Thread: Why are drugs illegal?

so you go to drugs because your poor?

well, first of all why did you assume that? but not really because i'm poor, i have other problems.

lets get these problems on the table then?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Universal Mind could you explain both drugs in your question, as i don't know them?

Morning glory seeds (or certain types of them) contain LSA, which is like the fraternal twin of LSD. It causes a trip that lasts six to twelve hours, peaking about half way through the trip. It is nonaddictive and nonlethal. Salvia divinorum is a plant that contains the hallucinogenic substance salvinorin A. You can legally buy crushed leaves mixed with high concentrations of salvinorin A in most states in the U.S. If smoked the right way, it causes a trip that is absolutely mindblowing and that lasts about ten minutes. Salvia divinorum and its mind altering ingredient salvinorin A are nonlethal and nonaddictive. If there is anything else you want to know about morning glory seeds and salvia divinorum, there is information about them all over the internet.

What is your answer to my question?

Originally Posted by psychology student

I am not refferring to addiction as you understand it but a partial withdrawal from society, with the drugs you advocate.

Where are you getting this? And why would people not have a right to withdraw from society if that were the case?

lets get these problems on the table then?

but let's not let this thread change to be all about me
http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=49713

i've posted on your thread pyro, just waiting for a moderator to read it over.

Universal, are these substances relatively unknown of? if so, it is likely that a lack of scientific testing has occured with them? if they were similar to LSD, I would make them illegal.
I took a law course, and saw a case where a guy high on LSD killed his girlfriend in his hallucination, unknowingly. Clearly it is unsafe for use among more than one human being and should never be legalised in a normal society as we know it; drugs have problems outside of their physical toxicity and addictiveness.

if they were similar to LSD, I would make them illegal.

well, LSA is illegal i believe that it's a schedule 1 drug in the us, but i guess morning glory seeds don't count for some reason.

I took a law course, and saw a case where a guy high on LSD killed his girlfriend in his hallucination

i really doubt that. The hallucinations LSD produces are really like colorful distortions and walls breathing and you would hear the screaming, while things like PCP would produce hallucinations that would do that and PCP pretty much cuts off your senses so you wouldn't hear the screaming. it sounds like that guy completely made that story up.

I'm a criminal justice major and we've read many cases about people lying or claiming drugs were the reason they did the crime. I'm not going to say the above mentioned case was like that, but it has happened many times.

Originally Posted by psychology student

This is what SKA said:



"Well we have a good Practical example of how EXACTLY the opposite turned out to be True, Right here in the Netherlands.

Weed was legalised(note: NOT legalised, but an allowance policy instead, but anyhow...) and it is known that out of all western nations, Holland has the lowest Percentage of Marijuana Smokers amongst it's population.

It appears that Illegal drugs seem to appear as Forbidden fruits and only make people more Curious as to what the Government fearfully tries to hide from them".

Think SKA? you can easily measure the number of drug takers when a drug is illegal by convictions by police. When drugs are legal, this concept does not exist and thus there is no reliable way to find the actual number of people who take such drugs; even though they are still legal there still may be an social censure on them and it is very likely that people will not be very forthcoming about their habit. Thats why I believe that such evidence is inconclusive and unreliable

THINK Psychology Student,
If a drug is illegal the amount of people getting caught and convicted for it are not representative for the number of users in society. What about all of those that don't get caught. It's easy to live in the USA and toke up daily in your home without anyone ever reporting it to the police.
Also the likelyhood of people being honost about using a drug that is illegal is not very big.

When a drug, such as Marijuana, is legalised, as it is here, people are less reluctant to admit it. They do not face prosecution


I'm all about done discussing this issue with you and with Howie. Both of you guys. It's nothing personal, cuz on a personal level I like both of you guys but; It's just impossible. Your ignorance baffles me. You dismiss and ignore the agruments of me and others just to replace them with yours, that grow ever weaker. It seems you are more focussed on "Winning a discussion" than you are on seeking the truth.

