Thread: Lets talk about drugs!

Originally Posted by dodobird

Well, you are saying that discussing them is illegal.

Discussing them is not illegal. That discussion being the main contributor to the delinquency of a minor or the death of a person, of any age, is.

It is the same issue as with Dr. Kervorkian(sp?). It was not his discussion of suicide that was what put him on trial for murder (was that the actual charge? I forget) but it was his direct promotion of "assisted suicide," by way of talking the person into taking their own life, that was. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by dodobird

So this is the Danger argument again. But you are wrong here. Even if you take all the ruined life and suffering caused by all illegal drugs, it doesn't even comes close to the ruined life and suffering caused by legal dangerous recreational activities. not even close! Alcohol, cigarettes, gun owning, hunting, driving on holidays ( not a necessity ),
driving motor-cycles, deep water scuba diving, mountain climbing. The deaths and suffering caused by these and other legal recreational activities are a million times worse than that of all illegal drugs combined. Again, I don't have the statistics, but if you force me I will look it up, but in any case I am sure I am correct. Still you have no problems with discussing the other activities, this proves that the danger argument is irrelevant.

So...by your logic...(and this is on moral ground, not legal) we should allow a pedophile to start up a journal of his experiences of raping 7 year olds? We should condone "positive" discussions on how to, most effective, gut a living being with a steak knife? Maybe a tutorial on how to crack open ATM machines, or a "Purse-snatching for Dummies" course? If we were to promote dangerous activities, openly, why not throws those in, too, right?

With this being a lucid dreaming site, and one striving to remain respectable, put yourself in the position of the owner/staff, before answering that final question. And, if you don't mind, answer with why you feel they should be allowed, or why you don't.

Like I said, there is some level of hypocrisy (as far as the "dangerous things" concept) in allowing some things to be talked about and some not. But (again, this is even without the legality argument) that is unavoidable. To completely bar everything dangerous from being discussed, ever, is absolute overkill. To allow everything dangerous being discussed would be to allow promotion of the activities above.

This is a lucid dreaming site and, aside from lucid dreaming, we have to draw a line as to the kinds of things that will and won't be welcome here and that line will, inevitably, cut some people out of the loop. Talk of drugs (that does not pertain to dreaming), we feel, is simply not worth the possible repercussions.

Oneironaught and Oneironaught;

I think you have misunderstood the nature of the SPECIFIC type of drugs I was discussing; Psychedelics. And specifically shamanic ones.

Mushrooms - non toxic, non harmfull.
Yopo(Calcium Bufotenate) - very slightly toxic yet still far less than coffee
Pure DMT - non-toxic, nonharmfull, made in all mamals and many plants
Marijuana - non-toxic, non-harmfull
LSA seeds - slightly toxic, yet not significantly. Legally available everywhere.
Salvia - non-toxic, bizarre, but non-harmfull
And the odd one out: LSD -slightly toxic, yet still far less than coffee.

These psychedelics in uttery RARE cases can trigger a "sleeping" mental disorder, but I repeat this is extremely rare. An irresponsible kid of 14 who decides to go eat some mushrooms will be very very sorry and scared off like a rabbit after a traumatically fearfull, ashaming, negative experience.

Other than that... what dangers do you speak off?
Gateway drugs? I've seen a friend of mine throw away his SPEED while on LSD swearing to never use speed again. Isn't that the reversed situation of what "gateway drugs" means? I don't know why you see dangers in the Psychedelic substances I lsited above.

Originally Posted by SKA

Other than that... what dangers do you speak off?

The danger I (personally) am referring to are the dangers of someone's reaction to the trip, while on the trip, which is (by you, I, or any psychoanalytical professional) completely unpredictable, on a case-by-case basis. No amount of our rationale can assume what someone's reaction to, say, a really heavy LSD trip is going to be. Depending on their environments, psychological backgrounds and/or supervision (ie; having a 'sitter'), a bad trip could lead from anything from accidental injury to suicide.

Trying as best you can to take an unbiased stance on the issue, could you disagree with this?

