Why are drugs illegal?

Now i can understand how drugs like Heroin, Cocaine and PCP are illegal. but why are marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms and LSD illegal? let's look at some of the arguments

Argument: They impair your judgment.
Response: Alcohol does the same

Argument: Tobacco and Alcohol have been part of our culture for a long time
Response: Marijuana and mushrooms have been part of other cultures for long periods of time. Does this mean that their culture is less important than ours? This does not apply to LSD though.

Argument: They are highly addictive.
Response: Most psychologists will say that they do not have much addictive potential and Nicotine is be very addictive.

Argument: They are very harmful
Response: Only one study has suggested that Marijuana causes lung cancer and other studies have shown that Marijuana smokers do not have higher lung cancer rates. There have not been any cases (that i know of) of people overdosing on Marijuana, LSD or mushrooms. While people have overdosed on alcohol and we all know that tobacco causes lung cancer.

feel free to discuss/poke holes in my arguments.

Prohibition obviously didn't work when it was tried for alcohol, and it doesn't work for drugs. The reasons for the laws against drugs are much more complicated than just trying to get people not to use them.

There is a lot of money being made on both sides by keeping so many drugs in the black market. It has nothing to do with what seems logical and what a free society should allow individuals to choose for themselves.

It's politics and money, therefore rational arguments are useless.

I'm pretty certain people have died as a result of mushrooms and LCD and the addictive properties are more mental rather then physically, so while it is easier to stop smoking something like marijuana then, say, stopping doing cocaine, that doesn't mean it isn't a difficult process.

Reading over that, I'm not sure if that last bit was very clear..

Quote:

---

It's politics and money, therefore rational arguments are useless

---

ah, that make perfect sense

Quote:

---

i'm pretty certain people have died as a result of mushrooms and LCD

---

i doubt that the LD50 for psilocybin is 280mg/kg which is like twice that of caffine and a usual recreational dose is 10-50mg and i don't think that there is a LD50 for LSD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

ah, that make perfect sense

---

Not that they shouldn't be pointed out. It may change someday, as more people stop and think about it, and get sick of all the people incarcerated for victimless crimes.

I think it's already changing. I know that in colorado you can legally have 1 gram of Marijuana.

Because they are a threat to your precious enslavement.

Quote:

---

I know that in colorado you can legally have 1 gram of Marijuana.

---

Fantastic. That doesn't help.

Drugs can be medicine. Don't be suprised if they ban the really good medicine. Then who would profit from sickness. No-one. See the idea of it. Diabolical.

Quote:

---

Fantastic. That doesn't help.

---

how so? an eighth is ~3.5 grams

You are allowed to grow a plant. Otherwise it's just tyranny. I don't care if you say your allowed a little bit of it. It only becomes widely useful when you grow crops of it and distribute evenly integrating into society.

Quote:

---

distribute evenly integrating into society.

---

i think that's already happened.

You think wrong. Prision is where you will go if you grow some. Police say so. (to punish and enslave)

Quote:

---

Prision is where you will go if you grow some.

---

only if you get caught

Exactly. That's the spirit. Take the law into your own hands. I highly recommend it. Just don't lose. Remember how many police and secret police and intelligence agencies and armies are against you. And don't lose.

If you want to get yourself extremely frustrated and baffled out of your skull, argue with somebody who thinks marijuana should be illegal while alcohol should be legal. The inconsistency in that stance is so enormous that it absolutely blows my mind that there are people out there who don't see it. It is insane. I have seen so many people out of control and very dangerous to themselves and others because of alcohol. I have lost friends to alcohol. People are dying of alcohol overdoses and drunk driving wrecks all over the world right this second. But not one person in the history of the world has ever died of a marijuana overdose. It is impossible. Marijuana also makes people less likely to be violent, and it does not impair driving anywhere near as much as alcohol. The inconsistency in the law is just ridiculous, and the fact that it remains really lowers my faith in humanity. Not one person should ever have gone to jail for owning or selling marijuana. It is sick.

LSD and psilocybin are nondeadly and nonaddictive, so it is baffling that they are illegal. Those are drugs that don't even work well when you do them a second day in a row. There is no good argument that they should be illegal while alcohol should be legal.

I think there are a bunch of reasons for the illegality of nonlethal psychedelic drugs. There were corrupt reasons for their illegality, and further corruption of different kinds and large scale ignorance have kept them illegal. Marijuana was made illegal because it was popular among Mexican Americans and the government thought making marijuana illegal would slow down Mexican immigration and encourage Mexicans to leave the U.S. in large numbers. LSD was made illegal because it was associated with the hippies of the Vietnam War era, and conservatives despised the hippies. I'm not sure about the other psychedelics. They remain illegal because older conservative people associate the drugs with hippies and laziness and in many cases with false idolization. They see them as spiritual agents that are not Christian and therefore must be evil. There is also a lot of ignorance about those drugs. Most people who think LSD should be illegal probably couldn't tell you jack about it but are still convinced that it turns people into killers and that people can overdose on it. One of my brother's school teachers once talked about how her house was robbed and figured that the guy who burglarized her house must have been on marijuana. That type of ignorance does a lot to keep our drug laws the way they are. Also, the alcohol industry makes a fortune off the fact that sometimes people drink just because they cannot find their usual drugs. It is very common for pot smokers to run out of pot and not have access to another bag for a few days and use alcohol as a subsitute, unless they have access to LSD or mushrooms or something. The alcohol executives know that, and they have a lot of money and influence. I think organized crime probably has something to do with the fact that marijuana remains illegal since they know how to dominate an illegal market and because drugs cost so much more when they are illegal. A lot of pharmaceutical companies were take a major dive if marijuana became illegal. That includes companies that make medicine for nausea, body aches, insomnia, restlessness, glaucoma, and all kinds of other things. Those companies have a great deal of money and lobby influence also.

I think all of those factors come together and keep drugs illegal. I hope it changes, but it is going to take a great deal of social disgust with the illegality of those drugs for that to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The inconsistency in the law is just ridiculous, and the fact that it remains really lowers my faith in humanity. Not one person should ever have gone to jail for owning or selling marijuana. It is sick.

---

Same here.

I hate to think about because I get mad about where my tax dollars are going.

The "war on drugs" is just another way to appropriate money by taxing the people and get them to willingly part with their money so they can use it to research military technology. Did you know that stealth technology was initially engineered and perfected using the money from the war on drugs? Even though it was never used in a single mission that it was originally created for. That's why bloated secretive government sucks.

In 1989, the U.S. invaded Panama, supposedly to root out the dictator and international drug runner Manuel Noriega. President Bush portrayed Noriega as a brutal dictator and vowed to "end 21 years of dictatorship" by invading the country and arresting Noriega. Bush failed to mention that Noriega had been on the CIA payroll for 10 years-including the year 1976, when Bush headed up the CIA-collecting up to $100,000 annually.

The U.S. invasion of Panama, justified in part as a war on drugs, is only one example of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to combating "narcoterrorism." Not only did key U.S. officials wine and dine Noriega throughout the 1970s and 1980s with full knowledge of his involvement in the drug trade, but Noriega's successor, Guillermo Endara-handpicked by the U.S.- was equally if not more involved in narcotics trafficking. In fact, Endara, as nearly all other senior government officials who were given Washington's stamp of approval, was head of a Panamanian bank known for laundering drug money.

Currently, the U.S. claims to be waging a "war on drugs" by funding the Colombian government, which is the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid. Yet a 1994 Amnesty International report showed that government-supported paramilitary groups, which have killed 20,000 people since 1986 - many of them human rights workers, union leaders, and heads of political organizations-are knee-deep in the drug trade. Many of the death squad leaders responsible for atrocities in Columbia were trained at the SOA. More than 10,000 Colombian military personnel have been trained at the SOA-more than any other country.
http://www.peaceactioncny.org/Images...bombers_b2.jpg

Oh, Ron Paul is against the war on drugs :D

Quote:

---

Not one person should ever have gone to jail for owning or selling marijuana. It is sick.

---

Indeed.

The propaganda has spread far and wide, too.

Here in the island country of Japan, most are so ignorant to marijuana that I've been asked many times if it's an injection drug like heroin. LOLZ.

I agree, i remember my health teacher saying once that there are no such things as natural drugs. she said that all drug are synthesized from toxic chemical which they don't remove from the finished product. and when i brought up things like mushrooms, marijuana and peyote she said i was just flat out lying.

The 'health teacher'' lol. Lets all trust the health teacher.

What about DMT? or any of that strong hillusination types.

If you do drugs, you will become addicted. Then you will steal from other people for drug money. Finally, you will either kill someone, be killed, or end up in prison. This happens every single time someone does drugs. Nobody escapes from drugs, unless you absolutely never try them. That's why they are illegal, DUH!!!

But alcohol is good. It only kills more people than every other drug combined (besides lung cancer from cigs... if you want to count that), and is physically more addicting than anything else besides heroin.

So don't do drugs, only alcohol. But you have to wait till you're 21!... Because 21 is the magic age where you are automatically mature enough to drink it. If you are under 21 when you drink it, you will die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

What about DMT? or any of that strong hillusination types.

---

DMT is in your body right now. It is a neurotransmitter produced by the pineal gland. We all have it in our bodies. Lock up everybody!

I'm glad you mentioned DMT. That is a drug that is not deadly, when people are on it they would not even consider trying to go anywhere and wouldn't be able to if they did, and the idea of somebody being addicted to DMT is just hilarious. I would love to see somebody argue why DMT should be illegal.

The law sucks. Legalise drugs and you'll break an enormous vicious cycle in which most people who made those laws get money.

Drugs have no reason to be completely banished. But I don't think they should be used in public, either (just like cigarretes). Alcohol is a bit different though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

DMT is in your body right now. It is a neurotransmitter produced by the pineal gland. We all have it in our bodies. Lock up everybody!

I'm glad you mentioned DMT. That is a drug that is not deadly, when people are on it they would not even consider trying to go anywhere and wouldn't be able to if they did, and the idea of somebody being addicted to DMT is just hilarious. I would love to see somebody argue why DMT should be illegal.

---

I find it hilarious that it's one of the most illegal substances known to man, yet we have it in our brains creating our dreams. Police should lock the world up for breaking the law every night. Hell, not only do humans have it, but it's in every eco system. WHO THE HELL MAKES THESE LAWS? they break them everytime they sleep. I'm not gonna say sure, go do drugs. I wont do drugs, my moms a bum on the street with aids, and into needles, booze, lieing, pan handling etc. i don't wanna turn out like her, but damn some of the drug laws are insane. INSANE I TELL YA! weed is one of the most harmless drugs, isn't it? yet illegal, and not even addictive, nor able to kill you from overdosing. Just relaxes you i hear, tried it once. Maybe they made those hillusination drugs illegal because the images and how strong they are? i mean you aint going to go "AHHH" in your head from smoking weed, or marijuana.

This is the reason Marijuana is illegal

Please bare with me since i don't know the names of some people.

