Why are drugs illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Posted 12/30/06

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=30772&highlight=Salvia+experience "]'Salvia Divinorum Experience'[/URL]

I am going to post this as is, unrefined and unedited so it may likely seem abstract and...well outright idiotic to some. To change it would defeat the purpose.

My thoughts on viewing abstract art:

Grace, elegance, Beauty. It it not only defined by the nature of the observer? The mind itself, when by itself can stimulate creation, unfold boundaries and consider.
Can one posses the ability to see beauty from all sides? Is it not a duality? An introspective, interactive alignment of thought perception and awareness. Spacial recognition of fact and fiction. Neither to which it does not matter. The state of existence is illusory in nature. So to is beauty in any given instance. Maybe only recognized for that instance beauty never "is" beauty. Like an experience, it arises and unfolds to any number of given variables.
The painting is....
The painting is what? The painting is nothing, it just is. No attachment, no preconditioned thought of what was or will be. The painting is. The painting is to one what it may not be to another. The painting is not beauty. In form it has a past and an inevitable end. on view it should matter not who the creator was. Experienced one day as a pleasure and the next a trial. That is expression, changing in form always.
The painting is.......


I myself have not read this since the actual experience three days ago.
I find it was a feeble attempt to express how abstract work can be appreciated by all and not labeled.

The above experiment was conducted with Salvia Divnorum extract. Not diluted. Eight drops in two increments.

---

Thank you for sharing that. It clears up everything. :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Had Salvia been the issue in this topic until saliva became illegal in Illinois? Where? Somewhere in the latter parts of the sixth page? Prior to that it was in the SKA'a list of non dangerous drugs.:shock:

---

You should have boldfaced the words "other thread". You wouldn't answer me in there, so I thought I would bring it up again in here. I am still waiting. Or would you rather admit that you cannot find any real life examples of what you merely speculate might happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

You have shared with us that you have had some laughs about it becoming illegal, or how the effects (whatever you deem those to be) only last ten minutes[i].
Or how it cannot practically (almost; nearly?) be illegal.
Or attach it to your exaggerated list of activities, then ask, "should people go to jail for this?" I do not recall anyone mentioning jail. Do you?
How illegal drug users should be handled is another example of what has NOT been the topic of conversation. Similar to medical usage.
Sure, They could be. You just throw them in where you feel you deem appropriate, where you feel they will make an impact.

---

Do you know what the word "felony" means? It has a lot to do with the word "prison". Salvia divinorum is now a felony in several states, most recently becoming one in Illinois. That is something very relevant to mention.

But while we are on that particular topic, what do you think should be the punishment possessors of salvia divonorum should get? What kind of nightmares do they and their families deserve to have thrown at them from the government? How bad or not bad would you like for them to be hurt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

You do not seem to understand the underlying concepts I guess.
As a recreational driver, one does not set out to create an accident. Nor does a salvia user. How is this different?
Taking salvia on your own accord was not an accident was it?
The "hit" lasted only ten minutes. Does that make the difference?
If a driver has an accident and he is proven to be at fault, he is accountable for those actions.
I have made several attempts at pointing out a difference between engaging in an activity that automatically puts you at fault and others at risk, as opposed to the difference of that of an accident. Even though an accident, someone is still accountable for his/her own actions. Is this a pretty bizarre tangent?
Do I have to slowly and deliberately take golf, explain that scenario, then go on to football, so on and so forth?
Do I have to take each drug individually that (I believe we all agree) alters the minds perception. Then laboriously explain why this differentiates from the above?

---

Let's get this straight. Accidents happen while driving and while playing golf, and accidents IN THEORY could happen while on salvia divinorum. Okay, those are similarities. Now tell me the differences since you have expressed no desire for golf or recreational driving to be banned. And I still challenge you to tell me some real life examples of such salvia accidents. I told you one about golf, and there is nothing iffy about it. A man was killed by a flying golf ball that a golfer hit. The golf ball killed him. Open and shut. I remember when I was in high school an Ole Miss football player ran into somebody head on in a game against Vanderbilt and became paralyzed from the neck down. His name was Chuckie Mullins. He died a few years later. There are stories of people dying in football games also. Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini was a professional boxer who beat somebody literally to death in a boxing match the summer before I started sixth grade. There are other examples of death resulting directly from boxing. I could go to Youtube right now and find some auto racing crashes that killed people. Some of those people were in the stands. I could find you statistics and tons of examples of pedestrians and other unwitting strangers being killed by recreational drivers. Et cetera et cetera et cetera. Now, you say salvia divinorum should be illegal because somebody could hurt somebody while on it, right? Then tell me specifically how that situation is different from the ones I just discussed. Then do your best to give me some examples of where salvia really has in reality done what you are speculating it could do. Will you do those two things this time?

You also did not fill in the blanks on my challenge regarding peyote. Be sure to do that too. Thank you.

It's all there Universal Mind. Brush up on your reading skills and read! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

It's all there Universal Mind. Brush up on your reading skills and read! ;)

---

No, it is not all there. You have been very evasive. You have been dodging my questions and points and talking in vague generalities without fully explaining how they get to the heart of the issues I have been raising. But I will tell you how we can get straight to the central matter. Just fill in the blanks here, and you will finally fully answer why psychedelic drugs should be illegal while deadlier things should not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Fill in the blanks... Peyote should be illegal because ___________________________________________, but golf should be legal because _______________________________________.