I understand what you mean about the others as well but, promoting things to the masses that alter mind states, in such an open forum as Dream Views, is simply playing with fire, for a number of reasons. I (and again, I'm speaking on a personal basis, which has not much influence on the imposition of the rules) don't promote drug use to anyone that I can't be there to take responsibility for, at the time of their (at least first) experimentation or am, otherwise, confident that they will be properly cautious and/or supervised. You simply do not know how people will react, individually.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The danger I (personally) am referring to are the dangers of someone's reaction to the trip, while on the trip, which is (by you, I, or any psychoanalytical professional) completely unpredictable, on a case-by-case basis. No amount of our rationale can assume what someone's reaction to, say, a really heavy LSD trip is going to be. Depending on their environments, psychological backgrounds and/or supervision (ie; having a 'sitter'), a bad trip could lead from anything from accidental injury to suicide.

Trying as best you can to take an unbiased stance on the issue, could you disagree with this?

I TOTALLY agree with that, but that is exactly the reason why I am PRO-drug discussion. People are curios by nature and without any help or guidance they will mindfully do drugs. If you read the topic carefully you would see how many times I've warned about destructive, dangerious drugs, and how much I have made the point to any and everyone that you should not just go ahead and eat some mushrooms unprepared. I have really emphasised that such things(Psychedelics) should not be done untill one has reached mental maturity, to do it in a suitable, peacefull set&setting and also the clear point that this is not for everyone. I've listed all the possible negative feelings you might encounter on psychedelic experiences.

I think this means I am anti-censorship and pro-harmreduction, cuz people will do drugs anywayz; love it or hate it, but please aknowledge they do. Some important information for those interrested was right there in that topic. I even tried talking a guy out of ever taking opiates and amphetamines again, together with others, and made the point that it is no good if the centre of attention and amusement in your world is drugs only.... Now that all that is lost I don't think people will stop doing drugs.

Do you think cheesy "school bands" singing "Just say no"-songs in schools will reduce people's curiosity for drugs? I think it serves as the opposite. If you tell people "No that is forbidden fruit, don't go there cuz drugz are bad hmmkay" it only makes them wonder "why not?" and makes them more curious. Now the curious people just have another valuable source of truthfull information on the subject less.

Originally Posted by SKA

I TOTALLY agree with that, but that is exactly the reason why I am PRO-drug discussion. People are curios by nature and without any help or guidance they will mindfully do drugs. If you read the topic carefully you would see how many times I've warned about destructive, dangerious drugs, and how much I have made the point to any and everyone that you should not just go ahead and eat some mushrooms unprepared. I have really emphasised that such things(Psychedelics) should not be done untill one has reached mental maturity, to do it in a suitable, peacefull set&setting and also the clear point that this is not for everyone. I've listed all the possible negative feelings you might encounter on psychedelic experiences.

I think this means I am anti-censorship and pro-harmreduction, cuz people will do drugs anywayz; love it or hate it, but please aknowledge they do. Some important information for those interrested was right there in that topic. I even tried talking a guy out of ever taking opiates and amphetamines again, together with others, and made the point that it is no good if the centre of attention and amusement in your world is drugs only.... Now that all that is lost I don't think people will stop doing drugs.

Do you think cheesy "school bands" singing "Just say no"-songs in schools will reduce people's curiosity for drugs? I think it serves as the opposite. If you tell people "No that is forbidden fruit, don't go there cuz drugz are bad hmmkay" it only makes them wonder "why not?" and makes them more curious. Now the curious people just have another valuable source of truthfull information on the subject less.

I understand how passionate (and responsible) you are about the subject, SKA, but it is not like we are being totally ignorant to the fact that people are curious. We are allowing discussion of drugs that pertain to dreaming. That, in turn, will probably make people more curious about certain drugs. Should that be the case (should they be of suitable age, IMO,) we can direct them to sites specific to giving that sort of information. Their research can be done off-site, and knowledge still gained. There are simply too many "posting-styles" that would hinder rather than help the attempt to be responsible, when allowing discussion about drugs to people 14-15 years old, and not everyone reads all the posts in a thread. Threads get countless pages long, and there is no way we can be sure to keep the responsible posters (such as yourself) visible in every portion of a discussion.

We are not coming down on the entire topic of discussing drugs, just that which does not fall under the umbrella of dreaming. Any further information can be gathered through the proper channels.

Originally Posted by SKA

Oneironaught and Oneironaught;

I think you have misunderstood the nature of the SPECIFIC type of drugs I was discussing; Psychedelics. And specifically shamanic ones.