Hemp is the fibers from the stalk of the Marijuana plant. It is exponentially more durable and longer-lasting than Cotton. At the time, many of the higher-ups and politicians of the country had stakes in the cotton industry and in cotton farms. Also, cotton farmers kept complaining that they were being way screwed since Hemp was a million times better.

Well, that didn't last long. One of these higher-ups led the DEA, waging the war against Marijuana. They played the racist card: many mexicans were bringing over weed from mexico, and they stated how these mexicans would harm you and your children, they were criminals, etc, etc.

So propoganda against weed started, as did the law that went into effect stating marijuana is illegal.

When the (senate or house, not sure) held a committee to discuss this law going into effect, they had a top doctor from the American Medical Society come in to discuss the effects of marijuana. He said he found NOTHING that said weed was bad. They snipped off quotes from him and made it sound like he was saying it's harmful and released them to the public, when in fact he was saying it wasn't.

Also, it's been proven that cannibanoids actually FIGHT cancer cells. Cancer patients also take it for pain relief and to combat the nausea from chemotherapy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b12

They played the racist card: many mexicans were bringing over weed from mexico, and they stated how these mexicans would harm you and your children, they were criminals, etc, etc.

---

Damn, so there was even corruption under the corruption. What looks on the surface like a racist agenda hiding behind a safety agenda is really a greed agenda hiding behind a racist agenda hiding behind a safety agenda.

Because the government can't monopolize them.

Quote:

---

hose hillusination drugs illegal because the images and how strong they are?

---

LSD and mushrooms are not hallucinogenic drugs, they alter your vision. PCP and those types of drugs produce hallucinations.

. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

LSD and mushrooms are not hallucinogenic drugs, they alter your vision. PCP and those types of drugs produce hallucinations.

---

Dood. have you even done acid?

I've seen glowing eyed bat-like girls beckoning me into my dark apartment when I came home on the stuff. I've also seen the beginning and the end, and been teleported to the control room of control rooms where 'they' watch every being's every move in order to maintain 'the balance' of all things.

What exactly do you mean not hallucinogenic? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

LSD and mushrooms are not hallucinogenic drugs, they alter your vision. PCP and those types of drugs produce hallucinations.

---

Nope, LSD and Shrooms are hallucinogens. Very strong ones. You wouldn't know until you've seen a flower rotating on the wall as your friend's poster starts talking to you in a pirate's voice. And the poster was of two girls.

let me re-phrase that, LSD and psilocybin are hallucinogenic, but not as much as PCP.

. . .

doesn't really matter if it's legel or not. easy to get anyway. Mushrooms can be hard to get. think that everyone should take responsibilty for what they do and let the police keep more focus at other things.

marijuana does have side-effects surplus to addiciton. In Britain, at least, stronger strains have become more common in the last ten years, which have been correlated with psychosis and schizophrenia.
If you unconditionally legalised marijuana, the poor majority would suffer, they need the escapism the most, and yet, the economic cost is most likely to affect other factes of their lives, as their poor. Don't say its not addicitve, ofcourse it is, thats why it is illegal. But this is Britain, I can't say the same for the USA, I don't really know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

marijuana does have side-effects surplus to addiciton. In Britain, at least, stronger strains have become more common in the last ten years, which have been correlated with psychosis and schizophrenia.
If you unconditionally legalised marijuana, the poor majority would suffer, they need the escapism the most, and yet, the economic cost is most likely to affect other factes of their lives, as their poor. Don't say its not addicitve, ofcourse it is, thats why it is illegal. But this is Britain, I can't say the same for the USA, I don't really know.

---

Marijuana is addictive, but it is not physically addictive. You can also get a lot of it for a little bit of money, and that would be even more true if it were legal. Therefore, people are not going to be burglarizing houses, mugging pedestrians, or carjacking so they can get their hands on marijuana. They don't do it now, and they would be even less likely to do it if marijuana were legal. Also, marijuana is not illegal because it is addictive. If that were enough reason for something to be illegal, then alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and video games would be illegal. There is something much more corrupt behind it.

Marijuana does not cause psychosis, but it can be one more factor in bringing it out of somebody who has a latent form of it. It does not make sane people crazy. It is also not about escapism. A lot of people don't smoke it because it creates the complete opposite of escapism. It causes anxiety and puts people's worries right in front of their faces, often in a very distorted form. It is not an escape from reality. Alcohol, on the other hand, is.

What do you think about the legality of alcohol?

That's not straight weed. It's probably laced with something.
And I'd honestly have my kids smoking weed once a day than drinking once a week.

universal mind:
"You can also get a lot of it for a little bit of money, and that would be even more true if it were legal. Therefore, people are not going to be burglarizing houses, mugging pedestrians, or carjacking so they can get their hands on marijuana"
i live and grew up in a bad neighbourhood, so marajuana is associated with criminal activity, maybe this is not generally valid though.

Kushna:
"That's not straight weed. It's probably laced with something".
I think its straight weed, just not the same strength that our parents were smoking. It is still unclear whether it brings out gentically inherent psychosis or of its own accord.

Many narcotics are associated with increased levels of dopamine (a brain chemical or neurotransmitter), especially cocaine and to an extent marijuana. Coincidentally and independently, abnormally high levels of dopamine have been seen by some psychologists are causing psychosis and schizophrenia (although there is a argument about causality).



Banning alcohol is difficult: as we saw with prohibition, banning alcohol has worse effects on crime, i.e. creating a massive underworld.

Personally, I'm not a drinking man and I don't know why spirits and other high volumes are legal. The vigour of alcohol causing health defects is perhaps less pronounced than some illegal drugs, yet it is a long term habit. Especially in Britain, where binge drinking is crazy and widespread. Madly, the government dealt with biinge drinking by bringing in 24 hour opening hours for bars and pubs?????? Long term it costs the health service billions, with alcohol related disease, ambulances are wasted in the short-term dealing with drunkards (but you Americans have private healthcare so no burden on the taxpayer). It increases crime, via lowered inhibitions, it aggravates unwanted pregnancies and STD/I's which in turn leads to single parents, which leads to uneducated and psychologically underdeveloped children, who as a result are more likely to binge drink and the chain continues.:eek:

Alcohol in moderation is fine, actually, binging is the problem. Perhaps all public consumption should be banned.

But the key point here is that we live in a liberal society, and people should have the right to kill themselves and screw up their lives in whatever way pleases them, so long as they don't directly effect others with their actions. The question is do they effect others?

Sorry, if i'm ranting:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is also not about escapism. A lot of people don't smoke it because it creates the complete opposite of escapism. It causes anxiety and puts people's worries right in front of their faces, often in a very distorted form. It is not an escape from reality.

---

Really? In my experience, marijuana is exactly that, an escape from
reality, to the point where being high is much, much better than being sober. Haha, perhaps I'm just really comfortable inside my apartment, if you wanna take set/setting into account and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

But the key point here is that we live in a liberal society, and people should have the right to kill themselves and screw up their lives in whatever way pleases them, so long as they don't directly effect others with their actions.

---

Well said.

If all drugs were legal, there would be a lot less violence associated with their distribution and procurement.

legal and illegal is a little game for school boys and girls. Find out the rules for yourself. The real rules.

Good Topic. I hope it doesn't get removed by the same ignorance that removed my psychedelic topic.

The Drug laws are really questionable when it comes to LSD, DMT, Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms and other hallucinogens. They all have a VERY low toxicity making them practically harmless: Overdosing wouldn't be likely to happen unless the drugs are taken in reDICULOUS doses.

There is one Lethal LSD account that I know of, but the user injected himself with Liquid LSD which he believed to be speed. Applying the liquid LSD, of which 300 MICROgrams is 1 hell of an effective dose, in doses that actually apply on Speed he injected a lethal dose of LSD and died. This of course is very rare since about 30000 times the normal dose is required to get that done.

DMT is an endogenous substance that does no harm to body cells, causes a profound spiritual experience and leaves the organism completely within an hour after intake. Why it is illegal truely blows my Mind.

You'd have to eat about your own body weight worth of magic mushrooms to start experiencing problematic toxic effects on the body, while the effective dose is about 30 grams of fresh mushrooms. Very unlikely to overdose. Psychologically you can become quite distressed and confused. Panic attacks, Paranoia and sometimes sheer terror can result from a badly scened trip ( i.e. a party with loud music and alot of people), but if you prepare properly, in a cosy room with dimmed lights, you are very unlikely to have a bad experience on them. Why they are illegal God knows.

Marijuana has a use that goes back as long as human history records and probably even further. NO one ever died from Marijuana overdose because this herb, like the other entheogens I mentioned, is so lowly toxic it is hardily worth mentioning. It is practically impossible to OD on Marijuana. Why it is illegal is truely questionable.



Well let me not even mention alcohol, because we all know how toxic alcohol is, how seriously it impairs your senses and how likely it is to upset people, causing them to become aggresive, harrassing ladies and even become violent. 1000s of alcohol loaded fools drive themselves, their friends and other traffic users into Death every year in every alcohol-normalised country in the world. All the previous drugs I mentioned are not Addictive. Now alcohol is known to be 1 of the most addictive drugs out there.

How come Alcohol is socially accepted, with all it's downsides and high risks I just mentioned, while Marijuana, DMT, LSD, Salvia and Psilocybin Mushrooms, with all their Psychologically beneficial potential and low risk, are illegal?

How come Psychiatrists prescribe 5 year old Children with ADHD drugs such as Speed(Ritalin, Concerta) and Opiates(Temazepam, Midazolam, Clonazepam..etc) and their parents and society think it's perfectly normal? Why aren't they researching the promising potential of Psychedelics as a self-developement/psycho-therapy tool instead of the crude, harmfull and ADDICTIVE medications they use nowadays such as opiates and speed?


Well once again the answers to all of these questions can be answered by 2 simple keywords: Money & Power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Marijuana has a use that goes back as long as human history records and probably even further. NO one ever died from Marijuana overdose because this herb, like the other entheogens I mentioned, is so lowly toxic it is hardily worth mentioning. It is practically impossible to OD on Marijuana.

---

That, and you'd probably fall asleep before ODing.

DMT is made by your own body every night when you go to sleep. It's the cause of crazy ass dreams. And yet it's one of the most illegal substances in the world. It is THE most unexplainable experience EVER. Nothing i can say, hell, nothing i can even think of will ever come close to what i experienced in those five damn minutes.

There is no overdose to Marijuana. You can smoke as much as possible and not overdose. In fact, a friend and i split an ounce once and i passed out while he was lighting up the last couple grams. Before that, i was looking out the elephant-sized window into the sky and saw the freaking face of god in the clouds. That's what happens on marijuana -- you get lazy, it's a fun time, you don't want to do anything but sit there and enjoy yourself. I could NEVER imagine robbing someone, breaking into a house, or doing any illegal activity high on weed -- i'd just laugh myself silly and tell everyone i love them.

