Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter addresses the attempt to achieve social engineering with regard to states of consciousness through prohibitionist legislation, contrasting the conventional functioning of prohibitive legislation, which aims to prevent the individual from subjecting others to harm in various ways, with the notion that the law has a simultaneous obverse duty to prevent the subject from harming himself/herself too. As various forms of substance prohibition have demonstrated, these bodies of law are very easily evaded and always produce a significant level of contravention, much of which enforcement agencies are tacitly prepared to overlook. While many jurisdictions around the world are beginning to experiment with greater liberality through decriminalization initiatives at varying levels—Portugal, Switzerland, Uruguay, the Netherlands, the city of Vancouver, and some US states—others, led by the UK among the western democracies, are wedded to the view that further repression will achieve at last the elusive goal of a permanently disintoxicated society. Historical precedent overwhelmingly shows this to be a vain hope, and this chapter will deconstruct some of the public arguments deployed in support of the UK Psychoactive Substances Act (2016).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".