Mushrooms - non toxic, non harmfull.
Yopo(Calcium Bufotenate) - very slightly toxic yet still far less than coffee
Pure DMT - non-toxic, nonharmfull, made in all mamals and many plants
Marijuana - non-toxic, non-harmfull
LSA seeds - slightly toxic, yet not significantly. Legally available everywhere.
Salvia - non-toxic, bizarre, but non-harmfull
And the odd one out: LSD -slightly toxic, yet still far less than coffee.

These psychedelics in uttery RARE cases can trigger a "sleeping" mental disorder, but I repeat this is extremely rare. An irresponsible kid of 14 who decides to go eat some mushrooms will be very very sorry and scared off like a rabbit after a traumatically fearfull, ashaming, negative experience.

Other than that... what dangers do you speak off?
Gateway drugs? I've seen a friend of mine throw away his SPEED while on LSD swearing to never use speed again. Isn't that the reversed situation of what "gateway drugs" means? I don't know why you see dangers in the Psychedelic substances I lsited above.

Since when are these drugs not harmful? They definatly cause damage to your mind and body. Decreasing motor skills/memory/ability to learn/concentration/damage to organs especially smoked substances... This sounds harmful to me. Moderate use wont have noticeable effects like this, but long term use will. And moderate use still does damage little by little.

Thats something you have to accept if you want to use psychedelics, you cant deny it. But hell, what DOESNT harm your body these days. They are still less harmful that drinking coffee everyday, or eating fast food or smoking cigarettes. So, you could call them non-harmful in that case.

I'm not against drugs at all, I just face the facts.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So...by your logic...(and this is on moral ground, not legal) we should allow a pedophile to start up a journal of his experiences of raping 7 year olds? We should condone "positive" discussions on how to, most effective, gut a living being with a steak knife? Maybe a tutorial on how to crack open ATM machines, or a "Purse-snatching for Dummies" course? If we were to promote dangerous activities, openly, why not throws those in, too, right?

What? How on earth did you come up with that logic. pedophiles, Purse-snatchers etc. are criminals that harm others. Why do you think that by my logic we should condone that?
This is my logic: There are hundreds of recreational activities that are much, much more dangerous then drugs, yet you do not ban discussing them from the forum. By deciding to do so, you are being illogical. An illogical argument cannot be accepted, and this is why this argument is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

With this being a lucid dreaming site, and one striving to remain respectable, put yourself in the position of the owner/staff, before answering that final question. And, if you don't mind, answer with why you feel they should be allowed, or why you don't.

OK, why discussions on psychedelic drugs should be allowed:
1) Because they are relevant to dreaming.
2) Because some good members want them to be allowed. And feel strongly about it.

Why these discussions shouldn't be allowed:
1) Because they are apparently illegal if the poster encourage using them.
2) Because we don't want parents to disallow children to use this forum.

The legal reason is an issue I can't argue with. Because of this issue it is risky to have these discussions. I can't say how large is the legal risk, but I can't expect anyone to even take a small risk upon themselves, so like I said, you win.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is a lucid dreaming site and, aside from lucid dreaming, we have to draw a line as to the kinds of things that will and won't be welcome here and that line will, inevitably, cut some people out of the loop. Talk of drugs (that does not pertain to dreaming), we feel, is simply not worth the possible repercussions.

Fair enough.
I hope that one day you will not deem the legal issue a big one ( perhaps by using disclaimers or some other device )

I hope that you will see the illogic in the danger argument.

I hope that you will see the government brain-washing which is the basis of the respectability issue.

I hope that you will see the advantages of having us around, and how they out-weight the other reasons.

Until then, lets stay friends. If this what must come to pass, then let it be. Some unexpected good might come out of it, as is often the case when things change.

Originally Posted by dodobird

What? How on earth did you come up with that logic. pedophiles, Purse-snatchers etc. are criminals that harm others. Why do you think that by my logic we should condone that?
This is my logic: There are hundreds of recreational activities that are much, much more dangerous then drugs, yet you do not ban discussing them from the forum. By deciding to do so, you are being illogical. An illogical argument cannot be accepted, and this is why this argument is irrelevant.