---

This is my third request. Feel free to substitute the word "peyote" with "salvia divinorum", "psilocybin mushrooms", or "DMT". And feel free to substitute the word "golf" with "sunday driving", "auto racing", or "three wheeling". Any combination will get to the point. Your vague talk about "accidents" has not shown the distinction since taking peyote (etc.) and playing golf (etc.) are both deliberate actions. And I can find stories on the internet about deadly and injurious recreational driving accidents and even deliberate killings all day, and I posted the first story I found about how hitting a golf ball killed somebody and of course there are others, but you still have not come up with any salvia accidents, despite my requests, though you did find the legislation inspiring suicide in which salvia was just one of the things in the guy's blood along with alcohol and acne medication with negative psychological side-effects, and the guy had a history of severe depression. Good luck finding all that many stories on accidents or other tragedies caused by peyote/mescaline, DMT, LSA (from morning glory seeds or Hawaiian baby rosewood seeds), or kava. You might find some juicy stuff on LSD, but it will be the warped and nasty underground market stuff and almost always not the high quality pure stuff since LSD is made in a lab illegally under the current wonderful laws. Just fill in those blanks in an on-point manner, and you will have finally hit the nail on the head with the distinction you keep suggesting exists. How about it?

Please refer back the many posts to what defines an accident. It will not matter how many variables you come up with, be it golf, boxing, driving, etc etc.etc.

Your argument looks misleading as you have rallied your support around salvia and it's so recent ban in one state. However 85% of the argument was about psychedelics, marijuana or DMT. You have given me the liberty in substituting any of the above. But I don't think you will be pleased unless I directly address Salvia.
The thousands of words I have posted to why I feel psychedelics should not be available to the general public are now my steadfast position. I have been on both salvia and other psychedelics. the experience I cannot describe in detail on this Forum. Many times the topic has come up, wow, I'm surprised that if LSD is illegal this stuff (salvia) is not. So, as they demonstrate the same effects as other psychedelics, just not for the same duration, it should be illegal.

Again, the entire other argument, like I had said before, I will not laboriously go through each different variable you bring up and explain the same underlying concept. It actually is a pretty easy concept to understand.

If you cannot see the difference between two boxers decisions to participate in boxing and understand they put themselves, on their own accord in their circumstance, compared to someone taking a drug and then carrying out an action ..here I go again.

"I am bound to furnish my antagonists with an argument, but not comprehension."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Please refer back the many posts to what defines an accident. It will not matter how many variables you come up with, be it golf, boxing, driving, etc etc.etc.

Your argument looks misleading as you have rallied your support around salvia and it's so recent ban in one state. However 85% of the argument was about psychedelics, marijuana or DMT. You have given me the liberty in substituting any of the above. But I don't think you will be pleased unless I directly address Salvia.
The thousands of words I have posted to why I feel psychedelics should not be available to the general public are now my steadfast position. I have been on both salvia and other psychedelics. the experience I cannot describe in detail on this Forum. Many times the topic has come up, wow, I'm surprised that if LSD is illegal this stuff (salvia) is not. So, as they demonstrate the same effects as other psychedelics, just not for the same duration, it should be illegal.

Again, the entire other argument, like I had said before, I will not laboriously go through each different variable you bring up and explain the same underlying concept. It actually is a pretty easy concept to understand.

If you cannot see the difference between two boxers decisions to participate in boxing and understand they put themselves, on their own accord in their circumstance, compared to someone taking a drug and then carrying out an action ..here I go again.

"I am bound to furnish my antagonists with an argument, but not comprehension."

---

Howie.... PLEASE.... Fill in the blanks.

I know that boxing never hurts anybody but the people who signed up to participate in it, as has so far been the case with salvia divinorum (which also has not been shown to hurt the user either), but the same is not true of golf, recreational driving on the road, and three wheeling. If you will just fill in the blanks, you will finally answer to what the discrepency is. Just fill in the blanks. Thank you.

Fill in the blanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

If you cannot see the difference between two boxers decisions to participate in boxing and understand they put themselves, on their own accord in their circumstance, compared to someone taking a drug and then carrying out an action ..here I go again.

"I am bound to furnish my antagonists with an argument, but not comprehension."

---

For starters, we could legalize psychedelics on the condition that they will only be taken under supervision and that precautions have been taken to keep the affected individual from being a hazard to society, such as by driving a vehicle, and to himself, such as by attempting to commit suicide. This is what is meant by "responsible drug use". Anybody with a sufficient knowledge of psychedelics will also know of the importance of trip-sitters who best be sober.

Hell, to make the drug more accepted in society and to spread awareness of dangers and means to protect yourself from them, we could even think of privately owned institutions (with a set of rules and routinely controlled) which would provide an environment that is safe for the use of psychedelics and other drugs and would educate customers about them. If need be you can even enforce this type of environment, even though this would be a big compromise.

