Thread: Lets talk about drugs!

Wow. How sad.

Said a self proclaimed adrenalin junkie. Sad indeed.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dodobird

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

Agreed.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Cheers