Look at the trajectory of most political and historical decisions. This demonstrates that what dominates is not a free process of careful reasoning, but a variety of other factors that impose on decisions.

If we take reason as the logical thought process of an enlightened individual, then yes. While I agree, that historical and political decisions are mostly driven by corrupt ambitions and necessity, this in itself does not constitute an antithesis to reason a priori.

Enlightened subjectivity is never without internal contradiction of being classed as reason. Reason is characterized by that contradiction rather than through it. It’s not reasonable for you to wish to defeat your enemy and for your enemy to wish to defeat you. It is reasonable that you and your enemy will wish to defeat each other, both for itself and in itself. This is not my idea, of course, but comes from my interpretation of German idealism of the eighteenth/nineteenth century.

So I’d tend to disagree about the statement that the flow of history is unreasonable. Even our very notion of reason has it’s origin in the endless bloodshed of politics and history.

While I agree, that historical and political decisions are mostly driven by corrupt ambitions and necessity, this in itself does not constitute an antithesis to reason a priori. — kudos

My point (perhaps requiring clarification) is that the reasoning behind why some drugs are legal and others are not, is an unsystematic historical legacy of confusions and the work of interest groups. Like many things in history. I wasn't intending to explore the extent and limitations of reason as a metanarrative. :wink:

So what is your point? I am against the extreme regulation of drugs. But there must be at least some regulation, as your pilot example shows (although weakly, as it seems at least as much a regulation of pilots as drugs).

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm perfectly happy with the legal status of drugs where I live.

My point (perhaps requiring clarification) is that the reasoning behind why some drugs are legal and others are not, is an unsystematic historical legacy of confusions and the work of interest groups.

And so being reason as it is, what are some of the ways this is taken in itself? What were these confused people really trying to do in these subjective 'mistakes' that they made? They were, I suppose acting in the interests of themselves, their families, the ideas that constituted their free world of religion, thought, and love. All of the ways in which they sought their own freedom were in the relinquishment what would transform their own, their families, and their fellow citizen's ideology.

They did violence to those who thought and believed in the opposite, but it was more than just a war of hearts and minds. Some of those freedoms were were valid in themselves. There was real pain in women taking drugs and being sold into prostitution, or drug-induced neglect of addicts families, real pain in those who were subject to blind and draconian rules that would lead them to reject adult life for being told they could not use drugs or go to specific parties and affiliate with certain peers, etc. It was elevated above their own subjectivity, because it was recognized as above and beyond the typical and ordinary causality of the enforcers, pushers, and common interest groups.

Can it be taken into a subjective point of view to say, 'They should legalize because of this' or 'They should make it illegal because of that,' and completely set aside the whole historical and political context because it is against the subjective enlightenment of the elites?

What were these confused people really trying to do in these subjective 'mistakes' that they made? — kudos

I'm saying the policy is confused - for instance it never made much sense for cannabis to be illegal on the grounds of harmfulness, while alcohol was legal. Not sure who the 'people' you are referring to might be. I see this issue more as a case of the participation and influence of multiple stakeholders: governments, law enforcement, voters, media, corporations, lobbyists, people who use substances.

Can it be taken into a subjective point of view to say, 'They should legalize because of this' or 'They should make it illegal because of that,' and completely set aside the whole historical and political context because it is against the subjective enlightenment of the elites? — kudos

'Subjective enlightenment of elites' sounds like a right wing talking point. I have not mentioned right wing lobbyists in my discussion, but some have certainly played a role in spreading fear about substance use. I don't know who elites are meant to be. Many of the people who want drug law reform are actually social workers, police officers, users of substances and parents of users who died of overdoses or are in jail. They can see first hand that prohibition and current but outdated thinking doesn't work for what is essentially a health problem.