You misunderstood my point.
Harm is harm, whether it be to yourself, or to another. A person (or forum) that promotes the act of someone harming another person is obligated to take, at least partial, responsibility for that person's death. A person (or forum) whose promotion of an act is the direct cause of someone accidentally killing themselves must also accept, at least partial, responsibility for that person's death.

In other words:

Bobby tells Joe (15) that murder is the ultimate rush. Joe, troubled little bastard that he is, goes out and snuffs some unsuspecting jogger, one night.

Bobby tells Dave (14) that LSD is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and was too irresponsible to give him the proper precautions, or opt to be there when Dave experiments with it. Dave decides to try LSD next Saturday, by himself. He takes a little more than he bargained for, starts wondering why Lisa left him for his best friend John and begins to contemplate just how much his life sucks. Dave, caught in the grips of an acid trip, throws himself off the balcony of his high-rise apartment.

You are Bobby's Guardian. You knew about both conversations, before their consequences. In fact, you were in the room when they happened. You were well aware of the possible outcomes of the conversations, and yet you allowed them to happen.

Should you not accept some of the responsibility for the deaths of both Dave and the unknown jogger?

Originally Posted by dodobird

OK, why discussions on psychedelic drugs should be allowed:
1) Because they are relevant to dreaming.
2) Because some good members want them to be allowed. And feel strongly about it.

Why these discussions shouldn't be allowed:
1) Because they are apparently illegal if the poster encourage using them.
2) Because we don't want parents to disallow children to use this forum.

My question was about why the activities I asked about should/should not be allowed. Or, to use the above analogy: If both conversations lead to the deaths of someone, why would you (as Bobby's guardian and having a policy of allowing any conversation - regardless of risk) allow one conversation and not the other, at the time they were spoken? Why would you allow promotion of an act that causes one to harm his/herself, but bar promotion of one that causes one to harm another?

Would this not be illogical?

Originally Posted by dodobird

Until then, lets stay friends.

Of course. It's all good. No hard feelings.

[Edit: Oh...and, now that I think about it: Many (if not all) of the things you have listed, so far, have age restrictions on them (at least in the U.S.) that do not dip as low as 14. ]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You misunderstood my point.
Harm is harm, whether it be to yourself, or to another. A person (or forum) that promotes the act of someone harming another person is obligated to take, at least partial, responsibility for that person's death. A person (or forum) whose promotion of an act is the direct cause of someone accidentally killing themselves must also accept, at least partial, responsibility for that person's death.

In other words:

Bobby tells Joe (15) that murder is the ultimate rush. Joe, troubled little bastard that he is, goes out and snuffs some unsuspecting jogger, one night.

Bobby tells Dave (14) that LSD is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and was too irresponsible to give him the proper precautions. Dave decides to try LSD next Saturday. He takes a little more than he bargained for, starts wondering why Lisa left him for his best friend John and begins to contemplate just how much his life sucks. Dave, caught in the grips of an acid trip, throws him off of his hotel balcony.

You are Bobby's Guardian. You knew about both conversations, before their consequences. In fact, you were in the room when they happened. You were well aware of the possible outcomes of the conversations, and yet you allowed them to happen.

Should you not accept some of the responsibility for the deaths of both Dave and the unknown jogger?

Bobby tells Dave that snow boarding kicks ass ( It does ), and how it is an adrenalin sport ( As was just mentioned in a current thread ). Bobby goes snow boarding and gets buried in a snow-avalanche.

Bobby tells Joe, how motor-cycling kicks ass, and how it impresses the girls. Joe goes on a bike, some guy opens the door of his car without looking, Joe hits the door and dies ( happened to a friend of mine )

Dangerous activities are dangerous activities. Banning discusion on them is fine, if you want to be careful. Banning discussions on the less dangerous activities, while accepting and even encouraging and participating in the the discussions of the more dangerous activities is illogical. Illogical decisions have no justifications.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

My question was about why the activities I asked about should/should not be allowed.

OK, reasons for using psychedelics:
1) It could be a mind-opening, teaching experience.
2) It could be an interesting, sometimes fun experience.
3) It could affect dreams and lucid dreams in interesting ways.
4) It could help in the scientific research of the mind
5) some say it could be therapeutic under the correct conditions, treating things such as drug addictions, and traumas.
6) Some say it could lead you to spiritual experiences.