However, I feel that this type of restriction would be much more useful in the case of alcohol since it's neither shrooms, nor LSD, salvia or weed that cause people to go berzerk, but alcohol.

You want me to dumb down my answers to give credibility to your cause. I don't think so.
Did you read my post? Sadly, does any one read anything but the last two maybe three posts. All that gone to waste.

Fill in the blanks... Peyote should be illegal because The thousands of words I have posted to why I feel psychedelics should not be available to the general public are now my steadfast position. I have been on both salvia and other psychedelics. these experiences I cannot describe in detail on this Forum. Many times the topic has come up, wow, I'm surprised that if LSD is illegal this stuff (salvia) is not. So, as they demonstrate the same effects as other psychedelics, just not for the same duration, it should be illegal.

but golf should be legal because Tiger woods is good!
That answer is about as dumb as the question.

I urge everyone to read this entire thread if you get involved. I know it has become very lengthy. There is a lot of information that applies to both view points.
Please don't just read the last two or three posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

You want me to dumb down my answers to give credibility to your cause. I don't think so.
Did you read my post? Sadly, does any one read anything but the last two maybe three posts. All that gone to waste.

Fill in the blanks... Peyote should be illegal because The thousands of words I have posted to why I feel psychedelics should not be available to the general public are now my steadfast position. I have been on both salvia and other psychedelics. these experiences I cannot describe in detail on this Forum. Many times the topic has come up, wow, I'm surprised that if LSD is illegal this stuff (salvia) is not. So, as they demonstrate the same effects as other psychedelics, just not for the same duration, it should be illegal.

but golf should be legal because Tiger woods is good!
That answer is about as dumb as the question.

I urge everyone to read this entire thread if you get involved. I know it has become very lengthy. There is a lot of information that applies to both view points.
Please don't just read the last two or three posts.

---

By giving that Tiger Woods joke response, you dodged the question. You really don't have a good answer, do you? If you did, you would have posted it by now. Also, you did not give a solid answer on why peyote should be illegal. All you said is that I need to refer to what you have said about other psychedelics and that it is like LSD. That is not a very elaborative answer.

The possiblity that somebody might drive on peyote and kill somebody is just like the possibility that somebody might hit a golf ball and kill somebody. They are the same. So your argument for the illegality of psychedelics would also apply to golf. You know that, and that is why you keep dodging the filling in of the blanks with serious, elaborate points. It is very obvious now that you are aware of your double standard.

You have said that psychedelics should be illegal because somebody might drive while on them and kill somebody. Well, recreational driving does not kill people rarely. It kills people every day. Somebody might go recreationally driving and kill somebody just like somebody might drive while on peyote and kill somebody. So your argument also applies to recreational driving in general. But you think it should be legal, don't you? The contradiction is blaringly obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

By giving that Tiger Woods joke response, you dodged the question. You really don't have a good answer, do you? If you did, you would have posted it by now. Also, you did not give a solid answer on why peyote should be illegal. All you said is that I need to refer to what you have said about other psychedelics and that it is like LSD. That is not a very elaborative answer.

---

No way. Are you serious?
When I addressed LSD, pot, it was not enough. Then I went on to Salvia. Now peyote. The answer is in plane English. You know I won't continue to address each and every drug you feel the need to reignite the flame....right.

Quote:

---

The possiblity that somebody might drive on peyote and kill somebody is just like the possibility that somebody might hit a golf ball and kill somebody. They are the same. So your argument for the illegality of psychedelics would also apply to golf. You know that, and that is why you keep dodging the filling in of the blanks with serious, elaborate points. It is very obvious now that you are aware of your double standard.

---

They are the same?
The golfer willfully chose to take a mind altering substance?
I'm now intrigued.

Quote:

---

You have said that psychedelics should be illegal because somebody might drive while on them and kill somebody. Well, recreational driving does not kill people rarely. It kills people every day. Somebody might go recreationally driving and kill somebody just like somebody might drive while on peyote and kill somebody. So your argument also applies to recreational driving in general. But you think it should be legal, don't you? The contradiction is blaringly obvious.

---

searches to find yet another alternative to explain
A sober accident maybe? A lucid mistake.
By taking a drug, the same incident is now relative to the previous choice to alter you mind which renders your decision making not a lucid one.
understand?

Well, I agree with you that there are probably better things than altering your perception in such a way that your decision making is impaired and your view on reality distorted. I'm not advocating drug use. However, I don't think that banning a substance serves any purpose whatsoever, except costing us all money and making things more complicated than they need be. I'm just saying that IF someone chose to use such drugs, he or she should be able to do so without prosecution and he should be given the knowledge to do so in a responsible manner.

If I get prescription medication, I usually READ the warnings and hints, so as not to cause any trouble that I can avoid by taking the medication in a responsible manner. I would doubt that illegal drugs come with that sort of information, neatly packaged in a blister packaging.

You can legally order Salvia online here and all the shops usually have all the needed information and health warnings on their site and will send a little note as well. They're not even obliged to do this. You could do this with all drugs.