No matter what I and others say: You are not open to our ideas and dismiss them before you even REALLY considered their possile truth and value.
It's simply no use trying to let you see things from a different perspective if, from the start, you've decided to take a certain, fixed and unflexible, point of view in this.
Discussion is only fruitfull if participants are open to eachothers ideas when they oppose and when participants are willing to let others influence and change their point of view if they bring solid, well considered arguments.

i am not rigid as you suggest, i agree with universal minds point that it is hypocritical to ban some drugs and not alcohol; yet i see the logic as to why this is, and he does not agree with me as to why the situation is this way!


Let me explain my reasoning to you about the legality/audience issue.
If a drug is illegal, there is an active force (the police) that seeks to find drug takers and suppliers. If a drug is legal, the force of counting its audience is only passive and the only people counted are those who volunteer. Therefore you cannot draw any valid conclusions from comparing the two as the measurement methods vary substantially. The majority of people will likely not come foward about their habit. Comparably, pornography is legal but it is not something to boast about?
So don't you agree that it is dangerous to claim that legalising drugs does not increase their audience based on vastly different detection methods while legal and illegal?

On a personal level I like you too, because I think that you are from Holland and their football team is like England: both world class teams but big underachievers!


With regard to LSD, Aldrich said that people use drugs in dort of a defence to lessen their guilt, to remove their intention to commit a crime. That sounds right, but surely if there is any such risk with such drugs, no matter how small, they should be banned, as they have no real qualitative benefit. If they treated an illness but had the same risk, legalisation is plausible, but they don't.

Have you ever heard of medical marijuana, psychology student? What about this link provided by Howie on page 5 about psychedelic healing?

Originally Posted by SKA

I'm all about done discussing this issue with you and with Howie. Both of you guys. It's nothing personal, cuz on a personal level I like both of you guys but; It's just impossible. Your ignorance baffles me. You dismiss and ignore the agruments of me and others just to replace them with yours, that grow ever weaker. It seems you are more focussed on "Winning a discussion" than you are on seeking the truth.

No matter what I and others say: You are not open to our ideas and dismiss them before you even REALLY considered their possile truth and value.
It's simply no use trying to let you see things from a different perspective if, from the start, you've decided to take a certain, fixed and unflexible, point of view in this.
Discussion is only fruitfull if participants are open to eachothers ideas when they oppose and when participants are willing to let others influence and change their point of view if they bring solid, well considered arguments.

Ditto.
Do you not see that this can go both ways? Why could I not say the same? To me, you honestly have an issue with higher reasoning. Not ignorance in your case, because you have the facts.
**After reading this response, I have went and looked over this entire thread. I feel I have sufficiently covered how and why I have come to the conclusions I have. I'm comfortable with all the facts and discussion I have put forth. After using, witnessing, and reasoning, I have more than a quantifiable reason to feel that the drugs discussed have no place in the hands of citizens on a legal basis. You can call this not being flexible, I don't see you flexing any more than I.
I can go over and over the things I have already said. But that is fruitless.
If there is anything posted that is not understandable, I would be more than glad to clarify anything, otherwise < I , like you, am done going back and forth.
Peace.

Salvia is officially an illegal substance in Illinois as of today. Sorry to everyone in that state. For the rest of us that still can, if you're interested in it - better stock up while you still can.

Originally Posted by blade5x

Salvia is officially an illegal substance in Illinois as of today. Sorry to everyone in that state. For the rest of us that still can, if you're interested in it - better stock up while you still can.

That is absolutely retarded. Have any of the lawmakers explained why in the Hell they did that? I can see some idiot legislator on a local station there going, "Well, there was this one time this one guy smoked some salvia and jumped off a bridge later that night. *sip sip* I am on my way to a Nascar race. *puff puff*"

EDIT: Scratch that last statement. They didn't even make arguments. They just said it's bad and "dangerous" and that they couldn't believe it was legal. I couldn't find any examples of negative salvia stories coming from those freedom loving politicians. Wow, I think I'm convinced now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

EDIT: Scratch that last statement. They didn't even make arguments. They just said it's bad and "dangerous" and that they couldn't believe it was legal. I couldn't find any examples of negative salvia stories coming from those freedom loving politicians. Wow, I think I'm convinced now.