And if you're eating 30 grams of mushrooms, you must have a mind made of steel. Around here, you won't eat more than an eighter and you'll be silly. (Eighter = 3.5 grams)

LSD is insane. It takes SO DAMN MUCH, an insanely REDICULOUS amount to overdose. You won't even take 1/100000 of that dose and you'll trip. But it's the second most illegal substance. Leading to...

The most illegal substance: MDMA -- Ecstasy. There's a lot of misconceptions about X. Yes, you can die from your first pill -- if you're drinking. X won't do anything but raise your body temperature, making you sweat. Couple that with the dehydrating effects of a massive consumption of alcohol and you'll have a heat stroke. Or if you get a bunk pill NOT full of MDMA, then you can die. It can be full of retarted stuff. MDMA won't kill you. The other things you take or alcohol will kill you. This leads to the misconception about X and what makes it highly illegal. If caught, you will get charged with manslaughter for every pill you have.

Here's something interesting about alcohol. A male rat has a gene that senses when a female rat is ready to mate. Only then will a male rat try to mate with a female rat. Even low levels of alcohol disturb this gene's function and the rat's mechanism for this sensor goes haywire: the rat no longer knows when the female wants to mate and will try to mate with her at non-ready times. Sound familiar?

I love my drinks, i love my binge drinking. But it's stupid. I'd take a joint over a drink any day. When you're on alcohol, you're just stupid. Sure, when you're high you get stupid as well, but you're not likely to hurt anyone.

Also, Weed does promote escapism, but that's from the high that makes you happy. It WILL bring out your fears and anxieties. Sometimes that will lead to a bad trip where you're paranoid, but if you know how to control yourself, actually weed will make you confront these experiences in a better light. No, it doesn't have to be laced, that's the way weed works. It makes you happy, but you can also expect a visit from Mr. Paranoia. You just have to know how to deal with it.

The Dopamine theory is right on. Higher levels of dopamine lead to schizophrenic-like symptoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushna Mufeed

That, and you'd probably fall asleep before ODing.

---

Haha! I just said that! :-P

yeah I read an article about the impractical case of Marijuana poisoning and I believe the dose was well over 15000 grams. And I believe it said you'd have to smoke it in 15 minutes. Or something along those lines.

Even if you were planning to smoke that much, which means you're preparing for quite a journey, you'd simply be unable to smoke more due to unconsciousness :P There's just no way.

If the government of the US has to LIE to it's people to have them believe Marijuana is really that bad and harmfull, then they are hiding their real motivations; Which is they can't get a monopoly on Weed.

However they COULD claim a monopoly on Weed. Here in Holland they only Partially did that and their greatest mistake was not going all the way and still outlawing grand scale Marijuana farming (only 5 plants per household are permitted; Not enough to constantly supply Coffeeshops with plenty and healthy supplies of Marijuana.)

Here´s a plan that makes sense:
Have state-controlled and approved farmers grow big crops of Marijuana that meets high health- regulations. Problem of Laced and "chemically growth enhanced" Marijuana Solved. Problem of violent and Fraudulent criminals becomming rich & powerfull from the Marijuana distrubution and farming solved.

I think Marijuana can possibly fill in a large part of the demand for Fuel, which now only relies on Oil. Oil magnates and rich, influential people with Stocks in the Oil Markets off course are anti-Marijuana for this very reason, but using legally grown and distrubuted Marijuana-fuel can make the Oil less nessecairy and less expensive.

Marijuana for many people, myself included, is a perfect psychological medicine. Where many harmfull and addictive psycho-active prescription drugs fail to help to function the Mind of most Psychiatric patients better, Marijuana, for some, does Exactly to their Mind what is desired to function better.

Marijuana can be used to replace cotton as the fibre is very strong. It could probably be good material for bulletproof vests and cables that need to withstand alot of pressure..etc.


Imagine Sunhouses as far as the eye can see, full of Marijuana. This is a Psychological, Economical and Social Dream. I don't see why many people believe the nonsensical dogmatic indoctrination of their hypocritical Authorities via TV and Society. Alot of people truely believe that Legalising Marijuana is the beginning of the End. How misinformed and gullable they are.

True that, Ska!

There's also a big misconception that smoking weed will have bad effects on your health. Yes, SMOKING will have bad effects on your body just as smoking cigarettes will. But if you take nicotine without the smoking (nicorette, anyone?), you take away all the bad effects.

They've already got vaporizors and THC pills. Health issue solved.

THC pills? Where?

California and Vancouver!

They're a medical alternative to marijuana bud. If you'd rather not smoke it in any form (including vaporizing it), you can opt for the THC pill.

The problem with the pill is that it has SO MUCH THC in it, it causes nausea for most users. Imagine how much weed you'd have to smoke to get that? That's a HIGH!

Quote:

---

Yes, SMOKING will have bad effects on your body just as smoking cigarettes will.

---

actually only one study has show that Marijuana can cause lung cancer other studies have shown that Marijuana smokers do not have higher lung cancer rates.

The government always decides to fund propaganized biased studies that always initially find problems with long-term use of the drugs, even if they aren't based in reality at all. So, by the time real studies come out to disprove them they've already long since become 'common knowledge'.

Kind of like the idea that ecstasy eats holes in your brain image that they initially came out with, that was long since refuted as a tainted, biased, and unfounded study. The scientist even had to write a retraction and blamed mislabeling of the drugs because it was found that he used speed (straight amphetamines) instead of MDMA which he was trying to find results of. Although, of course everyone cites his blatantly WRONG study as a reference against MDMA use.
http://mdma.net/ecstasy-brain.jpg

DON'T EVER LISTEN TO THE GOVERNMENT'S LIES!!!

I've heard of a Marijuana study with mice who have cancercells growing inside of them. The deathrate of those mice who had been given Marijuana on a regulair basis was significantly reduced. I believe by almost 50%

Also a misleading "fact" they tell you about weed is it's "addictiveness"
It is psychologically addictive they say. That sounds very negative while the truth is that it is no more "addictice"than sugar, coffee or Tea: Meaning it feels good so you're likely to do it again. It's not like you're gunna go cold turkey if you don't smoke Marijuana. It's not like you're going to go insane without smoking Marijuana regulairly.

It's certainly not like you would spend money on Weed when you're broke and still need to buy a month worth of food. It's certainly not so that Marijuana smokers, when out of money to buy weed, are going to rob and mug people to get some money for Marijuana.

However tell people Marijuana is addictive and they will think just that. Prejudice will take care of the rest of people's judgement.

When I say They I mean the powers that devide and rule us. They who Rastafari call Babylon. They who lead us, astray if they must, to benefit from it individually and selfishly at the expense of the people.

well if we legalized marijuana the united states would be as much of a laughingstock as canada. i dont think most americans want that

My 8th grade science teacher was required to give us this "drug talk" so she said this "No one else is going to tell you this, but the reason Drugs are illegal is because the government can't tax them. They're illegal because Uncle sam doesnt get a dime off o them."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

legal and illegal is a little game for school boys and girls. Find out the rules for yourself. The real rules.

---

It's about what's right and wrong and what people should be able to do with their own bodies in a free society, not just what people can get away with, meanwhile risking their freedom and property. It's not a game if they confiscate everything you have and lock you up for a long time.

:lol: at SS's pic--"plain brain".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdog

well if we legalized marijuana the united states would be as much of a laughingstock as canada. i dont think most americans want that

---

:eh:

Explain how we are a laughing stock, because to be honest, your country is in a pitiful state compared to ours right now.

:rolleyes: Ha ha, I point in a generally northern direction and laugh all the time, thinking of Canada being up there, with all those Canadians. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

:rolleyes: Ha ha, I point in a generally northern direction and laugh all the time, thinking of Canada being up there, with all those Canadians. :chuckle:

---

Yeah, likewise :P. Our countries are pretty good at joking about each other, but saying that the other one sucks in a serious context without any explanation is just grounds for an ass whopin'...

You Americans shouldn't talk! Us, a laughing stock? What does that make you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIA...eature=related
I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushna Mufeed

You Americans shouldn't talk! Us, a laughing stock? What does that make you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIA...eature=related
I rest my case.

---

Oye, compose yourself :P! I don't want to get into a flame war tonight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yeah, likewise :P. Our countries are pretty good at joking about each other, but saying that the other one sucks in a serious context without any explanation is just grounds for an ass whopin'...

---

Yea, that was a little odd provocative statement. I think he's got a personal problem about it.

I wonder what "most Americans want" as far as the topic is concerned (drug leaglization, not Canada). Not that I think the majority should be able to limit the freedom of the minority, even that were the case.

I'm sure there's an opinion poll somewhere...too late to look for it now.

"It lasted for a million years and for a split-second. But it's over and now it's your turn." -Timothy Leary

Terence McKenna: Reclaim Your Mind
The True Facts About Cannabis
McKenna on Weed
McKenna on Psychedelics
Culture is NOT Your Friend

I'd have no doubt most americans would want to keep drugs illegal. Then again, most americans are sucked in by propaganda so easily it's not even funny.

OVERDOSE ON WEED

"i think we're dead, i REALLY do"

:lol: ...IDIOTS!

Dearborn Heights? AHAHA these idiots live around my area!

"What's the score in the Red Wings game?"

You can hear the lady on the telephone trying not to laugh :-P

Really, people are stupid. Especially people who don't educate themselves prior to doing something. A quarter ounce -- about 7 grams, split between two people. So an eighth a person, 3.5 grams. Hardly 15,000 grams in 15 minutes at all. Off some strong stuff (dearborn usually has pretty strong stuff but i have no doubt people this retarted got either ripped off or bunk weed), you'd get real high, but really, for an inexperienced user to smoke that much and get that high? That's just causing trouble; this guy was obviously freaking out due to being inexperienced with handling the paranoia that comes with a big intake of weed.

You can't hallucinate off 3.5 grams either. Lol. These people just put themselves in jail for being stupid. Plus you NEVER EVER call the cops. You go to the hospital, and they'll take care of you and usually won't call the cops (unless they feel as if you're a danger to others)

Let's drink water until we explode.

Oh wait, my parents shackle and spoon feed me.

Oh well... i guess they know what's best for me.

They are illegal because they are unsafe for your health. Not to say that alchohol and such isn't good for your health, but marijuanna (and the other drugs you mentioned) more powerfully affects you.

Spoken like someone who fully accepts what they are told by the powers that be... Did you grow up believing Nancy Regan's "Just Say, No!" campaign, too?

It couldn't possibly be illegal because it hinders and countermines the government's influence over the consumeristic and parasitic lifestyles it spoonfeeds you by causing you to question and think for yourself?

I beg you to show me even one accredited study mentioning marijuana as more powerfully affecting you than alcohol. By and large, alcohol causes more traffic fatalities, overall aggression towards others, and long-term health problems than nearly any other illegal drug out there. And, it is undeniably more dangerous than marijuana. Please prove me otherwise. If you can't, I suggest you unplug yourself from the matrix for a bit and start thinking for yourself.

k? thx. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weelilhazel

They are illegal because they are unsafe for your health. Not to say that alchohol and such isn't good for your health, but marijuanna (and the other drugs you mentioned) more powerfully affects you.