And you see, a drug like N2O, there is really no reason to ban it. The flash is 3-5 minutes, harmless and nonaddictive, and you probably won't get farther then the floor or the door of the room you're in. There's no danger in that drug. You can't get to a car in time, most people probably can't even stand upright or hold a knife. Of all the drugs in the book, this is probably my favorite one, and I'm not an avid user or anything. It's simply a very fun and harmless drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

No way. Are you serious?
When I addressed LSD, pot, it was not enough. Then I went on to Salvia. Now peyote. The answer is in plane English. You know I won't continue to address each and every drug you feel the need to reignite the flame....right.

---

You have yet to directly explain the dichotomy I am talking about. You talk some about what is bad about psychedelics and then talk somewhere else about what is innocent about other recreational activities that sometimes kill bystanders, and I am saying that the innocent aspects and dangerous aspects of both are the SAME. You have not countered my points on that, which is why I finally asked you to fill in the blanks I posted. You started to do so, but then you turned the whole thing into an irrelevant joke. So fill in the blanks. It won't take long... if you actually know what to put in there. But I think we both know the truth about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

They are the same?
The golfer willfully chose to take a mind altering substance?
I'm now intrigued.

---

I know you are better at analogies than that. I did not say they are exactly the same activities, and you know that. If I say a dog is like a chair in that they are both objects, I am not saying chairs have ears. I am using an analogy, which is not an illustration that two things are exactly alike even in aspects that are irrelevant to the parallel. I am saying that your arguments for banning salvia and so forth apply to golf and so forth. They on some level endanger bystanders. Isn't that your argument for why psychedelics should be illegal? Somebody might drive a car or something while on them and kill somebody? Well, somebody might hit somebody with a golf ball and cause him to die. It has happened. That is the parallel that pertains to this discussion. You treat that parallel one way in one situation and another way in another situation. That is called a double standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

searches to find yet another alternative to explain
A sober accident maybe? A lucid mistake.
By taking a drug, the same incident is now relative to the previous choice to alter you mind which renders your decision making not a lucid one.
understand?

---

That is a difference in the activities, but it is not an illustration of lack of relevant parallel. It does not answer why you think one should be legal and the other illegal. The relevant parallel is that they both endanger bystanders on some level. Yet the way you treat them is different, to the point of being complete opposites, regarding that very specific aspect.

Now fill in those blanks. It will finally show your direct and to the point answer to exactly what I am talking about. Don't waste any more time and thread space babbling all over the place until you have done that. Nothing you are saying is specifically answering my question about relevant dichotomy. If you fill in the blanks with direct answers, you finally will have done that.

Quote:

---

The answer is in plane English

---

that's kind of ironic

Oh boy, aporetic debate.

There are two ways to go in this:

1) Control what people take and do not take in order to ensure safety. This is to the point of Brave New World.

2) Be free and allow people to make free choices and learn from their mistakes to the point of non-government and anarchy.

There is not much to argue here besides ethical conjectures.

Peyote should be banned because (it is bad for you (this is paternalism)) and golf should not because it is simple fun.

Or

Peyote should not be banned because (it is something we should be able to freely decide to do (this is the slippery slope to anarchy) and golf should not be banned for the same liberal rights.

Other than that, it all comes down to paternalism versus liberalism.

Frankly, I think that drugs should be legal and regulated just like alcohol. Since we already have an established government, there are obviously mixed signals all over the place. The simple solution is to regulate it themselves, tax it, and police it in the sameway as alcohol. Is this the best solution? No, but I would say that there is no such thing as a perfect ethical resolve that everyone can agree upon.

What do you think...?
~

I like your post.

Drugs are also simple fun, like golf. And as has been pointed out, both carry the risk of unwanted consequences. So this is no reason for bannage.

Only because something is "bad", we can't ban it. Or else we would have to ban unhealthy food. Unhealthy food is "bad" for you. However, who is the government to decide what's good for me and what is not? This is clearly not the task of the governemnt, but my own. This is the unfounded imposition of personal standards upon my life.

As for the slippery slope to anarchy... I'm not really opposed to that. No, not at all. As long as there is need for a government, though, it should at least do something useful like regulating things in such a way that less harm is caused. For this regulation to take place, more things must be legal or else the government would be caught up in a paradox, handling illegal things itself. So there is really no alternative to legalizing drugs.

Don't think of me as a stone-throwing punk though. Clearly the road to anarchy is not tearing down the government but doing your best to bring the general public into a state of mind - demanding freedom - that makes anarchy inevitable. Once the group of people demanding anarchy is large enough to establish anarchy, the conditions that are needed for successful anarchy are already met. This is off-topic though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh boy, aporetic debate.

There are two ways to go in this:

1) Control what people take and do not take in order to ensure safety. This is to the point of Brave New World.

2) Be free and allow people to make free choices and learn from their mistakes to the point of non-government and anarchy.

---

Option 2 makes perfect sense when it comes to personal choices that are of very minimal risk to bystanders. Two of such activities are taking peyote and playing golf. I am not an anarchist. I believe in having government, and substantial victimization should be illegal. Murder, rape, and robbery should be very illegal. Alcohol, peyote, golf, tobacco, caffeine, potato chips, salvia, and recreational driving should be legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

There is not much to argue here besides ethical conjectures.

