Lets talk about drugs!

The last I new adrenaline was a natural process of our bodies. The flow of adrenaline.
So I may teach my kid about playing basketball, Tell them SOME, as I posted, get addicted to sports, the attention and the rush of adrenaline. . I will reassure him it is a GAME. Not life or death.

I can't picture myself, or anyone justifiably explaining to a child (when they are ready??) "presenting" them an explanation HOW TO USE any drug.
I have done most of the drugs out there. I think that education is a must.
Maybe a hands on approach is not the most suitable way to teach a child about drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

The last I new adrenaline was a natural process of our bodies. The flow of adrenaline.
So I may teach my kid about playing basketball, Tell them SOME, as I posted, get addicted to sports, the attention and the rush of adrenaline. . I will reassure him it is a GAME. Not life or death.

I can't picture myself, or anyone justifiably explaining to a child (when they are ready??) "presenting" them an explanation HOW TO USE any drug.
I have done most of the drugs out there. I think that education is a must.
Maybe a hands on approach is not the most suitable way to teach a child about drugs.

---

Adrenaline, a hormone produced by our bodies is natural, but artificially prompting its secretion by purposefully putting one self in a life threatening situation, is not natural.

And I don't mean basket-ball. Adrenaline causes the heart to run faster, to push more oxygen to the cells. Adrenaline secretion is caused by both exercise ( more oxygen is needed by the muscles ), an exciting situation ( more oxygen is needed by the brain ) , and a dangerous situation ( fight or flight, more oxygen is needed by both the muscles and the brain ). Basket-ball fits into only the first two categories.

In any case, I have absolutely nothing against extreme sports. They are great, I was only using them as an argument to prove a point, because they are risky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

If I was a parent, than I will present a psychedelic drug to my child myself, when I think the child is ready. I will teach the child how and when to use it, and explain to the child all the dangers and mistakes that can happen.
This way the child will both be safe, and will learn, and have an amzing experience.

If, however, I choose to be blind and simply forbid the child from taking any drug, I can be sure the child will take drugs anyway, do it wrongly, and go through horrible experiences.

---

You see, in this example, you are putting many more safeguards in place than we can do as the people responsible for what kind of material is allowed on this site (which exactly mirrors my comments of "If we could be sure all discussion about drugs here could be handled responsibly...") But by our allowing anyone to post anything they want about drugs, we are simply not employing that level of security. Say your child was 14, extremely impressionable and "troubled" - "mentally unstable". Would you allow that child to enter an arena where any type of banter about drugs is allowed? If you were convinced that a select few of the members of said arena were responsible, and would disclose well-intentioned information on those drugs, but that your child would also have access to many members who could not give a fuck less about taking resonsibility for what they say and paid (and preached) no heed to any of the dangers of a drug (whether a psyche. or hardcore drug), would you throw your child in and make him resonsbile for choosing which lines of thought to follow, if you could not be sure that the child would even see/read/hear/notice the more responsible members?

This situation is a stark contrast to what you said you would do, as a parent, and is much closer to the responsibility we have to accept, when deciding how freely to let things like drugs be talked about, around here. A concept that I don't think anyone here has mentioned is that many young people who have absolutely no exposure to, knowledge of, or willingness to try a drug will First hear about that drug, here on Dream Views, and their decision on whether or not to try it will be based on which posts they decide to read, there being no guarantee that those posts will be from the responsible members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

I don't see how age restriction are relevant here.
Kids do dangerous stuff regardless of age restrictions.
Drugs are illegal, so you can't take them at any age. Does this stop kids for trying them?

---

Psychologically speaking, age restrictions are very relevant. The mind develops in stages and, before certain stages (ages) have been reached, it is scientifically (accepted to be) irresponsible to allow exposure to certain concepts or activities, unless they already have a full understanding (and are already recognized as able to handle) the concept/activity. Your example of "Kids do dangerous stuff regardless of age restrictions" is founded on the idea of that kid having no supervision, and being free to try whatever he wants, whenever he wants. We are simply opting to have as little chance of providing damaging information to such a kid as possible.