As of late, it has been a hot topic on the news, in the newspapers and on popular radio shows here in Ohio. I suppose this is going around. They show people on salvia divornum exhibiting what looks to be a bad trip while smoking it. I suppose they took this and then ran with it.

Its a safe guard for the idiots who would take drugs, drive, maybe even go overboard and try to hurt someone or themselves.

Drugs aren't all that bad when you're a collective, intelligent person, but there isn't all that many of us out there.

Originally Posted by AmazeO XD

Its a safe guard for the idiots who would take drugs, drive, maybe even go overboard and try to hurt someone or themselves.

Drugs aren't all that bad when you're a collective, intelligent person, but there isn't all that many of us out there.

Don't bother trying to explain this concept AmazeO XD. It won't work. believe me!!!!!!!!!!
As you have come to this conclusion you can look back and see that you will be labeled as anti freedom and inflexible. We are to let everyone make his or her own (intelligent) decisions.

Yes that is the point: all the pro-legalisation individuals on this forum judge the situation from their own perspectives, which tend to be intelligent, at least with regard to not driving while intoxicated. The majority of people, unfortunately aren't reliable or intelligent and won't take these drugs in a private controlled environment.

Originally Posted by psychology student

i am not rigid as you suggest, i agree with universal minds point that it is hypocritical to ban some drugs and not alcohol; yet i see the logic as to why this is, and he does not agree with me as to why the situation is this way!


Let me explain my reasoning to you about the legality/audience issue.
If a drug is illegal, there is an active force (the police) that seeks to find drug takers and suppliers. If a drug is legal, the force of counting its audience is only passive and the only people counted are those who volunteer. Therefore you cannot draw any valid conclusions from comparing the two as the measurement methods vary substantially. The majority of people will likely not come foward about their habit. Comparably, pornography is legal but it is not something to boast about?
So don't you agree that it is dangerous to claim that legalising drugs does not increase their audience based on vastly different detection methods while legal and illegal?

On a personal level I like you too, because I think that you are from Holland and their football team is like England: both world class teams but big underachievers!


With regard to LSD, Aldrich said that people use drugs in dort of a defence to lessen their guilt, to remove their intention to commit a crime. That sounds right, but surely if there is any such risk with such drugs, no matter how small, they should be banned, as they have no real qualitative benefit. If they treated an illness but had the same risk, legalisation is plausible, but they don't.

By liking you on a personal level I more meant I generally respect your behaviour and think you are kind, intelligent and add alot intellectually to this forum. That has much more to do with liking someone than something as football. But indeed Football is a positive force that unites people

And I don't know what Aldrich meant by saying people use drugs to lessen guilt and to removal criminal tendencies? Let Aldrich speak for him(her?) self.
That may be his/her? Subjective experience of Drugs
In MY subjective experience Psychedelic Drugs like Psilocybe Mushrooms, Mescaline cacti, DMT/Ayahuasca, Salvia and LSD do ANYTHING but lessen feelings of Guilt: In fact they do the opposite. They Increase or "Expand" Your consciousness/Awareness. Also your self awareness. And in that Self aware state you are much more aware of your feelings. Including those of guilt might you have them hidden deep down inside of you.

In such a state it is excellent to confront your true self and it's objectively percieved, detectable personality/Psychological flaws which otherwise would have been "Invisable" by ignorance: Denying certain unwanted/disagreeable feelings, desires and knowledge, Putting them away A.K.A. In Denial.
LSD and Magic Mushrooms have enormous potential in psychotherapy.
ALOT of people have psychological disorders that involve "Being in Denial" that LSD and Magic Mushrooms could help overcome by Surpressing the Ego that usually makes the person feel attacked, go in defence and go into state of Denial. LSD and Magic Mushrooms strike down those barriers that make alot of psychological patients "Unaproachable" and untreatable.