---

Where did you get that nonsensical information from?

Marijuana and the other drugs mentioned such as Magic Mushrooms, LSD, DMT, Mescaline and Salvia more powerfully affect you? In what way?

Well from experience I can tell Alcohol's effect is much more radical, impairing and intoxicating than Marijuana.
Also Alcohol is the most toxic of all drugs I just mmentioned. The only one so toxic, in fact, that it's the only drug of those I mentioned that has a serious health risk. Also Alcohol is the only of the drugs mentioned that is truely addictive.

a DMT experience makes alcohol look like weak coffee for sure. It is a visionairy drug which can take you deep into dream-realms and sure is an overpowering experience. But still it is harmless. Alcohol is far from Harmless.

When questioned why drugs are illegal, why is it that the inevitable parallel is that of why other things are legal?

Does making the legality of tobacco and alcohol make it any more right for other drugs to be legal, EVEN if you deem them less harmful?

Are they not harmful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

When questioned why drugs are illegal, why is it that the inevitable parallel is that of why other things are legal?

Does making the legality of tobacco and alcohol make it any more right for other drugs to be legal, EVEN if you deem them less harmful?

Are they not harmful?

---

Well I think compairing drugs in terms of Toxicity, Addictive potential and Social problems is a good thing.

Doing so would show you that Marijuana, Mushrooms, Mescaline, Salvia, DMT and LSD have such a low health-risk that they are actually acceptable to legalize. Especially with proper, TRUTHFULL education on these Substances the risk is so low that banning it would cause more problems ( criminality & Violence, dangerious drug impurity) than legalising them ( a very rare case of permanent psychological disturbance by a naïve, mentally instable user gone too far psychologically )

Do I think Alcohol should be banned? No. Do I think Coffee should be banned? No. Allthough both of these substances are significantly more toxic than any of the drugs I mentioned above they still shouldn't be banned IMO.
Alcohol counts 1000nds of yearly victims in any western country, so does Coffee and even Aspirin has it's 1000ns of deaths each year. That can be reduced.

I think with better education and age restriction Alcohol problems, as well as coffee problems and aspirin problems can be reduced significantly. Truthfull education & more enforcement/control (NOT prohibition) would be the solution in my eyes. The same goes for Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms, DMT, LSD, Salvia and Mescaline. These very low risk drugs can also be legalized without much problems if the legalization were accompanied by better, truthfull education and age restrictions.


Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Well I think compairing drugs in terms of Toxicity, Addictive potential and Social problems is a good thing.

Doing so would show you that Marijuana, Mushrooms, Mescaline, Salvia, DMT and LSD have such a low health-risk that they are actually acceptable to legalize. Especially with proper, TRUTHFULL education on these Substances the risk is so low that banning it would cause more problems ( criminality & Violence, dangerious drug impurity) than legalising them ( a very rare case of permanent psychological disturbance by a na&#239;ve, mentally instable user gone too far psychologically )

Do I think Alcohol should be banned? No. Do I think Coffee should be banned? No. Allthough both of these substances are significantly more toxic than any of the drugs I mentioned above they still shouldn't be banned IMO.
Alcohol counts 1000nds of yearly victims in any western country, so does Coffee and even Aspirin has it's 1000ns of deaths each year. That can be reduced.

I think with better education and age restriction Alcohol problems, as well as coffee problems and aspirin problems can be reduced significantly. Truthfull education & more enforcement/control (NOT prohibition) would be the solution in my eyes. The same goes for Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms, DMT, LSD, Salvia and Mescaline. These very low risk drugs can also be legalized without much problems if the legalization were accompanied by better, truthfull education and age restrictions.


Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?

---

I was about to post about the subject, but SKA just pointed everything I have to say, and more. There is this video abotu ecstasy being harmless, but I just can't find it. It was brought up in another thread like this one.

And yes, I would try ecstasy and any other drug that's not harmful (and by not harmful I mean less harmful than alcohol/tobacco), but as long as it's scientifically proven not to be, of course (I'm no fool). And yes I do agree with the age restrictions for those. And I also think they shouldn't be used in public spaces either (but then again, I think the same about tobacco).

Here's a scientifically carried out study of the risk-level of Psilocybin Mushrooms:
http://erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/m...ms_health1.pdf

Quite interresting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdog

well if we legalized marijuana the united states would be as much of a laughingstock as canada. i dont think most americans want that

---

You are the laughing stock. Lmao.

I think the US's shameless, economically driven War in Iraq and Afghanistan are much more a hard-to-remove bloodstain on their image than legalising low risk psychedelic drugs. I actually think it would give the US the image of being flexible, renewing and modernised if they were to do that. A new approach in the Harm and Criminality reduction of Drug-use.

Legalising Marijuana, DMT, LSD, Magic Mushrooms and Salvia in the US is most likely going to result in a dramatic Decrease of Amphetamine, Heroin, Crack/Cocaine and Meth-use. With so many pro's to legalise the Psychedelic substances I mentioned, I wonder why there are still so many people who DARE drink a cup of coffee and still can't believe that they're being more "irresponsible" for their health than someone who uses any of the mentioned Psychedelics. Even pure XTC, MDMA, is still far less toxic than Alcohol and Tobacco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

When questioned why drugs are illegal, why is it that the inevitable parallel is that of why other things are legal?

Does making the legality of tobacco and alcohol make it any more right for other drugs to be legal, EVEN if you deem them less harmful?

Are they not harmful?

---

Yeah, I agree. Every time I see someone compare alcohol/tobaco to drugs, I see it more as an argument to prohibiting the former rather than legalizing the latter.

well can you stop to think what would happen if Alcohol were to become Illegal? We'd get Bootleggers-situations like in the 30's when Al Capone and his massive alcohol brewing Mafioso friends were ultra powerfull and violence related to illegal alcohol brewing was skyhigh.

It is actually the same crime that thrives today only now around illegal drugs.
As we have seen in the alcohol prohibition in the 30's Making a Drug illegal will only cause more criminal, social and public health problems and make the Government completely lose grip on it's consumtion, brewing/growing/fabrication and distrubution.

A good example of why Legalizing acceptable, low-risk drugs is a good idea is my Country; The Netherlands.

Marijuana was not legalised but there came a permittance policy allowing vendors, known as coffeeshops, to sell Marijuana and Hashish throughout cities in The Netherlands. The result was that Marijuana dealers and the related criminality surrounding it vanished like snow before the sun.


Marijuana is so harmless. Why not just legalise it? Or do you suggest we make Alcohol, Tobacco, Coffee and Aspirin illegal too? That would make this world just a bit MORE fucked up and there's gunna be less and less room left for personal freedom.

Salvia's already legal.

For those who don't know, Salvia is an EXTREMELY powerful psychadelic and hallucinogen. It's smokeable. The reason that it's legal is because there's no threat whatsoever for big-time money corporations in the production of salvia. Also, no one has ever found anything wrong with Salvia; it can't cause death, there is no overdose, and it lasts about ten minutes max. I've smoked a Salvia 20x extract before, and i will NEVER smoke it again. OH MY GOD that was the FREAKIEST experience EVER.

Actually, hell yeah i'd do it again. Lol. It was fun, i just wasn't prepared to see my friend morph into a cigarette-smoking penguin while my body was being ripped out of myself. It's nothing compared to DMT, but it was still crazy.

One of my friends smoked salvia and started running around on all fours, howling at the moon. :-P

Marijuana's so much less intense than Salvia, the reason it's illegal is as i've said before -- greed. If you don't know, read my previous post on why it's illegal.

And SKA is right. Even SUGAR is an addictive drug, way more addictive than any natural illegal drug (marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, etc).

Drugs that are NOT addictive (natural and chemical): Marijuana, Psyilocybin, LSD, MDMA, MDA, DMT, Mescaline, GHB, Ketamine

Drugs that ARE addictive: Cocaine, Freebase Cocaine (Crack), Opiates (Heroin, Morphine, all the drugs found in pain-killer pills), Amphetamines, PCP, Tobacco, Alcohol, even Caffeine and Sugar

Any addiction by the group that is non-addictive would be psychological.

Another addictive class of Drugs: Opiates. The Medication that our psychiatrists use to dope up the mentally disturbed.

Salvia is not already legal in the US. it STILL is legal. They wanna ban it too. In some states it already IS banned.

I would like to see a study showing amount of drugs used X productiveness. Because the vast majority of drug users I know are not the most ambitious people. So in that sense, drugs seem to work against the advancement of knowledge. Thats why I think they should have no place in my or anybody else's life. But thats not for me to decide, and I am just as guilty because I drink like a madman.

I have a fair proposal. Outlaw all of them. That way, you'll still be able to do them, but they will all be considered equal.

So now that we have just given the indisputable facts showing how harmless and nonaddictive Marijuana and the group of Natural hallucinogens mentioned in this topic, you just go find anothe reason to say that these substances should just be banned by saying they impair ambition and productivity.

I smoke quite alot of Hash frequently. Maybe about 2 grams with which I can last 3 sometimes 4 days, followed up by a week or 2 non smoking and repeat again. I am a very productive person. Draw and paint alot. Make alot of music. Atop of that I am a chronic Insomniac so I'm pretty much always sleep deprived. And still I am bvery productive. Doing good at school too. So that would boldly contradict your statement about that the use of drugs would make one a ambitionless slacker.

Outlaw liqour? Are you an Anarchist? :P It will result in total nationwide chaos.


Legalise Marijuana, Mushrooms, Mescaline, DMT and LSD.
If coffee is legal, which it should be, then there is NO reason for these substances to be illegal. Stop having these pre-fabricated ideas about drugs of which you REALLy don't know jack shit about. You might have heard some gossips here and some full-of-lies-government anti drug propaganda, but admit: You really have no exact idea of what LSD, for instance, does to you.

If you would know and ACCEPT the undisputable truths about these substances you certainly would realise that these substances shouldn't have to be illegal at all. The thing is you DON't know and/or Realise the harmlessness of these substances just because you have allways been told they were bad. But never actually wondered wether that is really true.

How can you judge that which do not really know?
Bring me Arguments of why LSD, Mushrooms, Marijuana, DMT and Mescaline Should Remain illegal. And underbuild your arguments with FACTS not opinions.

Hey now, take no offense to what I said. I was just referring to the people I know.

My point of outlawing everything was not a true belief of mine. Not at all. I just feel that since the others will never be legalized (especially where I live), that they should all be classified as the same, and some not given special treatment because of the status they hold. It is not fair that Weed is illegal while alcohol IS legal, and its use is promoted on TV.

I do, still, hold my belief that the legalization of all drugs would be disasterous.

Also, keep in mind that I am an ex-drug user. Nobody hates anti drug commercials more than I, and I don't let them influence me. Hell, we don't even have anti-LSD commercials here in the states. I won't contest that I don't know much about LSD. I don't need to, because it is not a destructive drug.

Finally, I am not concerned at all about the health issues involved in taking drugs. It Frankly I couldn't care less. I am more worried about the way drug addicts act.

