Yes, laughing gas (nitrous oxide) is a legal substance, not a controlled substance, in the US. However, unlike oxygen, nitrous oxide distributors are legally required to deliver N2O tanks to licensed healthcare facilities. There is another requirement for mask use, such as specific labor and delivery units, home-hospice palliative care protocols, or mobile emergency medical services (EMS) where pre-mixed 50/50 N2O and oxygen systems (commonly known by brand names like Entonox) may be ordered. These are the current restrictions for personal use that I know of.
Thanks, Richard. That's more or less what I figured. The gas has been outlawed in the UK as of 2023 for everything but medical and dental use. I believe that the gas was already illegal for use in the UK in any way that would produce the kinds of experiences mentioned by William James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience." They created some law about a decade ago that said in effect, "Thou shalt not 'get high' with this gas." These laws were enacted by MPs who seem to have never heard of William James (or of psychological common sense or of metaphysical research, etc. – or of the proper use of statistics, for that matter, else they would never have concluded that a swallow makes a summer when it comes to the misuse of psychoactive substances). Prior to the 2023 legislation in the UK, I had written multiple essays to protest the UK media's blatant demonization of laughing gas. I showed how the Channel 5 "presenters" in particular were acting as cheerleaders for criminalizing the gas.
And this is the problem. Any psychoactive substance can be easily outlawed nowadays on either side of the Atlantic. It suffices only that a substance be misused by young people in a way that can be clearly demonstrated on a TV clip, and that substance can be outlawed for use by any adult and for any reason: spiritual, therapeutic, or philosophical. It takes only one acontextual but heartbreaking documentary on network television. In that same year, 2023, our FDA held public hearings to discuss their plans to treat laughing gas as a "drug" – or in other words, to make it less available than ever for therapeutic, religious or philosophical purposes. I submitted testimony to their committee as noted in my essay entitled "Why the FDA Should Not Schedule Laughing Gas," in which I attempted to refresh the FDA's collective memory about the legacy of William James and the obvious fact that inspirational substances have a prima facie potential to help the depressed and the suicidal.
I believe I was the only philosopher who stood up for the legacy of William James during the FDA hearings. I wrote to over a hundred philosophers on this subject during this time to enlist their support as well, especially those who purport to be experts on James, but I received zero responses. I cannot imagine that the professors at James' alma mater spoke up, since his online biography at Harvard does not even mention his use of nitrous oxide. And yet James made it clear that his use of such substances changed his entire philosophy about the nature of human consciousness.
This is why I fear that we will have to wait for a major correction in world views before drugs can be kept sustainably legal. Society has to rise above the idea that so-called drug use must be held to a safety standard that we apply to no other dangerous activity on Earth. If that standard were held for horseback riding, there would be no such thing as equestrian sports. Horseback riding is the chief cause of traumatic brain injury in sports in the U.S., and the victims are usually young people. If we treated the sport as we do drug use, we would see nationwide ads such as the following: "Just one horse killed my little Suzie," or, "It only took one horse...," or "Christopher Reeves thought he could control a horse. The fact is, NOBODY can control a horse." But we wouldn't think of outlawing horseback riding. Why not? Because we believe that such sports have benefits. (This is why I created The Partnership for a Death Free America, to satirize this statistically-challenged view of life that is implicit in drug demonization.)
This is why the way forward in drug re-legalization is, in my view, to relentlessly emphasize the potential benefits of drugs. I am one of the few who can write passionately on this issue, because I see myself as a victim of the idea that drugs have no benefits. But as more med-dependent patients reach their senior years, the pennies will eventually start dropping. At least that is my hope. I am assuming that democracy has not met its match with the advent of money-driven propaganda. Meanwhile, my role is that of the Socratic gadfly, to keep reminding the mainstream world of the obvious facts that they are determined to ignore.
A few more thoughts about the criminalization of laughing gas. As noted, the UK had essentially already outlawed the kind of use that inspired the 2023 law. That earlier law did not prevent "misuse," quite the contrary. By making the drug harder to source and by refusing to teach safe use, the UK made it ever more likely that young people would find a dangerous way to use the substance. The "still further" outlawing of the substance will only force determined users to become instant adepts in diverting the gas from legal uses, thereby making the use far more dangerous still. The reigning idea is that the only way to educate young people about drugs is to keep them ignorant – and if that fails, to arrest them. All of this is taking place under three absurd assumptions: 1) that there are no stakeholders in the drugs debate except for worried mothers (and worried news presenters), and 2) that honest education cannot help, and 3) that one well-publicized death of a young person is reason to outlaw a substance, notwithstanding the fact that aspirin kills 3,000 people a year in the UK alone. Surely, that drug could be pilloried to the ends of the earth were we to give it the same treatment as the UK gives to laughing gas. The UK took the same statistically-challenged view of the use of Ecstasy at raves in the 1990s, cracking down after a mere handful of deaths that were clearly the result of the failure to educate about safe use, particularly as regards proper hydration. And so these handful of deaths were deemed ample reason to outlaw a substance whose use had brought unprecedented peace, love and understanding to the British dance floors.
This is why the FDA can never judge drugs fairly, by the way, for they are not experts on the value of things like peace, love and understanding. They have no way to rank the apples of such blessings against the oranges of a handful of deaths. This, of course, is why it was folly to outlaw drugs in the first place, because when we outlaw psychoactive substances, we are outlawing more than drugs: we are outlawing various ways of being in the world.