That happens to be one of the General effects of LSD and Psilocybe Mushrooms. I can subjectiely witness to that. And many friends of mine who've had similair experiences with LSD and mushrooms described experiencing this general effect I just mentioned too. ALOT of people on Erowid.org can be a witness to this effect too and I am sure quite some DV members can be a witness to this effect too.
They do have a real qualitative benefit.


And how far should you go to tell people what psycho-actives they are allowed to take and what Psychoactive they aren't allowed to take? And also Based on what kind of Logic do you decide which Psycho-active may be take and which may not?
Cuz as I see it, the Current Druglaws and policies in pretty much all western countries, are not based on a Logic that is in the Interrest in Public Health and Harm Reduction.
They are based on the fact that the Government can't get no monoply on and tax-money from the Underground Production/Growing and Distribution of LSD, DMT, Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms and Mescaline,[Here's a Plan:] which they WOULD be able to if they were to LEGALISE the Production and Distributions of these substances and Produce/Grow these Flora/Substances in state owned and controlled Labs/Crops and Distribute them via State-owned pharmacies. This way the Drug purity would be 100&#37; too.

Also you could make further Drug enforcements: Still without Prohibiting them alltogether, which is known not to work very well, you could make a general law of the minimum age of 18 to be able to obtain LSD, Mescaline or Psilocybe Mushrooms from local Pharmacies.Also The state controlled Pharmacies can demand that anyone who wants to be able to buy Psychedelics to take an Obligatory exam of an Extensive list if Information on the Substances in question(To be able to buy each single Substance for each Substance they'd have to take a Different, Substance-dedicated Exam)

If they score a straight A they are granted membership of those, aware enough of the facts, permitted to buy Psychedelics at the pharmacies.
Having to learn extensive lists of all objective, known and truthfully proven facts about the diverse Psychedelics I mentioned would sure confront the one who's learning to be able to buy with all possible risks or downsides.

They could also give a list of guidelines as to how to, where to have a psychedelic experience and also point out how NOT to do it.
Proper education about drugs increased drugawareness and is a great way of harmreduction. Prohibition and false propaganda are terrible ways of Harmreduction. We've seen it in shamefull action since the time these prohibition laws were created.

I personally sincerely don't see how the responsible use of non-toxic, non-addictive and often times mentally enriching/Psychologically therapeutical Psychoactives would cause the Psychedelicly inspired Individual in question to be likely to become a social or economical disturbance.
I think we should live in a Society where people have the personal freedom to decide for themselves what Psycho-actives they use.
And using may sound like a negatively loaded word, but do you believe you have the right to drink a cup of Coffee when you feel like it? You are "using " Caffe&#239;ne; A Toxic Psychoactive) IF so then I hope you agree with my Right to smoke a Joint whenever I want to.
And also my fellow Marijuana-smokers-around-the-world's Right, dispite the hypocritical, money-motivated laws prohibiting Marijuana in their Countries.


And now a Question that ties into this: Do you believe Native American followers of an Old, survived indian Tradition/Ritual/Religious practice which believes in nececairy sacrements, by consuming Psychedelic Flora and Brews such as the to them sacred Peyote/San Pedro(Mescaline) Cacti, and/or AyahuascaBrews(DMT+MAOIs), Psilocybe Mushrooms(psilocybin) and/or Marijuana, should have the right to grow/brew, posses and consume 1 or more of these, to them, Sacremental Visionairy/Healing Drugs without facing legal prosecution?
SO basically: Do you believe these people, in the name of Religious Freedom, should be legally allowed to possess and consume these plants and brews which to them are holy sacrements? Or do you not?

the football thing was a joke to an extent.

I notice that you use Freudian psychology to justify the supposedly qualitative benefit of the drugs. Specifically that they suppress the Ego and expose "denial". Freudian psychology is not scientific, due to common unfalsifiability and lack of empirical methods, according to modern psychologists. Hence it is a precarious thing to use it as justification in a real, political debate, with implications to society. Moreover, denial is not a serious clinically-recognised psychological conditon. Although I have heard of LSD healing depression from a link posted by 27 on behalf of Howie.