Using your example of how you would be willing to introduce your child to hallucinogens at an early age "if you felt the child was ready", let's make it closer to the situation we face as the staff of Dream Views:

Would you make your house - the house that You are responsible for - an arena where talk and promotion of drugs such as LSD, marijuana, Salvia Divinorum and the like can be discussed freely (by both responsible and completely recklessly ignorant people), invite your all your neighbors' kids, 14 and up (regardless of whether or not they are psychologically prepared for the intense experiences that are being advertised) and then forbid them from doing those drugs in your house? For this reason, you will not be able to guarantee that, when they do decide to experiment with the things they are learning about in your home, they actually listened to the responsible members and not the irresponsible ones and are taking the proper precautions, when the children have gone back home (or wherever) and are deciding to experiment on their own?

THIS is the situation we have to weigh, because we can not be sure that the members we welcome here actually read the responsible posts and we are not able to sit down and supervise them over the experiment, at the time they decide to try the drug (which negates your parental guidance analogy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

Drugs are less dangerous. I reached the answer by statistics. Though I don't have the numbers, I am certain that I am correct, and I will look for the numbers of you force me. More people, both children and adults, die because of legal activties, than because of psychedelics. And more become disabled. I heard of cases where people ( adults or children ) got damaged because of psychedelics, but these are extremely rare. However everyday I hear about cases of kids or adults who die because of legal activities...

...I would allow the discussion on psychedelic drugs, because it is relevant to dreaming, and is important to some of our members. Sure, there is danger in psychedelics, but much, much greater danger in other activities that are accepted, promoted, encouraged by the staff, and even the staff participates in these discussions. I am sorry but my logic in this seems to be irrefutable, as you did not counter it in any of your statements.

---

Again, I disagree, and I countered it with an argument that you have ignored.

There is a psychological aspect to mind-altering substances that physical (legal or otherwise) activities do not carry. You are fighting from the stance that death/physical (in reference to the body) or physiological (in reference to the brain) risk is all that matters. This is simply not true. You can gauge a broken arm. You can gauge a level of brain damage. You cannot gauge the psychological impact that introduction to a mind-altering drug, philosophy, concept, argument, chastisement or high-level-of-praise has on the mind of any given 14-15 year old kid. No amount of statistics you can show me on the affects of mind-altering substances over "dangerous" sports will be able to fully take that variable into account. It is still a very significant risk to consider, and I don't believe you've done so.

What is more dangerous (bring your focus away from "physical" danger, for a moment)?
Allowing a 14 year old to snowboard, or convincing a 14 year old how much his/her father hates him/her?

What is more dangerous?
(And I keep using the age of 14 because that is a level we have agreed upon as a suitable level for providing information on Lucid Dreaming - which this site, again, is about - while trying not to simply allow all levels of immaturity run amok)
Allowing a 14 year old to ride a motorcycle, or convincing a 14 year old that life just isn't really worth living?

The two psychological components are possibilities inherent in the inexperienced having a go at psychedelic drugs. There is also the fallout inherent in the parents of said 14 year olds finding out about their drug use and (wrongly, I agree) allowing that to put a dent in their parent/child relationship.

Please show me statistics that take all these concepts into account, when comparing the use of mind-altering substances to dangerous activities, because I'm hard-pressed to believe they exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

I think it will become a forum for children, which is a fine thing, but I would have liked it to be the best lucid dreaming forum and information center on the Internet, and this it will not be.

---

Well, I'm simply going to disagree with you. It took a bit of discussion before we even decided to set the minimum age at 14, and I don't see it falling any lower than that. Regardless of what a few members may think, wide-ranging discussion about drugs (when not pertaining to dreaming) has never been a relatively Major component of this forum (besides for those people that it was a passionate issue for). All of the drugs that SKA mentioned are, as said, still being allowed to be discussed, but in the sense that the experiences talked about are those that are relevant to dreaming and are (moderated as dilligently as possible) responsible. You may think that, aside from that, not letting any and all talk about 'drugs' on this forum will make it crash and burn into a blaze of glorious obscurity, but I'm pretty confident it won't, so we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You see, in this example, you are putting many more safeguards in place than we can do as the people responsible for what kind of material is allowed on this site (which exactly mirrors my comments of "If we could be sure all discussion about drugs here could be handled responsibly...") But by our allowing anyone to post anything they want about drugs, we are simply not employing that level of security. Say your child was 14, extremely impressionable and "troubled" - "mentally unstable". Would you allow that child to enter an arena where any type of banter about drugs is allowed? If you were convinced that a select few of the members of said arena were responsible, and would disclose well-intentioned information on those drugs, but that your child would also have access to many members who could not give a fuck less about taking resonsibility for what they say and paid (and preached) no heed to any of the dangers of a drug (whether a psyche. or hardcore drug), would you throw your child in and make him resonsbile for choosing which lines of thought to follow, if you could not be sure that the child would even see/read/hear/notice the more responsible members?