Peyote should be banned because (it is bad for you (this is paternalism)) and golf should not because it is simple fun.

---

You could just as easily say, "Golf should be banned because it poses a very minimal risk to bystanders, and peyote should not because it is simple fun." That would of course be an expression of a double standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Or

Peyote should not be banned because (it is something we should be able to freely decide to do (this is the slippery slope to anarchy) and golf should not be banned for the same liberal rights.

---

I agree with that one, except for the "slippery slope to anarchy" part. I don't think freedom and anarchy are synonymous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Frankly, I think that drugs should be legal and regulated just like alcohol. Since we already have an established government, there are obviously mixed signals all over the place. The simple solution is to regulate it themselves, tax it, and police it in the sameway as alcohol. Is this the best solution? No, but I would say that there is no such thing as a perfect ethical resolve that everyone can agree upon.

What do you think...?
~

---

Remember that alcohol is a drug, and one of the most dangerous ones. If it makes sense to treat alcohol the way it is being treated, it makes even more sense to treat nonlethal, nonaddictive drugs that way.

Quote:

---

2) Be free and allow people to make free choices and learn from their mistakes to the point of non-government and anarchy.

---

the Netherlands has decriminalized soft drugs and they haven't descended into anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Option 2 makes perfect sense when it comes to personal choices that are of very minimal risk to bystanders. Two of such activities are taking peyote and playing golf. I am not an anarchist. I believe in having government, and substantial victimization should be illegal. Murder, rape, and robbery should be very illegal. Alcohol, peyote, golf, tobacco, caffeine, potato chips, salvia, and recreational driving should be legal.

---

Hobbes did develop what is called the Harm principle which is that ethical decisions should focus on avoiding things that cause harm to any individual. Specifically, physical harm. However, many argued that psycholgical harm can be worse than physical. Thus, it became all the more problematic on "where do we draw the line"?

Quote:

---

You could just as easily say, "Golf should be banned because it poses a very minimal risk to bystanders, and peyote should not because it is simple fun." That would of course be an expression of a double standard.

---

Yes. However, the golf ball accident is an unlikely incident that is a consequence rather than a deliberate action. There is a severe difference between accidentally hurting someone and deliberately hurting yourself.

Quote:

---

I agree with that one, except for the "slippery slope to anarchy" part. I don't think freedom and anarchy are synonymous.

---

If you advocate freedom and free choice, your logical reasoning could very easily slip into anarchy as anarchy allows for ultimate free choice free from reason. Once you try to create a society that follows rules and has decisions to distribute resources, then we have limitations on choices.

Quote:

---

Remember that alcohol is a drug, and one of the most dangerous ones. If it makes sense to treat alcohol the way it is being treated, it makes even more sense to treat nonlethal, nonaddictive drugs that way.

---

I think you will find that, if you review what I said, that is what I was saying. If we are to allow drugs, I argue that they ought to be policed in the same way that alcohol is. (ie. if you find someone smoking while driving, ticket them, etc.)

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

the Netherlands has decriminalized soft drugs and they haven't descended into anarchy.

---

This is very true, and Holand has also acted similarly. I was going to mention this and argue from that standpoint, but it is all the more difficult for people to grasp. Holland allows sexual activity and they have one of the lowest sexual crime rates in the world. Netherlands, similarly, with drugs.

It is also interesting to note that once the noose was banned, crime rate actually took a drop (to less crime) which was contrary to people thinking "if we ban the noose, crime will increase!". Similarly, I argue that marijuana's popularity is perpetuated by its reactance; how many times do you see people smoking pot and they are angst ridden teens who have conflicts with the world? I am not saying they all are, of course, but that it is a significant contributing factor that has developed into a stereotype.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Hobbes did develop what is called the Harm principle which is that ethical decisions should focus on avoiding things that cause harm to any individual. Specifically, physical harm. However, many argued that psycholgical harm can be worse than physical. Thus, it became all the more problematic on "where do we draw the line"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes. However, the golf ball accident is an unlikely incident that is a consequence rather than a deliberate action. There is a severe difference between accidentally hurting someone and deliberately hurting yourself

---

.

Yes. Thank you.
Yes in advance Universal. The incidents on salvia are unlikely too. Less probably for Pot,and further on down the line.
It can not be cut and dry.
A golf ball accident is. How many drug cases are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you advocate freedom and free choice, your logical reasoning could very easily slip into anarchy as anarchy allows for ultimate free choice free from reason. Once you try to create a society that follows rules and has decisions to distribute resources, then we have limitations on choices.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you will find that, if you review what I said, that is what I was saying. If we are to allow drugs, I argue that they ought to be policed in the same way that alcohol is. (ie. if you find someone smoking while driving, ticket them, etc.)

~

---

That sounds about as reasonable as an answers I have seen.

At the end of your causations are a compiled list of my entire argument. I invite you to find these things you describe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie View Post
No way. Are you serious?
When I addressed LSD, pot, it was not enough. Then I went on to Salvia. Now peyote. The answer is in plane English. You know I won't continue to address each and every drug you feel the need to reignite the flame....right.