Reasons for not using psychedelics:
1) It could cause you a traumatic experience, possibly with a long term effect ( post traumatic stress disorder )
2) It can make you do something stupid such as trying to fly out the window.
3) It can cause you an unpleasant experience
4) Some psychedelics ( but not all ) can cause "flash backs". These flash-backs can come at a problematic time, such as when driving a car, and put you in danger.
5) Some psychedelics ( but not all ) are illegal and can put you in trouble with the law if you are caught.

Like I said, psychedelics are dangerous, but a million times less dangerous then other things, such as motor-cycle driving. baning the former while encoureging the later on the basis of danger is illogical.

Originally Posted by dodobird

Dangerous activities are dangerous activities. Banning discusion on them is fine, if you want to be careful. Banning discussions on the less dangerous activities, while accepting and even encouraging and participating in the the discussions of the more dangerous activities is illogical. Illogical decisions have no justifications.

Like I said, psychedelics are dangerous, but a million times less dangerous then other things, such as motor-cycle driving. baning the former while encoureging the later on the basis of danger is illogical.

So, parents that promote skateboarding or team sports to their 14-year-olds should also promote mushrooms and LSD to their 14-year-olds, even if they do not opt to supervise them at the time of their experimentation?

And, adversely, a parent that does not allow their 14-year-old child to do mushrooms or LSD should, also, not allow them to skateboard?

Is that what you're saying?

Do you have children?

Many of the activities you are mentioning have age restrictions for the reason that they are evaluated as being ages where certain psychological benchmarks are met, that declare a person as "old enough to be responsible for their actions" for that particular activity.

I have absolutely no knowledge of snowboarding (or it's stipulations) but I (having a daughter) would promote any dangerous activity on the basis of whether or not I feel she can handle the activity responsibly. Knowing what I know about kids, in general, 14 will not be an age where I would be promoting (or allowing the promotion of) hallucinogens to her.

Like I said, psychedelics are dangerous, but a million times less dangerous then other things, such as motor-cycle driving. baning the former while encoureging the later on the basis of danger is illogical.

Do you have credentials or documentation to show that you know the psychological (not physiological) effects of hallucinogens on the mind of a 14 year old (both cognitive and emotional)? Until then, how can you classify something as "less dangerous?" You seem to forget that dealing with psychedelic drugs has certain Psychoactive Effects (which translate to risk) that snow-boarding does not have. When weighing the possible physical and psychological risks of promoting hallucinogens to a 14 year old (taking into account all of the possible, initial, psychological states of those exposed to them) against the physical risks of promoting snow-boarding, which is more, dangerous?

Please let me know how you reached the answer to that question.^

Originally Posted by dodobird

OK, reasons for using psychedelics:
1) It could be a mind-opening, teaching experience.
2) It could be an interesting, sometimes fun experience.
3) It could affect dreams and lucid dreams in interesting ways.
4) It could help in the scientific research of the mind
5) some say it could be therapeutic under the correct conditions, treating things such as drug addictions, and traumas.
6) Some say it could lead you to spiritual experiences.

Reasons for not using psychedelics:
1) It could cause you a traumatic experience, possibly with a long term effect ( post traumatic stress disorder )
2) It can make you do something stupid such as trying to fly out the window.
3) It can cause you an unpleasant experience
4) Some psychedelics ( but not all ) can cause "flash backs". These flash-backs can come at a problematic time, such as when driving a car, and put you in danger.
5) Some psychedelics ( but not all ) are illegal and can put you in trouble with the law if you are caught.

No. Again, my question was why you would or would not allow the promotion of acts that harm another person, but allow the promotion of acts that are the direct cause of harm to oneself. (ie; why you would allow the conversation between Bobby and Dave (my example) but not Bobby and Joe.)

Our objective, like I said, is not to take away all of the discussion of "dangerous" activities. But the drug discussion is one that we feel is most often handled irresponsibly, and simply not one we want as a liability. We could go back and forth about this all day but, the fact of the matter is, Dream Views is not public property. It is a privately owned place and those that wish to roam here do have to (and should, willingly) respect the requests of those offering the place to hang out.