I'm a sophmore in college with a 3.4 GPA. I smoke weed about once a week. Sometimes more. It doesn't ruin my productivity at all -- in fact, i usually use it as a reward for the good i've done that week.

I know people who have much higher GPAs then me and they smoke every day, 3 times a day. I also know a guy with a 3.93 GPA that drinks every night.

It only impairs productivity if you let it. I know another person who smokes with those people 3 times a day and his GPA is about a 2.5. Why? Because he lets it get like that. He screws off his work to go smoke. The others do their work so they have free time to smoke.

The effects of drugs are really misconstrued. I've done essays high, i've taken tests high. I haven't gotten below a 3.0 on anything i've done high. I don't know if it would have been better if i'd not have been high, but to me it didn't make a difference -- i still knew my shit.

The best is when i have a philosophy essay due. I get blown out of my mind, type some random stuff, and get a 4.0. :)

I won't say marijuana is harmless. I am very allergic to it after a few days on it, and it definitely makes me (personally) lazier and more foggy headed. However, that's about the full extent of what is wrong with it in my case.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is the drug that has had me waking up in the emergency room with no memory of how I got there. Alcohol has made me on countless occasions wake up and ask people what I did after 8:00 the night before, and the stories have on too many occasions been stuff like, "Well, you yelled a bunch of trash talk at some carloads of rednecks that chased us for an hour," and, "You knocked down the lifeguard stand and told the locals to go screw themselves," and, "You walked around the party with your eyes barely open, wearing nothing but a shirt." Marijuana NEVER altered me in ways like that. It's not physically possible.

The reason I bring up alcohol in conversations about legalizing other drugs is that most people believe alcohol should be legal. If they understand that, then most of my work is done. I can just explain that marijuana should be legal just like the much more dangerous drug alcohol. Also, the fact that the government has declared "war" on marijuana while alcohol (and tobacco) remains legal shows that something very corrupt and twisted is going on behind the scenes.

There is always the theory of, letting people decide for themself. If they want to risk it they can, if they don't they can avoid it. We don't really need the federal government to come in and tell us what is stupid.

Just because something might be harmful to you, doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell you not to do it.

because drugs are bad, MKAY?!

:D

shit i dunno.

-patience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatienceMarie

because drugs are bad, MKAY?!

:D

shit i dunno.

-patience

---

lol that's the propaganda the governemnt spread to try to get you. The government bans drugs more on the criteria of "oh, people use it recreationally, let's ban it" than on the scientifical research about the drug. The states that banned salvia did it with no scientifical research, really on an impulse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Hey now, take no offense to what I said. I was just referring to the people I know.

My point of outlawing everything was not a true belief of mine. Not at all. I just feel that since the others will never be legalized (especially where I live), that they should all be classified as the same, and some not given special treatment because of the status they hold. It is not fair that Weed is illegal while alcohol IS legal, and its use is promoted on TV.

I do, still, hold my belief that the legalization of all drugs would be disasterous.

Also, keep in mind that I am an ex-drug user. Nobody hates anti drug commercials more than I, and I don't let them influence me. Hell, we don't even have anti-LSD commercials here in the states. I won't contest that I don't know much about LSD. I don't need to, because it is not a destructive drug.

Finally, I am not concerned at all about the health issues involved in taking drugs. It Frankly I couldn't care less. I am more worried about the way drug addicts act.

---

Drug addicts are people that use Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, Crack/Cocaine and Meth or some or all of those combined in excess for an extended period of time. These people destroy themselves and become a menace to society as they're going to steal and rob to get money for their hard needed fix of any of these drugs.

If LSD, DMT, Magic Mushrooms, Marijuana and Mescaline were legalised and proper drug-education (not propaganda) was given to the people we would actually see a dramatic DECREASE of Drug addicts; People wouldn't as easily try something as devastating as Crack or Meth when something so Magical, pleasant and harmless such as LSD or DMT would be legally and easily available.

agreed? :)

PS: Here's how Psychedelics can be greatly beneficial for personal growth and insights into life:
Appart from all the insights I had on Magic Mushrooms and on my 3 times doing Yopo, here's how LSD helped a friend of mine face his own weakness and better his life;
I decided on 1 night to do LSD with 2 friends of mine in the cosy comfort of my lowly illuminated room. One of my Friends used to snort Speed(Amphetamines) quite often. I have allways thought this was a very bad habbit and told him so many times without raising my voice or degenerating him. Just lettin g him know. That night, about 6 hours into the LSD trip, My friend decided to snort a line of Speed. Something I found pittyfull and disagreeable. But because I am a tolerant person I let him do it.

He snorted it and said it burnt like hell. I said off course it burns your nose, you've seen what it does to a thick glass table surface( he told me someone left some speed on a glass table and after about 10 minutes it had Meltedm into the glass!). Right after that he emptied his bag of Speed out of my Window.

He NEVER used speed again from that night on. :)

Hell I was just kidding.

I agree with natural drugs :).

And I don't really agree with chemical drugs, but they are fun an I do them anyways.

Shit I don't care.... it's none of my business what other people do. My life is mine and theirs is theirs. Tt's how it should be :D

Unless they are really bad off and I love them.... recreational is one thing... addiction is another.

-patience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Drug addicts are people that use Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, Crack/Cocaine and Meth or some or all of those combined in excess for an extended period of time. These people destroy themselves and become a menace to society as they're going to steal and rob to get money for their hard needed fix of any of these drugs.

---

If you would like to compare, let's compare. You compare your list with that of hard core drugs and then claim how harmless the others are.
You tell us things as evident as what addiction is, how it becomes, but must be inept yourself to recognize the simple truth. The truth is, however slowly any substance can creep up on an individual. Many may find themselves being that menace to society.
How are you confident to decide what a persons "hard needed fix.", is? While mine may be one thing, yours may be another. Go on to tell us that cocaine is so very hardcore and addictive, as it is. But all the while you advocate the legality of a mind altering substance. That is the fact. It alters a mind, which in turn comes the obvious to some, the blurred line of decision making?

I do have a perspective of seeing and using your "list". Which prior to me saying so, you must have thought I was straight and narrow.... minded, anti drug poser. I too have altered myself many times in many shapes and forms. I have extracted out of them some experiences that I could not have otherwise. However, when I am out of this fog, I can clearly see a difference between not only me and the impaired, but me and myself, impaired.
I have and still do see the abuse of marijuana in five people on a regular basis. This may seem a shallow number. It may be. But I have had the vantage point of growing up beside all of them. Not one of their quarrels against the ban on marijuana wavers. In that they are consistent.
They not do not steal or rob in the sense that you are speaking of. But they are a menace to society. Their decision making is opaque. It is the same as it was when they began to use marijuana. It is my freind from twelve years ago. This renders them a child in an adult, decision making world. Their behavior is as unwavering as their argument. Flawed.
Although they do claim to know all the answers to the universe.

So docile, so nice. So useless. Their priorities guided by a substance and not themselves, there fore leaving them misguided, affluent only by their own standards.
Leaving the rest of us, dealing with ourselves, good or bad. But still, there to deal with harsh, sobering decisions for a lax high society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

If LSD, DMT, Magic Mushrooms, Marijuana and Mescaline were legalised and proper drug-education (not propaganda) was given to the people we would actually see a dramatic DECREASE of Drug addicts; People wouldn't as easily try something as devastating as Crack or Meth when something so Magical, pleasant and harmless such as LSD or DMT would be legally and easily available.

agreed?

---

An example of one type of Decision making ▲

Quote:

---

Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?

---

Ecstasy!??
Yes. Would I make it legal? No!

I honestly wouldn't like bumping into someone tripping on acid in the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I do have a perspective of seeing and using your "list". Which prior to me saying so, you must have thought I was straight and narrow.... minded, anti drug poser. I too have altered myself many times in many shapes and forms. I have extracted out of them some experiences that I could not have otherwise. However, when I am out of this fog, I can clearly see a difference between not only me and the impaired, but me and myself, impaired.

---

It is true that some people wrap their lives up in marijuana and become bums who make bad decisions about their lives. I have seen several cases of it with my own eyes. However, I am not so sure they would not be bums if they were sober 100&#37; of the time. Also, whose decision is it whether they live as bums? Is it their decision, or is it ours? I think it is theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I honestly wouldn't like bumping into someone tripping on acid in the street.

---

Don't worry. People on acid rarely want to go to the street. When they do go, they are far less likely to be violent than sober people. Conflict SUCKS when you are on acid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Don't worry. People on acid rarely want to go to the street. When they do go, they are far less likely to be violent than sober people. Conflict SUCKS when you are on acid.

---

Well I wouldn't like to be answered at the door of somebody tripping on psychedelics at home either, I'm just saying that those drugs make you temporarily untouchable for the duration of the trip.

Many of you guys say that many of these soft-core drugs have no physical addiction, thats fine and perhaps true, but this focus on the physical is too narrow a view to justify the legalisation of these drugs. Psychological addiction is an issue too and a problematic one.
Anyone can become addicted to anything that is associated with a high, brings on a certain state of mind and/or involves enjoyment; people can become addicted to pornography, computer games, religion, gambling. It need not be a chemical substance, but may well be. Chemical substances are the most susceptible to this type of addiction because of a fixed high.
When I use the word addiction I don't mean a strong liking of something, but a love of something that causes a person to forsake many basic aspects of their lives: hygiene, family, relationships employment e.t.c. And this may well occur with a substantial percentage of drug users, after pro-longed drug use. People will essentially depend on drugs for happiness, instead of the highs of ordinary life: employment, relationships and family. The would withdraw from reality and fail to function adequately.
What would happen if we legalised these softcore drugs, then this problem would probably increase 100 fold: any large country would potentially have millions with this problem: people would forsake basic life and especially employment, affecting the welfare of the country.
This is just my hypothesis, just a theory, but the important issue for debate is the psychological effect of drugs, not the psychosomatic or physical.

On the other hand, the use of softcore, hallucinogenic drugs has led to great works of literature: allegedly, JRR Tolkien use such subtances, helping him to create his works, Alice in Wonderland was allegedly written under the influence (talking Rabbits, come on!) and even William Blake; not to mention numerous musicians.

The key is finding the balance!

psychology student, a lot of the drugs we are talking about do not make people "high", and they do not work a second day in a row. Most people cannot have two mushroom trips in the same week, for example. It takes a while for the trip potential to build back up. The same is true of DMT. Salvia divinorum does not create a high, and the trip only lasts about ten minutes when smoked. My friends and I have had some good laughs over the idea of people becoming addicted to salvia, craving another trip every ten minutes and robbing stores to get the money for it. Most psychedelics are not even in the same ballpark with the "high" drugs.

Also, you made an analogy with video games, religion, pornography, and gambling. Do you think those things should be illegal?

EDIT: This is my 4,000th post. :D

Frued was a kite.

High as.

EDIT: This is my 1,000th post. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Frued was a kite.

High as.