---

You have yet to directly explain the dichotomy I am talking about. You talk some about what is bad about psychedelics and then talk somewhere else about what is innocent about other recreational activities that sometimes kill bystanders, and I am saying that the innocent aspects and dangerous aspects of both are the SAME. You have not countered my points on that, which is why I finally asked you to fill in the blanks I posted. You started to do so, but then you turned the whole thing into an irrelevant joke. So fill in the blanks. It won't take long... if you actually know what to put in there. But I think we both know the truth about that.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie View Post
They are the same?
The golfer willfully chose to take a mind altering substance?
I'm now intrigued.

---

I know you are better at analogies than that. I did not say they are exactly the same activities, and you know that. If I say a dog is like a chair in that they are both objects, I am not saying chairs have ears. I am using an analogy, which is not an illustration that two things are exactly alike even in aspects that are irrelevant to the parallel. I am saying that your arguments for banning salvia and so forth apply to golf and so forth. They on some level endanger bystanders. Isn't that your argument for why psychedelics should be illegal? Somebody might drive a car or something while on them and kill somebody? Well, somebody might hit somebody with a golf ball and cause him to die. It has happened. That is the parallel that pertains to this discussion. You treat that parallel one way in one situation and another way in another situation. That is called a double standard.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie View Post
searches to find yet another alternative to explain
A sober accident maybe? A lucid mistake.
By taking a drug, the same incident is now relative to the previous choice to alter you mind which renders your decision making not a lucid one.
understand?

---

That is a difference in the activities, but it is not an illustration of lack of relevant parallel. It does not answer why you think one should be legal and the other illegal. The relevant parallel is that they both endanger bystanders on some level. Yet the way you treat them is different, to the point of being complete opposites, regarding that very specific aspect.

Now fill in those blanks. It will finally show your direct and to the point answer to exactly what I am talking about. Don't waste any more time and thread space babbling all over the place until you have done that. Nothing you are saying is specifically answering my question about relevant dichotomy. If you fill in the blanks with direct answers, you finally will have done that.

● First part --> http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=50222
For the record: Many of these post were in conjunction with the psychology student and his views. I express almost in verbatim what he too thinks.
● Compiled posts --> http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=50221

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Hobbes did develop what is called the Harm principle which is that ethical decisions should focus on avoiding things that cause harm to any individual. Specifically, physical harm. However, many argued that psycholgical harm can be worse than physical. Thus, it became all the more problematic on "where do we draw the line"?

---

I am against substantial psychological victimization also. Stalking is an example of that. So is identity theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes. However, the golf ball accident is an unlikely incident that is a consequence rather than a deliberate action. There is a severe difference between accidentally hurting someone and deliberately hurting yourself.

---

But taking peyote is not inherently hurting oneself. It can be in some cases, particularly with people who have psychosis or emotional disorders. Some people might be crazy enough to drive a car while on it and put others at risk, but that is not a common danger with peyote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you advocate freedom and free choice, your logical reasoning could very easily slip into anarchy as anarchy allows for ultimate free choice free from reason. Once you try to create a society that follows rules and has decisions to distribute resources, then we have limitations on choices.

---

I draw the line at deliberate and/or reckless (or substantially negligent) victimization. There is a saying: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you will find that, if you review what I said, that is what I was saying. If we are to allow drugs, I argue that they ought to be policed in the same way that alcohol is. (ie. if you find someone smoking while driving, ticket them, etc.)

---

Yeah, I was agreeing with you, except for where you made a distinction between alcohol and drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Yes. Thank you.

Yes in advance Universal. The incidents on salvia are unlikely too. Less probably for Pot,and further on down the line.

It can not be cut and dry.

A golf ball accident is. How many drug cases are?

---

I have been talking very specifically about certain psychedelic drugs. Golf is more dangerous for society than drugs like DMT and salvia. Golf has killed people already, but salvia and DMT have not. I won't argue for a second that pain killers and sedatives are not big risks for society. They are tremendously dangerous for the users and the bystanders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am against substantial psychological victimization also. Stalking is an example of that. So is identity theft.

But taking peyote is not inherently hurting oneself. It can be in some cases, particularly with people who have psychosis or emotional disorders. Some people might be crazy enough to drive a car while on it and put others at risk, but that is not a common danger with peyote.

---

Taking drugs is under the pretense that it will inebriate your body and your decision processes. It is the deliberate action of relinquishing individual freedom and responsibility and placing it onto the drugs influence. Therefore, there is a great deal in the initial step. The consequences can be arguable.

For example:
- I wear a white t-shirt
- I walk past a woman who's ex-bf wore a similar white t-shirt
- It reminds the woman of the psychological pain so much that she goes off and does X action with negative consequences.

It is pedantic, but my point is that there will inevitably be consequences in a society no matter what you do.

Quote:

---

I draw the line at deliberate and/or reckless (or substantially negligent) victimization. There is a saying: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

---

As stated above, there are many things and actions you can do on a conscious and unconscious level that will have severe negative harm on others. Take, for example, golf which you have used which is typically thought of as a very calm and passive manner. It, as you have said (and I am really curious to see references) has caused accidents. On that same line, I presume tea-parties have as well.