Considering both the possible psychological and physical risks in the hallucinogen issue, we've concluded to soften the level of discussion of psychoactive drugs to those that pertain to dreaming. We can argue the logic until we both pass out, but if you enjoy hanging out here, we simply ask that you be respectful of the rules, because they are seriously considered, not just made on a whim and obviously (we realize and accept) are not going to please everyone.

Originally Posted by dodobird

Well drugs also have age restrictions, in that you can't use them at any age.

But your statement is not true. Many of these activities are performed by kids, such as free-running and parkour.
But what is more important is that while you are afraid the drugs will hurt children, the activities I mentioned are dangerous to all that participate in them, regardless to age. They are exremely dangerous activities that kill adults all the time.
I do not even want to think how many adults died of these activities while I was writing this comment. I think that adults are just as important humans as are children, and caring for their life is just as important.

Drugs don't have an age restriction, they have a legal restriction. There is a difference.

Adults are also regarded to be at an age where they are, psychologically, responsible for their own actions.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So, parents that promote skateboarding or team sports to their 14-year-olds should also promote mushrooms and LSD to their 14-year-olds, even if they do not opt to supervise them at the time of their experimentation?

And, adversely, a parent that does not allow their 14-year-old child to do mushrooms or LSD should, also, not allow them to skateboard?

Is that what you're saying?

Do you have children?

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.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Many of the activities you are mentioning have age restrictions for the reason that they are evaluated as being ages where certain psychological benchmarks are met, that declare a person as "old enough to be responsible for their actions" for that particular activity.

I have absolutely no knowledge of snowboarding (or it's stipulations) but I (having a daughter) would promote any dangerous activity on the basis of whether or not I feel she can handle the activity responsibly. Knowing what I know about kids, in general, 14 will not be an age where I would be promoting (or allowing the promotion of) hallucinogens to her.

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?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Do you have credentials or documentation to show that you know the psychological (not physiological) effects of hallucinogens on the mind of a 14 year old (both cognitive and emotional)? Until then, how can you classify something as "less dangerous?" You seem to forget that dealing with psychedelic drugs has certain Psychoactive Effects (which translate to risk) that snow-boarding does not have. When weighing the possible physical and psychological risks of promoting hallucinogens to a 14 year old (taking into account all of the possible, initial, psychological states of those exposed to them) against the physical risks of promoting snow-boarding, which is more, dangerous?

Please let me know how you reached the answer to that question.^

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.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No. Again, my question was why you would or would not allow the promotion of acts that harm another person, but allow the promotion of acts that are the direct cause of harm to oneself. (ie; why you would allow the conversation between Bobby and Dave (my example) but not Bobby and Joe.)

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.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We could go back and forth about this all day but, the fact of the matter is, Dream Views is not public property. It is a privately owned place and those that wish to roam here do have to (and should, willingly) respect the requests of those offering the place to hang out.

Considering both the possible psychological and physical risks in the hallucinogen issue, we've concluded to soften the level of discussion of psychoactive drugs to those that pertain to dreaming. We can argue the logic until we both pass out, but if you enjoy hanging out here, we simply ask that you be respectful of the rules, because they are seriously considered, not just made on a whim and obviously (we realize and accept) are not going to please everyone.

This is obvious, which is why I do not expect anyone to allow these discussions because of the legal issue ( which is the only argument that I accepted ).

Sure I accept the rules of the forum, but I do not have to agree with them, nor stay in the forum.
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.

And yes I agree that this debate is becoming stale since we are both pretty much countering the same arguments and counter arguments over and over again, and there isn't much of a point in continuing it unless someone brings up some novel points.



I felt the need to put a banana because I felt my post was a bit too cold. Here's a muffin too:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

[Edit: Oh...and, now that I think about it: Many (if not all) of the things you have listed, so far, have age restrictions on them (at least in the U.S.) that do not dip as low as 14. ]

Well drugs also have age restrictions, in that you can't use them at any age.

But your statement is not true. Many of these activities are performed by kids, such as free-running and parkour.
But what is more important is that while you are afraid the drugs will hurt children, the activities I mentioned are dangerous to all that participate in them, regardless to age. They are exremely dangerous activities that kill adults all the time.
I do not even want to think how many adults died of these activities while I was writing this comment. I think that adults are just as important humans as are children, and caring for their life is just as important.