---

That arena that you are talking about, is called the Internet. Only way to stop a child from accessing the arena is to stop the child from the Internet. But that a different story, lets not go into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

There is a psychological aspect to mind-altering substances that physical (legal or otherwise) activities do not carry. You are fighting from the stance that death/physical (in reference to the body) or physiological (in reference to the brain) risk is all that matters. This is simply not true. You can gauge a broken arm. You can gauge a level of brain damage. You cannot gauge the psychological impact that introduction to a mind-altering drug, philosophy, concept, argument, chastisement or high-level-of-praise has on the mind of any given 14-15 year old kid. No amount of statistics you can show me on the affects of mind-altering substances over "dangerous" sports will be able to fully take that variable into account. It is still a very significant risk to consider, and I don't believe you've done so.

What is more dangerous (bring your focus away from "physical" danger, for a moment)?
Allowing a 14 year old to snowboard, or convincing a 14 year old how much his/her father hates him/her?

What is more dangerous?
(And I keep using the age of 14 because that is a level we have agreed upon as a suitable level for providing information on Lucid Dreaming - which this site, again, is about - while trying not to simply allow all levels of immaturity run amok)
Allowing a 14 year old to ride a motorcycle, or convincing a 14 year old that life just isn't really worth living?

The two psychological components are possibilities inherent in the inexperienced having a go at psychedelic drugs. There is also the fallout inherent in the parents of said 14 year olds finding out about their drug use and (wrongly, I agree) allowing that to put a dent in their parent/child relationship.

---

I think death is worse than a psychological damage.
I think sever brain-damage is worse than a psychological damage.
I think that sever disability is worse than non-sever psychological damage.

Thats why I ignored the argument about psychological damage, because I thought this is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Please show me statistics that take all these concepts into account, when comparing the use of mind-altering substances to dangerous activities, because I'm hard-pressed to believe they exist.

---

I can do it, but it will take me a whole day or more, and I don't know why I should bother since you have your opinion set already, and you will certainly not allow psychedelics discussions even if I showed you that x people die or get sever psychological damage each year from psychedelics, while x*1000 die or get severely disabled from legal activities that the staff encourages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, I'm simply going to disagree with you. It took a bit of discussion before we even decided to set the minimum age at 14, and I don't see it falling any lower than that. Regardless of what a few members may think, wide-ranging discussion about drugs (when not pertaining to dreaming) has never been a relatively Major component of this forum (besides for those people that it was a passionate issue for). All of the drugs that SKA mentioned are, as said, still being allowed to be discussed, but in the sense that the experiences talked about are those that are relevant to dreaming and are (moderated as dilligently as possible) responsible. You may think that, aside from that, not letting any and all talk about 'drugs' on this forum will make it crash and burn into a blaze of glorious obscurity, but I'm pretty confident it won't, so we'll just have to disagree on that one.

---

I hope that you are right. Time will tell the wiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

That arena that you are talking about, is called the Internet. Only way to stop a child from accessing the arena is to stop the child from the Internet. But that a different story, lets not go into it.

---

Incorrect. That arena that I'm talking about, in that context, is Dream Views. There is no one responsible for the whole of the information available on the Internet (as well there shouldn't be) but when you are speaking about privately owned sites with their own objectives and goals, then you will, inevitably, find rules and guidelines in place.

To put it another way: Only way to stop a child from accessing any malicious content, ever, is to shut them off from the rest of the known world. This is not possible. However, on a home-to-home, business-to-business basis, you will find rules and guidelines in place that are designed to do just that. Leaning back on the free-range nature of the Internet has nothing to do with what kind of content will/should be allowed on a Lucid Dreaming site, on that very same Internet. If that were the case, we (mods) wouldn't be working our asses off, trying to get rid of all the Porn spam that comes through this place, now would we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

I think death is worse than a psychological damage.
I think sever brain-damage is worse than a psychological damage.
I think that sever disability is worse than non-sever psychological damage.

