Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.
This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.
I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn’t agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.
If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn’t be favorable for all parties.
If the end result is that psychedelics get used as an excuse to take power away from the FDA, then everybody’s safety gets compromised in all areas of healthcare.
This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.
I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn’t agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.
Could you elaborate on what you mean?
If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn’t be favorable for all parties.
It does not matter morally, but does rhetorically and politically. The result of neglecting the latter is your rhetoric can be abused, see OP
If the end result is that psychedelics get used as an excuse to take power away from the FDA, then everybody’s safety gets compromised in all areas of healthcare.