Aldrich meant:
Criminal law punishes crimes based on ones state of mind on mental blameworthiness.
-Intention to commit a crime is the worst and most punishable. i.e. me pointing a gun at you, and killing you on purpose.

Recklessness is taking a risk with awareness that a crime may occur in your actions, not intending the crime, but taking the risk. i.e. I wish to shoot an apple above your head, knowing that I could kill you by accident but still take the risk. Recklessness is less punishable than Intention, and likely to lead to a more lenient sentence even with the same crime. i.e. killing by intention equals murder and killing by recklessness equals manslaughter.

Now to Aldrich: lets say a person killed another person intentionally. They could say that they were high on drugs and use this to say that they did not intend and were only reckless. i.e reckless in taking the drugs because of the lack of control associated with some drugs and that taking them can lead to the partially involuntary harm of others. This would lessen their punishment as their state of crime would be regarded as due to reckless rather than intention. Hope i'm clear and you understand.






If you think drugs help you,SKA, and you use them in a controlled environment, then thats your choice, the problem with blanket legalisation is that people arent like you and won't use them in this controlled way, as Amazeo and Howie concur

Originally Posted by psychology student

If you think drugs help you,SKA, and you use them in a controlled environment, then thats your choice, the problem with blanket legalisation is that people arent like you and won't use them in this controlled way, as Amazeo and Howie concur

Yes psychology student. I do concur. Your last two posts were very concise clear and filled with logic and reason.

SKA, I have not really addressed the issue of eduction. In hind site, I believe I have overlooked it because it in my mind is completely implausible. This would be a good time for a comparison to alcohol. Education and awareness are not effective. Yes I do realize the addictive principles are very different.
Have you also considered that the beginning of one exploration leads to another. Including myself, I have seen every one that has used the drugs we have discussed, go on to at least try other, what we have concluded to be - inappropriate drugs. While you, me, and many others have used and experienced psychedelics for a recreational and learning experirence does not quantify the reason behind any legislation to legalize them. I think that
psychology student's post covers that very precisely and accurately.

Why not legalise them? Do you not think the risks and social/criminal problems are higher when you outlaw and taboo drugs? It's creating outlaws.

I wonder what Catastrophy theory you have in mind for the idea of the legalisation of Psychedelics.

Originally Posted by AmazeO XD

Its a safe guard for the idiots who would take drugs, drive, maybe even go overboard and try to hurt someone or themselves.

Drugs aren't all that bad when you're a collective, intelligent person, but there isn't all that many of us out there.

Originally Posted by Howie

Don't bother trying to explain this concept AmazeO XD. It won't work. believe me!!!!!!!!!!
As you have come to this conclusion you can look back and see that you will be labeled as anti freedom and inflexible. We are to let everyone make his or her own (intelligent) decisions.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes that is the point: all the pro-legalisation individuals on this forum judge the situation from their own perspectives, which tend to be intelligent, at least with regard to not driving while intoxicated. The majority of people, unfortunately aren't reliable or intelligent and won't take these drugs in a private controlled environment.

I challenge all three of you to find me some information on real world examples of what you speculate would be a problem in regard to salvia divinorum. You sound like the politicians I am talking about. It's a bunch of speculation. Tell me about how the drug has been a menace in the past. Give me some heavy statistics. I want to learn.

Amaze and Howie, please tell me what you think about the idea of banning alcohol. Psychology student has already said he thinks it should be illegal. What do you think? What about tobacco? What about snow skiing? Auto racing? Jet skiing? Football? Gymnastics? Boxing? Cave diving? Hot air ballooning? Recreational/Sunday/country automobile driving? Motorcycling? Three wheeling? BMX biking? Trampoline jumping? Hang gliding? The government better get to work on banning those things that have resulted in a substantial amount of serious injury and death, most of them also for nonparticipating bystanders. But salvia divinorum does not make that list. Why should people go to prison over it?

yes i said that morally and logically it should be illegal but practically it cannot and i acknowledge this.