Thats why I ignored the argument about psychological damage, because I thought this is obvious.

---

And I don't think it's that simple. Psychological damage, more often than not, becomes the beginning of a chain of subsequent behavior/events that can not be determined, at the time of damage - such as; the way the psychologically damaged treats their peers, themselves, their children, the public, etc. The psychological damage of one person (believe it or not) can - and often does - lead to the deaths of another, or even many others, as is the case with many serial killers and/or those that commit a 1-time massacre. It is much less black-and-white than physical damage, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

I can do it, but it will take me a whole day or more, and I don't know why I should bother since you have your opinion set already, and you will certainly not allow psychedelics discussions even if I showed you that x people die or get sever psychological damage each year from psychedelics, while x*1000 die or get severely disabled from legal activities that the staff encourages.

---

If an opinion being set is a reason not to debate your own opinion, I'd say it was pointless for me to enter the conversation, in the first place, as your opinion has obviously been set, since before I got here. If you wish to go further, that is fine, if not, I'm pretty tired, too, and would not think any less of you for it. I think of this much less as you fighting an uphill battle, than of us both being at about a stalemate. Hopefully, anyone reading will think enough of both points of view to make logical decisions on whether or not such rules being in place are an attempt at rational caution, or censorship.

And my opinion is not what gets rules implemented and changed, around here, so I think the statement about how I "certainly would not allow psychedelics discussions..." is unfair, as even if you had convinced me, I, alone, am not the gatekeeper to what is and what is not allowed. I'm simply trying to provide rationale as to why things are, now, the way they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

I hope that you are right. Time will tell the wiser.

---

Agreed. :cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If an opinion being set is a reason not to debate your own opinion, I'd say it was pointless for me to enter the conversation, in the first place, as your opinion has obviously been set, since before I got here. If you wish to go further, that is fine, if not, I'm pretty tired, too, and would not think any less of you for it. I think of this much less as you fighting an uphill battle, than of us both being at about a stalemate. Hopefully, anyone reading will think enough of both points of view to make logical decisions on whether or not such rules being in place are an attempt at rational caution, or censorship.

---

That exactly what I was going to say. Other people reading this will draw their own conclusions. However, some other members may still want to discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And my opinion is not what gets rules implemented and changed, around here, so I think the statement about how I "certainly would not allow psychedelics discussions..." is unfair, as even if you had convinced me, I, alone, am not the gatekeeper to what is and what is not allowed. I'm simply trying to provide rationale as to why things are, now, the way they are.

---

Oops sorry, that not what I meant. I meant "you" in the plural form of "you" - I meant the staff members. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

:cheers:

---

Cheers :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Wow. How sad. :blue:

---

See? dodo? This is exactly what I mean with their pre-fixed, deeply anchored judgement on "drugs" and everything that falls under that cathegory. It is based on lies they heard through the grapevine and just midlessly believed.
Dodo I totally agree with you: When I'm a parrent, and I desire to be, I'm going to educate my child about drugs at the age right around the time he is likely to run into drug-doing friends. I will teach him the barenaked truth about all commonly used substances he might run into. I'll let my child know that if he stays off of drugs till he's mentally mature enough, that I will have a psychedelic experience with him. And that I'll be prepared to smoke joints with him too every now and then. I know Howie can never see why that is a wonderfull and intelligent thing. Maybe he'd rather have some Meth-dealing scumbag, or Speed-snorting friends of his kid educate his kid about drugs.

Howie if you wanna know the truth: You should stop listening to what all these people around you say. Not when they say it to you in the face, not when they say it to you on TV and not anywhere; People are full of shit. Because they believe everything they hear about every aspect of reality, the Drugs-subject included, told to them by others. Politicians, Churchfathers, people who heard it from Churchfathers, people who hear it from Politicians on TV, people who heard it from people who heard it from people....etc

And they all just believe it the fools. But if they were only to stop and think for once:"How can I possibly be so sure I know the truth of this, unless I have experience of my own to speak from?" If you, Howie, no matter how much you hate them, would drink some Mushroom tea only once, only them can you judge them, because it would show you, indenieably, that mushrooms aren't bad for you at all. I suggest that after that you buy a bottle of vodka or Whisky and drink up heavily. Now your body will tell you very pronounced which is bad for you, and your body never lies trust me.