Yes, laughing gas (nitrous oxide) is a legal substance, not a controlled substance, in the US. However, unlike oxygen, nitrous oxide distributors are legally required to deliver N2O tanks to licensed healthcare facilities. There is another requirement for mask use, such as specific labor and delivery units, home-hospice palliative care protocols, or mobile emergency medical services (EMS) where pre-mixed 50/50 N2O and oxygen systems (commonly known by brand names like Entonox) may be ordered. These are the current restrictions for personal use that I know of.
Thanks, Richard. That's more or less what I figured. The gas has been outlawed in the UK as of 2023 for everything but medical and dental use. I believe that the gas was already illegal for use in the UK in any way that would produce the kinds of experiences mentioned by William James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience." They created some law about a decade ago that said in effect, "Thou shalt not 'get high' with this gas." These laws were enacted by MPs who seem to have never heard of William James (or of psychological common sense or of metaphysical research, etc. – or of the proper use of statistics, for that matter, else they would never have concluded that a swallow makes a summer when it comes to the misuse of psychoactive substances). Prior to the 2023 legislation in the UK, I had written multiple essays to protest the UK media's blatant demonization of laughing gas. I showed how the Channel 5 "presenters" in particular were acting as cheerleaders for criminalizing the gas.
And this is the problem. Any psychoactive substance can be easily outlawed nowadays on either side of the Atlantic. It suffices only that a substance be misused by young people in a way that can be clearly demonstrated on a TV clip, and that substance can be outlawed for use by any adult and for any reason: spiritual, therapeutic, or philosophical. It takes only one acontextual but heartbreaking documentary on network television. In that same year, 2023, our FDA held public hearings to discuss their plans to treat laughing gas as a "drug" – or in other words, to make it less available than ever for therapeutic, religious or philosophical purposes. I submitted testimony to their committee as noted in my essay entitled "Why the FDA Should Not Schedule Laughing Gas," in which I attempted to refresh the FDA's collective memory about the legacy of William James and the obvious fact that inspirational substances have a prima facie potential to help the depressed and the suicidal.
I believe I was the only philosopher who stood up for the legacy of William James during the FDA hearings. I wrote to over a hundred philosophers on this subject during this time to enlist their support as well, especially those who purport to be experts on James, but I received zero responses. I cannot imagine that the professors at James' alma mater spoke up, since his online biography at Harvard does not even mention his use of nitrous oxide. And yet James made it clear that his use of such substances changed his entire philosophy about the nature of human consciousness.
This is why I fear that we will have to wait for a major correction in world views before drugs can be kept sustainably legal. Society has to rise above the idea that so-called drug use must be held to a safety standard that we apply to no other dangerous activity on Earth. If that standard were held for horseback riding, there would be no such thing as equestrian sports. Horseback riding is the chief cause of traumatic brain injury in sports in the U.S., and the victims are usually young people. If we treated the sport as we do drug use, we would see nationwide ads such as the following: "Just one horse killed my little Suzie," or, "It only took one horse...," or "Christopher Reeves thought he could control a horse. The fact is, NOBODY can control a horse." But we wouldn't think of outlawing horseback riding. Why not? Because we believe that such sports have benefits. (This is why I created The Partnership for a Death Free America, to satirize this statistically-challenged view of life that is implicit in drug demonization.)
This is why the way forward in drug re-legalization is, in my view, to relentlessly emphasize the potential benefits of drugs. I am one of the few who can write passionately on this issue, because I see myself as a victim of the idea that drugs have no benefits. But as more med-dependent patients reach their senior years, the pennies will eventually start dropping. At least that is my hope. I am assuming that democracy has not met its match with the advent of money-driven propaganda. Meanwhile, my role is that of the Socratic gadfly, to keep reminding the mainstream world of the obvious facts that they are determined to ignore.
A few more thoughts about the criminalization of laughing gas. As noted, the UK had essentially already outlawed the kind of use that inspired the 2023 law. That earlier law did not prevent "misuse," quite the contrary. By making the drug harder to source and by refusing to teach safe use, the UK made it ever more likely that young people would find a dangerous way to use the substance. The "still further" outlawing of the substance will only force determined users to become instant adepts in diverting the gas from legal uses, thereby making the use far more dangerous still. The reigning idea is that the only way to educate young people about drugs is to keep them ignorant – and if that fails, to arrest them. All of this is taking place under three absurd assumptions: 1) that there are no stakeholders in the drugs debate except for worried mothers (and worried news presenters), and 2) that honest education cannot help, and 3) that one well-publicized death of a young person is reason to outlaw a substance, notwithstanding the fact that aspirin kills 3,000 people a year in the UK alone. Surely, that drug could be pilloried to the ends of the earth were we to give it the same treatment as the UK gives to laughing gas. The UK took the same statistically-challenged view of the use of Ecstasy at raves in the 1990s, cracking down after a mere handful of deaths that were clearly the result of the failure to educate about safe use, particularly as regards proper hydration. And so these handful of deaths were deemed ample reason to outlaw a substance whose use had brought unprecedented peace, love and understanding to the British dance floors.
This is why the FDA can never judge drugs fairly, by the way, for they are not experts on the value of things like peace, love and understanding. They have no way to rank the apples of such blessings against the oranges of a handful of deaths. This, of course, is why it was folly to outlaw drugs in the first place, because when we outlaw psychoactive substances, we are outlawing more than drugs: we are outlawing various ways of being in the world.
A couple of my related essays/links:
https://www.abolishthedea.com/partnership_for_a_death_free_america
https://www.abolishthedea.com/why_the_fda_should_not_schedule_laughing_gas