EDIT: This is my 1,000th post. :D

---

:shock:

I have never taken a recreational drug in my life, apart from caffeine, and even I can see that the prohibition of alcohol was a disaster in the 1920s, and the prohibition of drugs is a disaster now. Legalizing drugs like marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. would result in a dramatic decline in crime and would free our severely overcrowded prison system of victimless, nonviolent inmates.

Exactly. No wonder they won't let us be our own police of ourself. It was a trick!

You can become adicted to anything, it need not have a high (I was unclear). For example gambling and pornography have no direct effect on physiology, no high, yet there are such things as pornography and gambling addictions: they both bring about a sense of excitement, and one becomes dependent on this. This becomes associated with the cause of the excitement and thus someone becomes addicted to the means i.e. the pornography or gambling. As drugs, consistently bring about an excitement, or change in mindstate, assumedly plesurable to the user, they are particularly prevalent with this type of addiction.

Universal mind said:

"Most people cannot have two mushroom trips in the same week, for example. It takes a while for the trip potential to build back up. The same is true of DMT. Salvia divinorum does not create a high, and the trip only lasts about ten minutes when smoked. My friends and I have had some good laughs over the idea of people becoming addicted to salvia, craving another trip every ten minutes and robbing stores to get the money for it. Most psychedelics are not even in the same ballpark with the "high" drugs."

Yes, I see what your saying: such drugs are inept for constant use, hey i don't know drugs too well. That is not hinderance for addiction.
Lets use pornography addiction as an example: initially, an addict will use pornography based on their sex drive: lets say once every few days, for most (perhaps comparable to magic mushrooms and Salvia). But after a while, an addict will become tolerant to the initial dose and the duration between trips will decrease. As the pornography addict will ditch his sex drive routine and use it more frequently, independent to any drives.
Perhaps, often use of some drugs is physiologically impossible as you say but somebody may still be addicted; not necessarily killing and robing for money but a withdrawal from basic life for temporary periods. This is not consistent addiction as you percieve it, but problematic enough to screw someone up: what if ther comes a time when they can't get their supply, they become overly depressed or anxious and are unable to function, they need not kill or rob for addiction to exist. Whenever they become naturally sad due to the lows of life, they run to their addiction.
I am sure that many can use drugs recreationally, addiction affects a small percentage, the problem is that one cannot predict if addiction will occur, and complacency doesn't help.
Nonetheless, you guys are all smart people, debating the subject in a forum, evaluating the risks (the addiction probably applies to merely a few of you), the problem with blanket legalisation is that there are alot of stupid people out there, who don't know the risks and don't really care about them.

And about the banning of alcohol. The governments would love to ban it, its arguably as bad as some illegal drugs. The problem of banning it is that its is so easy to make: yeast and glucose sources (fruit, vegtables). Anyone could make it without detection or suspicion and as a result the would lose their tax cut. So they keep it legal and recieve a tax cut, it is that simple. I don't think that it is anything sinister though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

If you would like to compare, let's compare. You compare your list with that of hard core drugs and then claim how harmless the others are.

---

I also compaired them with Coffee and Tobacco, 2 drugs that are not quite "hardcore drugs", but still alot more harmfull than all of the hallucinogens I mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

You tell us things as evident as what addiction is, how it becomes, but must be inept yourself to recognize the simple truth. The truth is, however slowly any substance can creep up on an individual. Many may find themselves being that menace to society.
How are you confident to decide what a persons "hard needed fix.", is? While mine may be one thing, yours may be another. Go on to tell us that cocaine is so very hardcore and addictive, as it is. But all the while you advocate the legality of a mind altering substance. That is the fact. It alters a mind, which in turn comes the obvious to some, the blurred line of decision making?

---

How can you judge your friends like that? What gives you the right to decide for them that their ways of decision making are wrong? Maybe it were exactly the right ways of making decision from their point of view. There's no need to assume they are any worse or better, more or less responsible or more or less driven in making decisions than you just because they are all long term Marijuana smokers.

I have always disagreed with how society constantly pushes the individual around demanding it to offer it's time and survice to society to the point of totally intruding into and indoctrinating their lives. I don't think it should me any of your busyness how your fellow men live their lives just as long as they don't exploit/fraud public survices and aren't violent/dominant/intolerant towards others.
Your judgement of your friend's decisionmaking appears to be based on your own conflicted point of view concerning Mind alteration. I guess you assume it blurs them as much as it did you. Have you ever considered that it probably doesn't or they would have probably stopped smoking cannabis when you quit it too? Or of whichever form of consciousness altering you have done in the past.

Also you should not confuse Consciousness altering with Mind Blurring. Like you said: What is for you might not be for me. In my case I am very mentally confused and easily distracted to begin with. If I smoke Marijuana my head calms down so that it actually becomes LESS blurry. Medicine for me.
I do have a perspective of seeing and using your "list". Which prior to me saying so, you must have thought I was straight and narrow.... minded, anti drug poser. I too have altered myself many times in many shapes and forms. I have extracted out of them some experiences that I could not have otherwise. However, when I am out of this fog, I can clearly see a difference between not only me and the impaired, but me and myself, impaired.
I have and still do see the abuse of marijuana in five people on a regular basis. This may seem a shallow number. It may be. But I have had the vantage point of growing up beside all of them. Not one of their quarrels against the ban on marijuana wavers. In that they are consistent.
They not do not steal or rob in the sense that you are speaking of. But they are a menace to society. Their decision making is opaque. It is the same as it was when they began to use marijuana. It is my freind from twelve years ago. This renders them a child in an adult, decision making world. Their behavior is as unwavering as their argument. Flawed.
Although they do claim to know all the answers to the universe.

So docile, so nice. So useless. Their priorities guided by a substance and not themselves, there fore leaving them misguided, affluent only by their own standards.
Leaving the rest of us, dealing with ourselves, good or bad. But still, there to deal with harsh, sobering decisions for a lax high society.


And this is interresting:
Quote:
Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?
Ecstasy!??
Yes. Would I make it legal? No![/quote]

I hope you meant you'd like the <insert desired feeling/mindstate here> to be an exstatic one. I didn't mean "E" just to be clear. Just a nonexistant fantasy herb to make for a good example.

What do you mean you WOULD try it but you WOULDN't legalise it?
So if you WOULD try something yourself, knowing it's safe enough not to pose a threat to your health and also be a very pleasurable experience, then why would you denie it to the rest of us and make it illegal?
Sounds backwards to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Frued was a kite.

High as.

EDIT: This is my 1,000th post. :D

---

SO true. He was an avid cocaine user!

God, i we really need access to the gasses that Anesthesiologists use. THEY ARE AMAZING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes, I see what your saying: such drugs are inept for constant use, hey i don't know drugs too well. That is not hinderance for addiction.
Lets use pornography addiction as an example: initially, an addict will use pornography based on their sex drive: lets say once every few days, for most (perhaps comparable to magic mushrooms and Salvia). But after a while, an addict will become tolerant to the initial dose and the duration between trips will decrease. As the pornography addict will ditch his sex drive routine and use it more frequently, independent to any drives.
Perhaps, often use of some drugs is physiologically impossible as you say but somebody may still be addicted; not necessarily killing and robing for money but a withdrawal from basic life for temporary periods. This is not consistent addiction as you percieve it, but problematic enough to screw someone up: what if ther comes a time when they can't get their supply, they become overly depressed or anxious and are unable to function, they need not kill or rob for addiction to exist. Whenever they become naturally sad due to the lows of life, they run to their addiction.
I am sure that many can use drugs recreationally, addiction affects a small percentage, the problem is that one cannot predict if addiction will occur, and complacency doesn't help.
Nonetheless, you guys are all smart people, debating the subject in a forum, evaluating the risks (the addiction probably applies to merely a few of you), the problem with blanket legalisation is that there are alot of stupid people out there, who don't know the risks and don't really care about them.

And about the banning of alcohol. The governments would love to ban it, its arguably as bad as some illegal drugs. The problem of banning it is that its is so easy to make: yeast and glucose sources (fruit, vegtables). Anyone could make it without detection or suspicion and as a result the would lose their tax cut. So they keep it legal and recieve a tax cut, it is that simple. I don't think that it is anything sinister though!

---

I have never heard of anybody doing mushrooms, DMT, or salvia divinorum every day, or even every week. Should we really have a war on those things because somebody might be absurd enough to do them every day? Wouldn't it be that person's choice and not the government's IF such a bizarre thing happened?

Alcohol is universes more dangerous than the drugs we are talking about. Mainly, it is LETHAL. It is also extremely addictive. Plus, it makes many of its users very dangerous to others because it makes them suck at driving while thinking they can drive and it makes so many people violent. The difference is astronomical. But you say it should be legal because people can make it on their own? The same is true of the psychedelics. Marijuana and salvia divinorum are plants. Go figure. Psilocybin mushrooms are literally mushrooms, and they grow on cow shit. LSA is in morning glory seeds you can buy at Wal-Mart and gardening stores. People can also grow morning glories (a type of flower), which is why the seeds are sold at Wal-Mart and gardening stores. There is information all over the internet about how to extract smokable DMT, and it can be taken orally simply by mixing ayahuasca vine and the chacruna plant. So your argument about how easy it is for people to make their own alcohol applies to psychedelic drugs also.

I want to add that I am not saying psychedelic drugs are completely harmless or that I encourage everybody to do them. I am just saying that they are not lethal or addictive (Though marijuana is psychologically addictive.) and that they are worlds less harmful than some of the recreational drugs that are lethal. I also think self-destruction is a person's right any way, and we are talking mostly about drugs that are not involved in self-destruction.

Quote:

---

The problem of banning it is that its is so easy to make: yeast and glucose sources (fruit, vegtables).

---

do you know how easy it is to grow hallucinogenic mushrooms? you can order the spores online and it's perfectly legal to do so.

Quote:

---

Also many people know Marijuana seeds can be obtained from many birdseed mixtures.

---

in the US too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's politics and money, therefore rational arguments are useless.

---

haha that pretty much sums it up.

btw can you get addicted to aspirin?

Quote:

---

btw can you get addicted to aspirin?

---

i would assume in the same way as other pain killers.

One word:

Taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs. Jones

haha that pretty much sums it up.

btw can you get addicted to aspirin?

---

OH yeah. You also build up a tolerance, just like every other drug, and need to take more and more for the same effect...

And that's when the ulcers start to appear in your stomach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

i would assume in the same way as other pain killers.

---

Not really true.

OTC painkillers (Aspirin, Acetaminophen, Ibuprofin, etc) have a mainly psychologically addictive quality. Let's say you take them for headaches. Then your brain basically tells itself, "I have a headache. I know that (painkiller) will get rid of it. I need to have (painkiller) to get rid of this headache." You'll find that you won't be able to get rid of your headache without taking that drug.