Thing is: Assume you know nothing, no matter how much you think you have learned on the subject , because all of you are terribly misinformed on psychedelics and you don't even doubt for a second that your judgement might just be based on false, politically/society-influenced information. Bold lies that is. And remember kids; You would be naïve to denie how much of a deathgrip politicians have on your society.

The nail that sticks out gets hammered back in, and the only reason DV admins have deleted my successfull, responsible, educative topic is because they're affraid to get hammered back in by the big man with the hammer.
It's just a shame, that allthough they have partially admitted that, they still seem to have trouble letting go of their programmed image & judgement of drugs which is based on bold lies.

Dodo how many times have we showed them statistics and facts that clearly show that psychedelics form no threat to society or even to the users themselves if used guided by knowledge and strict rules.

One day, after a couple of years of life-experience in which serveral events occur that will reveal to them that not everything is what it seems, they will think back on this subject and be ready to seriously doubt their current judgement of Psychedelic drugs and wonder if we guys were not just all Frigging crazy and immoral, but perhaps quite right about what we tried to explain.

^^^^ You obviously dont listen to music. Because that is definatly inspired by drugs. Plus just about everything else in entertainment. We probably would be living in a shithole without drugs. But we are also living in a shithole since they are illegal.

If we legalized drugs we could stop wasting money trying to fight drugs, and spend money on real problems, crime rate would probably go down 50%, drug use would be safer because the drugs would be safer, court systems wouldnt be backed up, organized crime would fall, it would help stop the spread of aids, save our fuckin tax dollars, illegal drug dealers would lose business, most drugs are safe unless abused, and we should have human rights.

Dont tell me that legalization would just cause more addicts... maybe like 2% more addicts tops, but those who are addicts, will be addicts anyways... so legalization can just help them die faster hahahaha.


oh and howie dont tell me you dont use drugs, ill bet anything you do. alcohol? nicotine? perscriptions? caffeine? ANYTHING that affects the way the mind and body works...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

If we legalized drugs... crime rate would probably go down 50%,

---

Since probably 90% of all crime is the fact that illegal drugs are possessed, used, sold, made, etc... , I'd say that (assuming my arbitrary number of 90% is correct) there would be a 90% cut in crime by default. If something is no longer illegal then it's no longer a crime to be associated with.

Quote:

---

drug use would be safer because the drugs would be safer, court systems wouldnt be backed up, organized crime would fall, it would help stop the spread of aids, save our fuckin tax dollars, illegal drug dealers would lose business, most drugs are safe unless abused, and we should have human rights.

---

I agree with most of that. But none of us here are in charge of the nation's laws.

Quote:

---

Dont tell me that legalization would just cause more addicts... maybe like 2% more addicts tops, but those who are addicts, will be addicts anyways...

---

How can "like 2% more" be people who already would have?

Quote:

---

oh and howie dont tell me you dont use drugs, ill bet anything you do. alcohol? nicotine? perscriptions? caffeine? ANYTHING that affects the way the mind and body works...

---

He already said he's done some of the things that are not supposed to be discussed. And it's obvious that many people legally do the things you just mentioned. Remember, a lot of the staff has either admitted to having done various substances before or maybe do but not admit it. The same goes for many of the peon members, myself included.

So how does any of that affect the validity of the new rules? If anything, it makes the new rules that much more meaningful because they are actually supported by staff and members who have at various times admitted to having done drugs at some point in their lives. So, many of us have had experience as well. We're not all just "falling for the government propaganda" as you like to tell yourselves.

Some of you are acting like those in support of the new rules are somehow completely ignorant to the reality and effects of drugs. You're acting like this is Miss Jane-do-perfect - who's never even touched her own crotch - just spinning the "screw-the-members" wheel and taking the first position the pointer lands on.

