. I know with heroin, it's essentially the adulterants that are the problem, responsible for liver damage etc, and that pure heroin is not nearly as taxing on the body. Is pure meth any safer to use than black market meth? I also know that meth tends to make people crazy, rather than chill them out as heroin does.
Not sure if it's the meth that makes people crazy, or the going without sleep for days and days.
Is pure meth any safer to use than black market meth?
I don’t think there’s any pure “meth” in the sense of legal methamphetamine. There’s tons of pure amphetamine out there in the form of pills that they give to children. From what I’ve read making meth is pretty straightforward chemistry if you have the right precursors, like amphetamine (Adderall) or pseudoephedrine (Sudafed).
Meth is a result of the drug war. It's more potent in a smaller package. It's also easy to make in a small area. So its popular with the dealers because they don't have to move bricks of the stuff across borders to satisfy customer demand.
My son knows from fellow students at his college who have done internships at pharmaceutical companies that somewhere near half the medicines we have start with making methamphetamine.
Again, FFS, we have countless records of various Western authors, scientists, and social figures addicted to and/or killed by methamphetamines well before Nixon. Pervitin was widely used in Nazi Germany, its effects well known and documented. Meth was combated before the (re)discovery of the Birch Method (a.k.a. The Nazi Method) allowed it to be performed with less dedicated supplies in smaller confines. It's not particularly more or less potent than any other substance and, from a drug standpoint, cutters and fillers are where you make all your money anyway.
My son knows from fellow students at his college who have done internships at pharmaceutical companies that somewhere near half the medicines we have start with making methamphetamine.
You know how *I* know what I said above? Because I interned in a drugs of abuse testing lab as an undergrad. I worked with professors who had experimented with meth. I've read Birch's papers in their native German, swastikas and all. Half the medicines start with making methamphetamine? The top 5 and 7 of the top 10 OTC drugs aren't amphetamine derivatives and treat diseases that amphetamines don't address by methods that have fuck all to do with amphetamines (like hydrocortisone creams).
You guys are as disinformative and propaganda driven as any drug warrior I've met.
Who uses more tax dollars, a dirty illegal or druggie on welfare, or a retired Trump voter getting cancer treatments and heart bypasses courtesy of Medicare?
>>where attendees sign nondisclosure agreements or give up their phones to enter
not even required to hang a mi casa. stop on by.
If Musk's drug use helps move forward greater liberalisation of drugs, good for him - and us.
I have no interest in taking drugs but I don't see why in general people shouldn't be able to make that decision for themselves, and I do see the costs of ongoing criminalisation.
"I don’t see why in general people shouldn’t be able to make that decision for themselves,"
Because drugs are dangerous and not everyone has the expertise to understand the nature of what they are taking, how pure it is, the difference between a safe dose and an overdose, and what kind of behavior to refrain from while under their influence. Not every decision is an informed decision, in other words. It's informed decisions we should be promoting, not the decisions of the ill informed and ignorant, especially when it comes to something as risky as drug taking.
A person in the US in any red state can go and buy a magazine fed semi auto rifle without any training or experience. They can go home, store it badly and their kid can fuck up and shoot a playmate. But you will fight for that person's right to buy that gun even though it can be used very irresponsibly. We accept those situations because it is a cost of being free people. If we follow your train of thought since there are people who will be irresponsible with guns and the people they shoot may not have health insurance throwing the burden of possible hospitalization on the taxpayers then guns should be illegal.
Fuck the 2nd Amendment, it's just ink on a page, show me where governments have the constitutional authority to criminalize any substance. If it isn't in the constitution then it isn't in their power. 9th and 10th amendments.
"But you will fight for that person’s right to buy that gun even though it can be used very irresponsibly."
Is that true? Doesn't the constitution refer somewhere to a 'well regulated militia?' I don't think the founders wanted to protect or promote the irresponsible use of firearms. With rights come responsibilities. They are two sides of an equation.
So guns should be banned because some can't be trusted to be responsible members of the "militia"?
I don't think the founders wanted to promote or protect the irresponsible use of firearms.
What do you care? You live in Mexico.
Whether I care or not is beside the point. The founders put the words 'well regulated militia' in for a reason. They didn't want irresponsible individuals or groups of individuals to have constitutionally guaranteed access to firearms.