Perscription painkillers are almost all Opiates. Morphine, Codeine, and then the derivatives of other major opioids (oxycodone, oxycontin, etc). These are physically addictive in the same way that Heroin, an opioid, is. That's just one reason they are perscription. They bind to your neurotransmitters and pretty much won't let go.

well i didn't know drugs were so easy to make!
But they still don't touch alcohol on a criminality basis. If you were caught with fruit and yeast, in doesn't necessarily mean your making alcohol, its essentially unprovable. Alcohol can be made by taking a trip to your local store, no fuss, no suspicion. Doing the same for drugs is far harder.
You guys cited birdseed as a source of weed seeds. For bird seed you need a specialist store, surely, and if it was a reliable technique the government and police would soon learn about it and deal with it.
And if your caught with weed seeds, surely it will be very easy to prosecute an individual with conspiracy or an attempt to commit a crime.
Moreover, the knowledge required to ferment alcohol can be found in any science text book. Creating drugs is far harder information to come by for the general public (heck, i didn't know many of these methods until today:shock:).

But seriously, making alcohol illegal is an unpoliceable task: the evidence to prosecute a person, would be dubious: he was carrying fruit and yeast! Whereas I cannot say the same for drugs: he was caught carrying drug seeds, or, he had bird feed, and yet has shown no history of a liking for birds, or he made a trip to the forest to pick mushrooms! Come on. Surely, Alcohol is substantially more difficult to prohibit, and punish offenders when compared to drugs. Alcohol is at a whole different level.


And, Universal mind said that people should have a right to harm themselves. Ofcourse, I agree when their acts do not affect others. But the problem here is deciding where to draw the line. In Britain, we have a Public health service, which means people who unecessarily harm themselves cost the taxpayer, maybe this does not apply to America. Yet, aditionally, coming from a socialist point of view, people also owe something to the state, and hence they should try to be the best that they can be, particularly relating to employment. Impairing ones health does not help this end.

We try to allow some open discussion of this topic. It still goes by the way side. Inevitably the where and how to obtain and find specifics on drugs in discussed.

I think that in itself is an argument against rational thinking.

- Accountability for your own actions.

It does effect more than the user.How obtuse can you possibly be?
I have written, thought and deleted four times now. Why? Because it is apparent that no matter how I word it, it will not sink in.

An argument can be brought to the table, but not comprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have never heard of anybody doing mushrooms, DMT, or salvia divinorum every day, or even every week.

---

Rumor has it Ozzy Ozbourne did acid every day for two year. It shows.

What? What's wrong with Ozzie!? :D

It doesn't even work two days in a row. So I think that is just a rumor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Creating drugs is far harder information to come by for the general public

---

Actually, it's general knowledge. 9 out of 10 people know that mushrooms grow on cow shit. Plus there's so many guides online to creating drugs-- the internet is a vast source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

What? What's wrong with Ozzie!? :D

It doesn't even work two days in a row. So I think that is just a rumor.

---

Actually, it does. You just build up a tolerance. You need more for the same effect. And with LSD, if you took it every day for two years, you wouldn't have NO effect; you'd have the usual pupil dilation, vision sharpness, and other things i can't really explain. You just wouldn't trip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b12

You just wouldn't trip.

---

That's what I meant.

"9 of 10 know that mushrooms grow on cow manure". I didn't know that, I also doubt that any of my family know that, i also doubt that many of my friends know that. People who post on this thread are likely to be drug savvy, but I severly doubt that such a large proportion of the general public know such things. Honestly.

Although, I can't argue with the Internet thing.

Howie,

Am I correct that what I percieve as the "layed back, meditate/relax some more, sleep better and don't rush too much in life" additude Marijuana indeed GENERALLY seems to stimulate is the "indecive slacker and thereby being a menace to society" additude you described in your earlier post?

Because I think right there is the fundamental difference that makes you have a view opposite to mine. Because I truely believe that we percieve the same "Marijuana Mentality". From first hand experience and/or from observing friends who are avid cannabis smokers. I still think first hand experience is better to speak from if you want to make a judgement of something that is an experience: such as the Marijuana Mentality and then still: your judgement can only be personal, subjective and may not apply to others.
Therefor you cannot say that YOUR subjective experience, or YOUR subjective, personal analysis&conclusion of percieving people high on Marijuana is common, objective, general truth.

I see that we oppose on this issue and just now I tried to place myself into your point of view and took a few wild guesses as to what your opinion about the "Marijuana Mentality" was and why.

I ask you if you would like to try to shift into my point of view and try to guess, like I did, why I see the Marijuana mentality to be rather something potentially very usefull and beneficial to the social, emotional/spiritual/personal, motivational/productive functionability and developement and the locating and deployment of talents for the individual and so, naturally, good for the productiveness, economy, mental health of the society as a whole.

Can you imagine how the legalisation of Marijuana could very possibly lead to a significant decrease of hard-needed-employees having burn-outs in today's stressfull "Employees are expandable survice-robots and forget they are human beings that also need time for socialising, relaxation, family bonding, Romance and proper sleep"-society. Marijuana is known for it's GENERALLY very efficient stress reduction. It helps significantly relax all muscles of the body. People will not have backs like concrete instead of flesh as much anymore when they smoke.

Marijuana smoking is also a very social, and sometimes very intellectual(depending on the Stoners in question) ceremony. Smoking a joint after having had an intense argument with a loved one has proved to be a very efficient way to cool yourself down, confront your loved one again, and talk things over in a Calm, Waaaay relaxed and civilised tone for me and for many other Marijuana smokers I know.

When stress from homesituations or the pressure of a fulltime job are getting to someone's head in a way that it starts hindering them in being social and functional, sometimes completely neurotic ( drinking coffee doesn't help either) then smoking a Marijuana and/or Hash Joint GENERALLY has the effect to calm the chaotic mind down to a do-able, more clearminded, and more emotionally stable pace.

Another great potential Marijuana has is stimulating Creativity and Daydreams/fantasy.
This can be handy if you're an on-demand-working creative artist who has an "Inspirational dip" for a while and a customer demands him to use his creativity and design him a Logo. If you are a creative person that likes to draw, paint, sculpt, write, compose music, dance..etc you are most likely to know what "an inspirational dip" is.
If you're a professional artist and the Customer demands you to be creative, isn't it beneficial to tune a little bit more into the Creative Mind state, such as those brought on by Marijuana or Magic Mushrooms, and then ponder on the Task you were given by your Customer? It certainly is disastrous for your carreer and passion if a Customer is awaiting his demand and completely NOTHING will come to mind.

Marijuana has so much POTENTIAL in "lubricating" the Individual pinwheels that are part of the big clockwork named Society and thereby making it work much better, smoother and more efficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

And this is interresting:
Quote:
Here's a Question: If I were to give you a Teabag of Plant Material which will make you feel <-insert desired feeling/mindstate here-> and told you it's less toxic than coffee and non-addictive; Would you strain a Tea out of it and try it?

---

Ecstasy!??
Yes. Would I make it legal? No!

I felt that ecstasy was a great metaphor given the dialect. Let's use Euphoria instead, to eliminate confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

I hope you meant you'd like the <insert desired feeling/mindstate here> to be an exstatic one. I didn't mean "E" just to be clear. Just a nonexistant fantasy herb to make for a good example.

What do you mean you WOULD try it but you WOULDN't legalise it?
So if you WOULD try something yourself, knowing it's safe enough not to pose a threat to your health and also be a very pleasurable experience, then why would you denie it to the rest of us and make it illegal?
Sounds backwards to me.

---

Backwards? Think about it.
I meant exactly what I said. That is exactly why it should not be legal.
Surely you do not think so many members of society would be responsible users as so few are, do you?

Yes, SKA, Sorry I did not see your last response.
I do approach this issue from a hard line don't I? I don't mean to sound like a bureaucrat. :P

I have I really have taken all your points into consideration. Not only from a first person perspective but from that of a friend, employees, co workers and family members.

I have taken these points into consideration more than once, more than this specific thread. The arguments just do not pan out.
I have tired of taking each individual variable and come to the same conclusions. Is it subjective, I guess some will view it as such. I'm not so sure I do anymore. Employees have failed me on many occasions, In return Me and all the other tax payers get to fit the bill for so many trickle down effects of drug use.

I have explored myself and being an artist I have seen a creative side. Much like steroids, I would like to take credit for my own work and not say a drug influenced my creativity.
I would like to think that people in their own homes could safely use, experiment, and enjoy some mind altering substances without ill effects on society, but I do not see it that way. To the contrary, I have seen it the other way...literally.

I will go on paying my dues to Government foundations that support these lifestyles. Becasue I have to by law. In at least our country, we all are required to. This giving rise why people should open their eyes and realize it requires so much more of themselves and NOT just the health and lifestyle of one individual.
I will go on paying, not monetarily as I see many of my acquaintances lul through life in their fog. Meanwhile attacking other drugs, alcohol, cigarettes.... along with the "Big Brother" stomping out your freedoms approach to validate their own vulnerability.

Are their exceptions?
There always are!

Art made from the inspiration gotten while under the influence of a Psychedelic is not like the psychedelic drug GAVE you that. Like actually the drug should be credited.
Psychedelic literally means Mind manifest. Psychedelics are "Keys" that "Open doors" that allow you to experience your own Mind in a sense-percetional way. All visions, ideas, inspirations and insights gained in psychedelic experiences are all your own, stirred up out of the deep and manifested emotionally, intellectually/cognitively, visually, auditory and sometimes oflactory and tactile.

And if you hate paying taxes; The many trickle down effects of drug use you describe as so costy are all a direct effect of the prohibiton. Why do you think it is that here in Holland, Criminality around Marijuana & Hash production are so low, almost non-existant? Maybe, keeping the effect of drug-use costs on your tax-costs in account, next time vote for a Politician planning to Legalise Marijuana. And with all of that said I sure hope you are no supporter of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's easily the mayority of where American tax money goes today and both those Endeavors sure kill a lot more people than Marijuana..which never killed anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Ecstasy!??

Backwards? Think about it.
I meant exactly what I said. That is exactly why it should not be legal.
Surely you do not think so many members of society would be responsible users as so few are, do you?

---

Agreed, but I am confident that with Proper drug education people would become responsible if they weren't before. except for a select, hopeless few who are also addicted to coffee, gambling and pornography.
Right now drug education is so Scarce and Full of lies and misleading, tampered with quasi-"scientific" reports about drugs, that the Authority's warnings of drugs have by now gotten 0 credibility.

The people that now are wreckless and irresponsible with their drug use, or are the kind of people with such personalities that they're more vurnerable to start using drugs irresponsibly would, for the vast mayority, defenitely NOT be as irresponsible and wreckless as they are now, if because of PROPER drug education they were aware of the facts. I'm sure the vast mayority of irresponsible users are irresponsible because they are not aware of the facts, and because "Drugs" is such a taboo issue, the overseeable, listed facts of the various, commonly used or abused drugs circulating society are not complete, conclusive and scattered over the net and contradictive. Irresponsible drug use is most likely for 88&#37; due to people being under- and mis-educated about drugs. This leaves curious people reaching in the Dark.

And to get back to the magical, harmless euphoria Tea bag:
I can understand why you'd find harmfull drugs disagreeable and even disgusting: cuz so do I. I just can't understand why you wouldn't want to experience complete Euphoria from a Drug-herb that has no negative consequences whatsoever.