In fact, some of you are forgetting the reality that people might be in support of this because they realise that certain things aren't appropriate for certain situations and audiences. But no, this is obviously all about "sticking it to the little man". :rolleyes:

I've stayed out of this 'debate' for quite some time just because I've decided to sit back and watch the discussion evolve - mostly to see where everyone is coming from. Obviously I'm for drug discussion and whatnot, but if the admins decide to take it away then they take it away. Some excellent points have been made, but I see where the staff comes from; I think overall it's a 'better safe than sorry' kinda thing.

I'll be disappointed if discussion is taken away just because there were so many individuals here (who had experience with psychadelics) who really made me think. Drug discussion was something I really enjoyed about DV, not because I could openly talk about my own personal experience but because I could read others. I really learned a lot from some of the things I read, and it'll be unfortunate if this makes some of the members I truly respect leave.

That being said, I know that most of the staff and some of the people in favour of limited drug discussion have had experience, and that they're just trying to make everyone understand why this is being done, not that this is necessarily their choice. Either way, I see where they're coming from and I think it's pointless arguing, whatever decision is made is made. Hopefully I can find a drug discussing forum as insightful as the threads we had going on here.

Anyways, my two cents... and once again I'm in the middle ground of a debate. ;)

I was responding to howie because although he admitted to using most of the drugs out there, he was saying how he would rather rid the world of all drugs. That pretty much hints to me that he doesn't like drugs and hints that he does not use any. But as I said before, he most likely does. He seems to think drugs are the problem, when it's the law. I simply just made up a list off the top of my head why drugs are not the real problem... sure there were some typos like the 2% deal, but you understand my point.

I already stated, as well as many others, why drugs are safe if used responsibly, and how they can expand you mind. My last post was just some things that have not been brought up yet, so I decided to do the honor.

oh and btw, that 2% number that i made up, refers to how some people can be addicts, but not be drug users. Think about it, if an addict never tries a drug he/she can still be an addict... but if they try drugs, then he/she will be at high risk of addiction... bottom line, you can be an addict but never know it.

EDIT: I do not disagree with the new rule. I see where they are coming from, and I respect the admin's choices for this.

So howie then it seems your mayority of bad trips have shaped your judgement. And if that leads you to conclude that drugs aren't good for you, you are most defenitely right. But what if I tell you Psychedelics, the drugs of this discussion, woul have done nothing but help SOME people? In their quest to find their orientation in life? In their quest of selfmedication(marijuana, Hash) to calm down their overly chaoric mind to a reasonable pace instead of being loaded up with docter prescribed opiates? In their queste to expand their consciousness and rse above the blindness of everyday life?

No matter how much we people from "democratic" countries like to think we're free; we live in slavery. From birth we are told to do this and do that and not to do this and not to do that. Constantly we are pressurised by the demand of: " What have you got to offer to society?". But not once is it important what WE want in this life and what society has to offer to us.

Let's see what this modern society has to offer us: Deskjobs? Stress? Coffee? Liqour? Bars? Clubs? Healthcare unaffordable to the less-wealthy? Insurances that suck us empty and weazle their way out of their promises? Taxes that go to places we won't benefit from? Psychiatrists that load up AD(H)D kids with amphetamines and opiates? Bloody, expensive wars in countries far far away in the name of "justice & freedom"? Cigarettes? Television with mindless programs and false news and information? Education that the less-wealthy can't afford? Hummers? I-pods? Cosmetic surgery? Botox? Foods chemically treated to have a nice color, stay fresh longer and smell nicer but are harmfull physically? Scooters? Fast cars? Cellphones?



These things are supposed to keep us satisfied and feed our desires. Well non of that would make me satisfied. In fact the opposite is true. It makes me sick.

What if none of those things is what you really desire? Note how all these things are based around making a profit. I don't want an I-pod; I want to see more artistic architecture around. I don't want a Deskjob; I want an artistic, multi-mediar carreer. I don't want war in Iraq, I want a peacefull relationship with the islamic world and militairy, purely defensive, effort HERE to prevent radicalist attacks HERE. I don't want opiates and amphetamines for my ADHD, I want to smoke Cannabis and Hasheesh instead for that purpose instead. I don't want a Beer, I wanna have mushrooms instead. I don't want to watch Reality-TV, Soap-operas, dirty politicians lying again and mindless action movies, I wanna see spiritualism dicussed, Documentaries about different cultures and world music being played and explained instead. ..etc

I could go on and on. But this does show that my Ideal is radically different from the socio-political norm. I am not satisfied with the options this society gives me. What I want isn't in the list of options they give me; it is often even illegal. I am glad enough I don't live in the US, because here I am at least a bit more free (Mushrooms, Cannabis & Hash ), but Still IMO there's far too little options to function successfully and have a future for people like me who share the same ideals. We are simply being forced into being simple creatures that work like slaves in cubicals and leave their passionate dreams far behind them. We are encouraged not to have any dreams and wishes to begin with, cause "dreaming is for fools" and doing so would be "irrational".