Because drugs are dangerous and not everyone has the expertise to understand the nature of what they are takin
And if you legalise drugs we’ll see commercials for those drugs with appropriate warnings, or perhaps we’ll see drug saloons the way we have bars – perhaps a chain of Korova Milk Bars, and the occasional PSA on how to consume drugs as safely as we can – IOW, like alcohol and drug commercials. “HeroDose (R), for when you want to feel on top of the world. Ask your pharmacist whether HeroDose is right for you. A GSK product.”
And those people who can’t handle drugs – well, let natural selection take its course. In two or three generations the problem will have resolved itself.
Coping? Only fat, trans, oppressed POCs deserve coping (fully funded and delivered by multiple over-lapping, contradictory government agencies funded by taxes on the 1%).
Musk is a seditious white male mega-billionaire. Instead of coping he deserves persecution.
If we can’t choose to consume substances of our own choosing, we aren’t free individuals. We are all children under the law who never reach an age of majority. Once that became accepted, there are no limits on what the government may deny or compel you to do. It’s happening in real time right now.
"Once that became accepted, there are no limits on what the government may deny or compel you to do. "
There are limits. You set them. I'm reminded of the plight of followers the Jehovah's Witness church under the Nazis. The government tried to coerce them into bearing arms during WWII, and they refused.
"Once that became accepted"
The Jehovah's Witness never accepted. They have a strong spine and firm belief in the righteousness of their practices.
They are also a fringe sect, like the Amish and their ilk. They are more trouble than they would be worth to force into violations of their beliefs. If Catholics tried that shit then the hammer would come down.
"If Catholics tried that shit then the hammer would come down."
Catholics are not a fringe set. They gained their mainstream status by kowtowing to those in power.
"They are more trouble than they would be worth to force into violations of their beliefs."
Nazis did try to coerce them into abandoning their principles. They were brutalized, forced to wear purple triangles and sent to concentration camps and death camps.
Exactly. If Catholics or Lutherens refused military service because of their beliefs locking them all up would bring a country to a standstill since they are a majority. Lock up every Jehovas Witness and it would have less impact than locking up the Jews. I doubt most people would miss them. Hell, if it kept them from pestering me at home I could be persuaded to support locking them up in work camps.
Lock up every Jehovas Witness and it would have less impact than locking up the Jews."
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Nazis didn't persecute Jehovah's Witnesses because they were a minority fringe group. They were persecuted because they were committed pacifists and refused military service.
"I doubt most people would miss them."
I really don't care what most people think. I admire them for their commitment to principles. I also admire them for their taking their time to visit complete strangers and extend an invitation to follow the path that will lead to paradise. (Not that I believe it will, but I appreciate the generosity and neighborly love of the gesture.)
Do you even have Jehovas Witnesses in Mexico?
I have them in Mexico. More surprisingly, I have Mennonites in Mexico. They farm in the north and are famous throughout the country for their cheese. Many have retained their German language
"Others question his business practices"
Like actually giving the government what it paid for? Not talking bullshit from DEI hires?
"oppose his embrace of free speech"
Pretty sure we used to call those people fascists.
"or recoil from his hard-to-pin-down politics"
"I hate Musk because his politics are hard to pin down", said nobody ever. They hate him because CNN and MSDNC told them to. He's a classical liberal who doesn't care about party politics and is willing to talk smack about the Democrats.
I feel sorry for Elon Musk, in much the same way as I feel for Kanye West. Both are successful, intelligent and talented individuals, but are also vulnerable, unstable and self destructive. They are also celebrities, and society exploits them at every turn to fill the pages of gossip rags like Reason.
People hate him because he’s rich but doesn’t get a pass. Entertainers get a pass because they’re entertainers. Same with ball players. Rich capitalists and entrepreneurs only get a pass if they’re really vocal about wanting the government to take more of their money (which they never give voluntarily).
This is pretty much it.
Tuccille is playing right into it, too. The very headline, using Musk as a starting point for talking about drug legalization… when the story that founded it was very obviously just meant to sow seeds against him.
Note the story was that unnamed “insiders” were “worried” about Musk’s drug use. Weasel worded so they don’t say Musk is a junky directly, the “unnamed source” that is “close to” someone. Fits all the tropes of media trying to tarnish someone while not crossing the line to obvious libel.
Musk not only claims to be clean, but has years of regular random drug tests to prove he is clean. They are just trying to dredge up anything they can.
"They are just trying to dredge up anything they can."
I thought that Musk was quite open about his history drug use. Isn't it part and parcel of the attention seeking celebrity? That the media exploits these revelations is entirely to be expected.
It's probably too much to ask that our government gets their combined heads our of their ass on this manner. There's a first time for everything,