Quote:

---

Yeah, I was agreeing with you, except for where you made a distinction between alcohol and drugs.

---

No, I did not make a distinction. They are the same. I was saying that they should be treated the same because they are the same.

Quote:

---

I have been talking very specifically about certain psychedelic drugs. Golf is more dangerous for society than drugs like DMT and salvia. Golf has killed people already, but salvia and DMT have not. I won't argue for a second that pain killers and sedatives are not big risks for society. They are tremendously dangerous for the users and the bystanders.

---

Right, so where should we go with this? How far do we take this policy of thinking to rectify it? We have to allow freedom and the ability to not be harmed in all aspects.

You said psychological harm is just as harmful, so where do we draw the line there then? Sometimes all it takes is a weird look to make someone depressed enough to commit suicide. There are many instances when just having one too many items in the express-lane at a grocery store line is enough to cause someone to commit to assault charges.

So, what do we do? Abolish all things that can harm anyone physically or psychologically? The only way to truly do this is to isolate every human being in a box free from any human influence. And, of course, they will die as a result.

My main point here is that humans need chaos, we need stress, we need challenges, we need order, in order to have a fulfilling and satisfying life.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Taking drugs is under the pretense that it will inebriate your body and your decision processes. It is the deliberate action of relinquishing individual freedom and responsibility and placing it onto the drugs influence. Therefore, there is a great deal in the initial step. The consequences can be arguable.

For example:
- I wear a white t-shirt
- I walk past a woman who's ex-bf wore a similar white t-shirt
- It reminds the woman of the psychological pain so much that she goes off and does X action with negative consequences.

It is pedantic, but my point is that there will inevitably be consequences in a society no matter what you do.

---

I don't think we disagree on much in this area. The threat a peyote user poses to society is very, very small, just like a person who plays golf. Peyote does not hijack a person's decision making abilities like alcohol and heroin. It is not one of those drugs. So taking peyote is not some huge step that throws away a person's ability to keep from doing terrible things to the world. I agree that there are potential consequences no matter what a person does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

As stated above, there are many things and actions you can do on a conscious and unconscious level that will have severe negative harm on others. Take, for example, golf which you have used which is typically thought of as a very calm and passive manner. It, as you have said (and I am really curious to see references) has caused accidents. On that same line, I presume tea-parties have as well.

---

I agree. This is the first link I found a few days ago on Google under "golf ball death".

http://golf.about.com/b/2005/02/27/m...-golf-ball.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, I did not make a distinction. They are the same. I was saying that they should be treated the same because they are the same.

---

You said, "I think drugs should be legal and regulated just like alcohol." That suggests that alcohol and drugs are two different things, but only because you did not put the word "other" before "drugs". It is not a major deal, just a footnote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, so where should we go with this? How far do we take this policy of thinking to rectify it? We have to allow freedom and the ability to not be harmed in all aspects.

---

With drugs, I think the best of all possibilities exists when they are all legal. I know how incredibly dangerous cocaine, meth, pain killers, and sedatives are, but prohibition of those is dangerous as Hell for the same reasons prohibition of alcohol was a horrible disaster. We are having the same disaster right now with prohibition of those drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

You said psychological harm is just as harmful, so where do we draw the line there then? Sometimes all it takes is a weird look to make someone depressed enough to commit suicide. There are many instances when just having one too many items in the express-lane at a grocery store line is enough to cause someone to commit to assault charges.

---

Tort law is heavily concerned with such issues, and I think some pretty good compromises have been made. The word "reasonable" is all over those laws. A stimulus has to "reasonably" cause substantial emotional distress or threat (etc.) for the law to kick in. If I call a lady every night and threaten to kill her, her distress is the reasonable result of my behavior. If I smile at a lady and she commits suicide, the blame is not on me. Her emotional reaction was not deemed reasonable. There is a ton of case law that deals with where the lines of reasonability are drawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

So, what do we do? Abolish all things that can harm anyone physically or psychologically? The only way to truly do this is to isolate every human being in a box free from any human influence. And, of course, they will die as a result.

---

I wonder if Howie wants to do that. :chuckle: Well, he might get pissed if they ban golf or recreational driving because those are somehow different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

My main point here is that humans need chaos, we need stress, we need challenges, we need order, in order to have a fulfilling and satisfying life.

---

People deserve the freedom to have those things.

i'm surprised no one brought this up yet. caffeine is a drug. it's a stimulant and can be addictive. do you know someone (or are someone) who can't get through the day without a cup of coffee? that's addiction. and caffeine withdrawal can cause headaches and other physical symptoms.

Some how different.

Universal, Do you recall when SKA was describing how conversation is a means to try to understand. I think this is how we can come to better terms. Better rules regulations - life.
You are too narrow minded it seems to even see the an opposing argument, much less try to understand it.
Through this disagreement I am approaching it with possibility to come to different conclusions, new ways. For one I know our laws often do not work as good as they should, when they do work. I also never claimed to.

You say that you would like a dichotomy. How would I describe two opposing views to someone with only one view?
It certainly has not worked in so many other attempts.