I think y'all need to watch "The Truman Show" again. It really ties into what I'm trying to say here.

BTW I have always been a very troubled child with an instable mind. If there's anything I've learned from psychedelic experiences and lucid dreaming it is to keep my head cool, to be able to handle myself and to function under the most extreme of circumstances; These experiences have made me more stable so they have a great potential for guided therapy for the mentally disturbed and instable. Yet our societies prefer to use crude medicine such as opiates and amphetamines instead.

Not everyone has my ideals and desires and I respect that. The thing that is really bugging me is that the other way around that is not the case. My values are not respected.


The least I can say is that I am glad that now, finally for the first time, we are having a civilised discussion about this issue. And that is the way to treat sensative subjects: Discussion, not censorship.

A misfit 14 year old girl named Sarah who has been emotionally abused by her parents joins dreamviews. She is also persecuted at school for her looks, interests, personality, ideas...the usual, mostly for being different. She has heard it all in school about drugs, sex, violence. She has been "educated" about drugs in class and by fellow students. She is very depressed. Her parents are controlling about ever aspect of her life. The guy she has a crush on doesn't like her, she has no fulfilling hobbies, has several papers due that she has no interest in, she is under tremendous pressure from her parents to do better, nothing she does is ever good enough, she doesn't fit in anywhere. Sound familiar anyone? Remember highschool?

Path A: dreamviews is censored

She reads a thread and some members gloat about alcohol from their recent weekend. She thinks wow, it must be cool to get drunk...after all all the cool seniors at school do it. She talks to a bad kid for the first time in math class. She talks about getting drunk making up a cool story. The bad kid invites her to a party. She sneaks out after a volatile interaction with her parents. She is very upset, crying about how much she hates her life. She goes to the party. After a few drinks she is staggering around laughing and enjoying the thrill of defying her mean parents and finally fitting in with something. It is sad because she really is smarter than that. Worse builds upon worse, she gets pregnant in her senior year, her parents kick her out, she lives in a trailer with a man who beats her. She is trapped in her situation and her child suffers as well. Her parents tell her this would have never happened if she still went to church, shame, shame on you Sarah!

Path B dreamviews is NOT censored

She reads a thread by SKA about some psychedelic experiences. Everything she learned in school taught that they were dangerous. She was very curious because this new information was complete and elaborate. She was really questioning the way she had been brought up anyway. She was going through a lot of guilt about thinking differently. She thinks about the kids who brag about getting drunk and how terrible they look and feel after a binge. She remembers a girl named Kayla in her band class who is one of the few classmates who doesn't pick on her. She talks to Kayla after class and they decide to start practicing together after school. She goes to Kayla's house one day. Her parents are hippies and very nice. Sarah talks to Kayla one day about psychedelics because of what she read on DV. Kayla takes her to talk to her mom about some of her experiences. Sarah can't believe how openly her mom talks about drugs. One day her and Kayla decide to take their first trip together with the loving support of Kayla's parents. It is a wonderful experience and she goes on in life to get a job and move away from her parents as soon as possible and becomes an artist.

BTW if SKA was appointed the official drug post moderator, that would ensure only intelligent discussion of drugs. And obviously (I hope) there would be a drugs only place in the forum, that way its easy to moderate...how could that not make everyone happy?

I have a question for you admins:

Is it ok for people to discuss the use of alcohol? What if a child reads about that and gets drunk? That means they had read something here and technically committed a crime. What if that kid got alcohol poisoning or died? But I guess that's perfectly ok because the other members were doing something perfectly legal.:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lamneth-25

Path A: dreamviews is censored

...

Path B dreamviews is NOT censored

---

Somebody's grasping at straws.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Rush, Hemispheres, The Trees

SKA, Lamneth-25 - bravo! :goodjob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Somebody's grasping at straws.