Quote:

---

Taking drugs is under the pretense that it will inebriate your body and your decision processes. It is the deliberate action of relinquishing individual freedom and responsibility and placing it onto the drugs influence. Therefore, there is a great deal in the initial step. The consequences can be arguable.

---

Can you post after me and tell me that you do not have the ability to see the differences I have pointed out? I have asked for you to go back and look, but you must not have.
The difference between a human error and a deliberate action? It is so simple it is really hard to believe I am arguing the point at all.

Maybe for the first example will be without drugs, you can look at it unbiasedly.

1. wrong and wrong - outcome
B. right and wrong - outcome

1.
a.Ted kasinsky uses his skill and techniques to kill with letter bombs.
b. An armed robber shoots and kills a resident.
~the obvious parallel. <Death & fault.
~the obvious differences. The latter claims many more lives than the first example per year.
The judicial system decides the punishment is different.

B.
1. A man walks along a creek, he decides to skip a stone across the water, he hits woman, sitting feeding the ducks. It kills her. This was not preemptive. No pretense involved, nothing deliberate. This is an accident. Everyone on earth has made many of them - big or small. Same underlying principle.

2. A man decides to smoke salvia extract. He too does the same thing as the first man.
The parallel < Death & Fault - You conclude the parallel.
~The differences you fail to see.
The second man as chosen on his own accord to alter his perception.
The judicial system decides the punishment is different.
Studies show that the first incident has taken more lives that the second.
● Does that quantify your reasoning?
● Should the second man be charged any differently or the same as the first man? yes or no, Why_______________?

As I see it, We are all capable of human error. We judge this accordingly.
I can choose not to take a substance.
I can choose to take a substance. This may also be considered an error. As I have said all too often, we are accountable for our actions.

This is your example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

- Drive like an imbecile (very rare event on psychedelics since they do not have the alcohol and tranquilizer effect of taking away a person's ability to understand that he cannot drive).
- Golf ball flies toward person that suddenly walked into a yard or walked out of the brush.

effects of effects:
- Car hits somebody.
- Golf ball hits somebody.
The situations are parallel.

---

First, you find the obvious parallel. Now define how they are equal.
The beginning circumstances defines that right out of the gates. The (right and wrong)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

- Drive like an imbecile (very rare event on psychedelics since they do not have the alcohol and tranquilizer effect of taking away a person's ability to understand that he cannot drive).
- Golf ball flies toward person that suddenly walked into a yard or walked out of the brush.

---

The S -You can only determine this for yourself. Not others. You could also justify it by "very rare"
In addition, I do not think that is are accurate. A drunk driver can determine he is ok to drive. You will claim that alcohol is worse. I will agree and you will conclude. I think I could find enough evidence, not only from my own experiences but scientifically that psychedelics can obscure your decision making. Marijuana can slow your motor skills.

The law. A more simple way to my conclusion
Action and reaction
Alcohol is legal. Making it illegal did not work. People would not have it.
Marijuana is illegal. If it were legal, then the justice system tries to take a liberty away, you have what we have seen with savlia, just on a much larger scale.
This is how it differs greatly from prohibiting something that is legal from that of prohibiting something that is illegal. Both enforcment ,yes.
If you legalize drugs, would we create the same scenario as we have with alcohol. The same thing you seem to despise. How, that action would lead us to the alterantive -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

However, conclusively, I think that drugs ought to be legalised and regulated as alcohol is right now.

---

Unless you don't think they should be regulated. Then we have more variables to approach.

That is where you and I differ. simply, you believe they should be legal for the reasons you have stated.
I believe they should remain illegal for the reasons I have stated.
It would create more users. It would be socially acceptable, just like alcohol. (Think about our culture) I have chosen to smoke but not often. If it were legal, I would, hell yaaa. Even my father said he would. That is two people and just two examples. Still remaining would be the ones who use it now, illegally.
This enactment would force upon our society the scenario above that I have gone to such great lengths to try and differentiate for you.
In addition I feel that mind altering leads for many people to go on to try another mind altering substance.
I know all your apposing views. I am just trying to make you see another point. Even though you will not agree with them.

Thanks for the discussion! :smile:
Howie signing out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

i'm surprised no one brought this up yet. caffeine is a drug. it's a stimulant and can be addictive. do you know someone (or are someone) who can't get through the day without a cup of coffee? that's addiction. and caffeine withdrawal can cause headaches and other physical symptoms.

---

That is all true, and caffeine also is a form of speed that makes people more excitable and wired up, which makes them more prone to lashing out in hostile ways, including violent ones. People very often get really irritable when they are coming down from caffeine, which also results in feeling nasty and uncomfortable, and it makes people more prone to being physically and emotionally abusive. That is part of the reason so many people are such assholes when they get home from work. Caffeine raises blood pressure and increases risk of heart disease, which is the number one killer in the United States. It also greatly raises blood sugar levels, and major raises in blood sugar result in great drops in blood sugar, which cause irritability, anxiety, and depression and over the long term often causes serious physical issues. One result can be diabetes, for those who are genetically prone to it, which has a whole world of its own symptoms.

Should caffeine be legal?

Quote:

---

and caffeine also is a form of speed that

---

nope, caffeine is not related to amphetamines