---

Somebody's MAKING them grasp at straws.

Concerning the Psychedelic San Pedro Cactus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwendolyn

We have a bunch of these cacti growing at my house....This is the first psychedelic I tried, with my father and mother, for my eighteenth birthday. It was the best birthday present my parents could have given me, especially for my first psychedelic experience. It was also the first experience for my brother, and the second for my sister. So, it really got me disinterested in all other drugs besides psychedelics, because they are much more intriguing.

---

Indeed. Psychedelics are salvation to those interrested in harmfull "buzz" drugs. They make you see how senseless and irresponsible they are opposed to how magical and harmless psychedelics are.

Your parents seriously rule. That they are so openminded. I don't know where you live but if I were ever around I would love to stop by your place and drink San Pedro Smoothies with you and your amazingly openminded family. :D I can't wait till my San Pedro is full-grown. It is currently 43 cms long and roughly 6 to 6,5 cm in diameter. Do you think it's about large enough for consumption yet?

Now Oneironaught and Howie; Do you think what Gwendolyn's parents did for her birthday was "wrong"? I think it is the most wonderfull present a parent can give their child. And as you see it did for Gewndolyn what it did for me: It took my interrest away from all other drugs that I previously had done and made me aware of how harmfull and illusive they are.

I haven't really been paying attention to this discussion lately, so forgive me for my randomness.

Sometimes I get really bored and search YouTube for Salvia videos. I've compiled a list of the ones that really made my laugh. These videos are fucking hilarious. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=...&v=0jd-oObbsVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2EIi...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaAN...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaAzk...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Aju...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB-m0...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v_qB...elated&search=

These are worth watching, I guarantee they will make you laugh out loud :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wer

I haven't really been paying attention to this discussion lately, so forgive me for my randomness.

Sometimes I get really bored and search YouTube for Salvia videos. I've compiled a list of the ones that really made me laugh. These videos are fucking hilarious. Enjoy!

[EDIT]links removed[/EDIT]

These are worth watching, I guarantee they will make you
laugh out loud :D.

---

Yeah, real funny. And any of you have the nerve to bitch about the new rules. How fucking irresponsible can you be? It's not enough to be told you shouldn't talk about certain things - we've got people posting links to videos of people showing how to do it.

Good job :clap:

It's irresponsibility like that which brought about the crackdown on drug talk around here.

Point, set, match.

This is complete nonsense Oneironaught. If anything these videos are gonna make people think 10 times before trying Salvia, since these videos make it look very bad.

And to learn how to use it, you just need to press the first results in google.

There is nothing irresponsible about this post. In fact it is extremly responsible, and extremly educational. To cencor information is irresponsible because it makes people do mistakes. To show the truth is not only responsible, but a moral obligation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Yeah, real funny. And any of you have the nerve to bitch about the new rules. How fucking irresponsible can you be? It's not enough to be told you shouldn't talk about certain things - we've got people posting links to videos of people showing how to do it.

Good job :clap:

It's irresponsibility like that which brought about the crackdown on drug talk around here.

Point, set, match.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dodobird

This is complete nonsense Oneironaught. If anything these videos are gonna make people think 10 times before trying Salvia, since these videos make it look very bad.

---

Right, because videos of people rolling around on the floor laughing their ass off is a really compelling reason to avoid salvia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Right, because videos of people rolling around on the floor laughing their ass off is a really compelling reason to avoid salvia.

---

Yes. It doesn't look like fun at all. It looks like lunacy. It looks like scary, ugly, stupid, lunacy. What's it is really like, can be known by the user alone, but from outside it looks bad. Also it shows you the danger of getting hurt by stumbling, running into things, and the huge importance of sitters.
Also it shows just how strong it is, especialy at the higher extracts, something which many people don't realize, and often don't even believe after they are warned.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Right, because videos of people rolling around on the floor laughing their ass off is a really compelling reason to avoid salvia.

---

I didn't check out the links. People were rolling around and laughing their asses off? Thanks for informing me. :boogie:

salvia disucssion is pefectly fine, if alcohol is, the legality issues are the same.
We could even have a thread based on discussing our salvia experiences, because its legal. thats your problem with drugs and thats how you create your justification for alcohol discussion.