Is it that you somehow think feeling Euphoria is bad or sinfull? Is it the idea that it is "drug induced"? Or is it that you feel that being able to induce Euphoria when desired has a great abuse potential for ignorant escapist that get "out of Touch" with Reality not being willing to face it?


I know such people too, But they're only a very small fraction of all the Cannabis and/or Hallucinogen-users I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

well i didn't know drugs were so easy to make!
But they still don't touch alcohol on a criminality basis. If you were caught with fruit and yeast, in doesn't necessarily mean your making alcohol, its essentially unprovable. Alcohol can be made by taking a trip to your local store, no fuss, no suspicion. Doing the same for drugs is far harder.

---

First of all, alcohol is a drug. It does not have any legitimate reason to get some special exception from the label "drug". Alcohol is a drug, and it is one of the most dangerous ones there is. Also, buying morning glory seeds, growing a salvia plant, going mushroom picking on your friend's farm, and mixing ayahuasca vine and chacruna that came in the mail in inconspicuous boxes are all easier to do than making alcohol and raise the same amount of suspicion, which is about none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

And, Universal mind said that people should have a right to harm themselves. Ofcourse, I agree when their acts do not affect others. But the problem here is deciding where to draw the line. In Britain, we have a Public health service, which means people who unecessarily harm themselves cost the taxpayer, maybe this does not apply to America. Yet, aditionally, coming from a socialist point of view, people also owe something to the state, and hence they should try to be the best that they can be, particularly relating to employment. Impairing ones health does not help this end.

---

Then what do you think of banning high fat foods? Refined sugar? Tobacco (It kills 1/3 of its users.)? Not exercising? Lack of sleep? How far should the government go in telling us how healthy our lifestyles have to be? All of those things I just listed are worse for your health than the general frequency of use of most psychedelics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what do you think of banning high fat foods? Refined sugar? Tobacco (It kills 1/3 of its users.)? Not exercising? Lack of sleep? How far should the government go in telling us how healthy our lifestyles have to be? All of those things I just listed are worse for your health than the general frequency of use of most psychedelics.

---

Amen to that. :D

Joe Rogan speaks my Mind about DMT and Psychedelics and harmfull drugs here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m51X4z1xVWE

Notice your list Universal.
You are arguing (again) on how OTHER habits are more harmful. Notice that none of these effects our safety other than sleep. The others do effect our wallet like so many of them do.
However rules are implemented for drivers doctors, etc, all in an attempt at public safety with regards to sleep deprivation. The same goes for the legalization of psychedelics. In many cases the mushroom user or pot smoker sits in their home and does not bother anybody. <-- Can you straight out tell me that an individual that is high on weed or using a form of psychedelics is safe to operate a crane, babysit a kid, drive a bus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...s/viewpost.gif
When questioned why drugs are illegal, why is it that the inevitable parallel is that of why other things are legal?

Does making the legality of tobacco and alcohol make it any more right for other drugs to be legal, EVEN if you deem them less harmful?

Are they not harmful?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yeah, I agree. Every time I see someone compare alcohol/tobaco to drugs, I see it more as an argument to prohibiting the former rather than legalizing the latter.

---

Is it because the argument to legalize other drugs is not a strong enough argument to stand on it's own?
It will never be admitted, but it seems ironic to me. Not too many people stand in the way of this approach, know one argues with you that alcohol or tobacco is bad, so foot in the door you go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Is it that you somehow think feeling Euphoria is bad or sinfull? Is it the idea that it is "drug induced"? Or is it that you feel that being able to induce Euphoria when desired has a great abuse potential for ignorant escapist that get "out of Touch" with Reality not being willing to face it?

---

[COLOR=DarkGreen]I think anyone in their right mind would like to feel euphoria.
Becasue it is something that is or can be induced, it now puts the decision in the hands of the one who uses. Which I do not think all the education in the world will stand in the way of when people want to do it. This is the reasoning behind why they should not be dolled out on a legal basis.

Ya know SKA, I am as much against the government having any more power than they do now. Also how they use and abuse this power, likely as much as you are in most cases.
It seems we disagree on how members of society can handle certain freedoms, privileges and powers. That coupled with what drugs are harmful and which are not.

Psychedelic Healing?
I thought you guys may find this intersting.

drugs are illegal because then people need money to buy them !!
and people dont have money, they already spent all freakin money to buy drugs!

and then they start stealing, burning killing others!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roguext22

drugs are illegal because then people need money to buy them !!
and people dont have money, they already spent all freakin money to buy drugs!

and then they start stealing, burning killing others!

---

So givethem $$$$ or drugs?

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
When pot is outlawed (as it is) only pot smokers will have pot. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

So givethem $$$$ or drugs?

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
When pot is outlawed (as it is) only pot smokers will have pot. :)

---

nice view :D
but i wrote - drugs -> addiction -> big addiction that makes you poor, and then you must go steal or kill someone to get money..

Quote:

---

drugs are illegal because then people need money to buy them !!
and people dont have money, they already spent all freakin money to buy drugs!

and then they start stealing, burning killing others!

---

nobody kills someone to get a joint or a hit of acid, we clearly established that in first few pages of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

nobody kills someone to get a joint or a hit of acid, we clearly established that in first few pages of this thread.

---

It does show the kind of misinformation spread about drugs though.

Only legalise drugs if they do not effect those other than users, is my belief.

Universal mind is using a "no progress" mindset: "Hey, if he's jumping of a bridge I might as well do it". I acknowledge Howie for saying this like 10 times.
We have many problems in society, legalising drugs would just add another to the list. Notwithstanding, if I were in charge, i would make tariffs and limits on unhealthy food, to dissuade it. Nonetheless food and sleep do not compare to drugs as universal mind implies, as they are both necessities and people should recieve them in any package possible. Drugs are an extra.
Exercising is an omission not an act, therefore it made illegal could not be enforced. Refer to a legal dictionary to understand an "Omission" if anyone doesn't.


To the creation of drugs and alcohol debate with universal mind, if you were caught with drug making ingridients or alcohol making ingredients, the drug making ingridients guy would be the one more likely to be prosecuted in any logical legal system. Please!


To SKA who believes that weed can be fulfilling to a productive life. Everybody I know who smokes this drug isn't the hardest working type, infact they probably are, most of them the "indecisive slacker" type. Whereas the opposite of this, hardworking, stable people, in my experience do not smoke drugs of any sort. But this is just my experience and carries no real population validity.

In a truly free society you would be allowed to put anything into your body you wish. I hate drugs. I've never used them. I wish they didn't exist. But the fact is they do exist and making some illegal has not worked. It only causes more problems. I've yet to see a logical argument for keeping alcohol legal and marijuana illegal.

Regardless, I see no reason a lucid dreamer needs to use drugs when you can experience anything inside a dream

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 27

In a truly free society you would be allowed to put anything into your body you wish. I hate drugs. I've never used them. I wish they didn't exist. But the fact is they do exist and making some illegal has not worked. It only causes more problems. I've yet to see a logical argument for keeping alcohol legal and marijuana illegal.



Regardless, I see no reason a lucid dreamer needs to use drugs when you can experience anything inside a dream

---

Agreed with the above. And the last line: I agree that a True Lucid Dream tops any wakefull experience I've had sofar. And I can speak from experience with some Psychedelics.
But still it is something entirely different. Allthough it has many similairities to Dreaming, The Psychedelic Experience is something quite unique and Lucid Dreaming could not take it's place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

So givethem $$$$ or drugs?

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
When pot is outlawed (as it is) only pot smokers will have pot. :)

---

If pot were legal then still, obviously, only pot smokers would have and smoke it.
And putting it in such a context you made it sound like Marijuana smokers are Outlaws. And outlaw is a rather big word for someone who merely smokes a relaxing, inspiring herb.

A question: What do you think of Native indian americans' right to do Illegal drugs in Religious ceremonys as in their culture and beliefs Mushrooms, Peyote/Sanpedro and/or Ayahuasca is a Sacrement crucial to their spiritual beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Notice your list Universal.
You are arguing (again) on how OTHER habits are more harmful. Notice that none of these effects our safety other than sleep. The others do effect our wallet like so many of them do.

---

Should they be illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

However rules are implemented for drivers doctors, etc, all in an attempt at public safety with regards to sleep deprivation. The same goes for the legalization of psychedelics. In many cases the mushroom user or pot smoker sits in their home and does not bother anybody. <-- Can you straight out tell me that an individual that is high on weed or using a form of psychedelics is safe to operate a crane, babysit a kid, drive a bus?

---

When was the last time you were checked for sleep deprivation before you started your car? What about before you started work or babysat somebody's kid? So should we just ban sleep deprivation across the board to increase the likelihood that people will have plenty of sleep before they do such things? The thing about psychedelic drugs is that people on them know when they are too messed up to drive cars and cranes. Alcohol, on the other hand, is a drug that makes people crazy enough to think they can do just fine with those things when they can't. Should alcohol be illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Is it because the argument to legalize other drugs is not a strong enough argument to stand on it's own?

It will never be admitted, but it seems ironic to me. Not too many people stand in the way of this approach, know one argues with you that alcohol or tobacco is bad, so foot in the door you go?

---

The analogy helps people understand the drug legalization view. If you think alcohol and tobacco should be legal, then we don't have far to go in getting you to understand why the other drugs should be legal. That is why we use the analogy. Plus, the inconsistency of our drug laws proves the insincerity behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Only legalise drugs if they do not effect those other than users, is my belief.

---

That would mean psychedelic drugs should be legal while alcohol should not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Universal mind is using a "no progress" mindset: "Hey, if he's jumping of a bridge I might as well do it".

---

Could you please explain what in the world you mean by that and quote where I ever said anything like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

We have many problems in society, legalising drugs would just add another to the list. Notwithstanding, if I were in charge, i would make tariffs and limits on unhealthy food, to dissuade it. Nonetheless food and sleep do not compare to drugs as universal mind implies, as they are both necessities and people should recieve them in any package possible. Drugs are an extra.
Exercising is an omission not an act, therefore it made illegal could not be enforced. Refer to a legal dictionary to understand an "Omission" if anyone doesn't.

---

Food in general is a necessity, but overconsumption of food is not. Doughnuts and birthday cakes are not necessities either. For some people, such as cancer patients and people with high blood pressure, drugs are a necessity. So what do you think of making the specific types of food I mentioned illegal? I never suggested anything about food in general being illegal. Should we ban high fat foods and foods with too much refined sugar? Heart disease is the number one killer in the U.S. And why would it not be possible to ban an omission? There are ways to prove you have exercised. Maybe people should be required to mail in three videos of twenty minute treadmill or other workouts every week, and if they don't do it they should get jail time? Or should we just let them get really fat and deteriorate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

To the creation of drugs and alcohol debate with universal mind, if you were caught with drug making ingridients or alcohol making ingredients, the drug making ingridients guy would be the one more likely to be prosecuted in any logical legal system. Please!

---

You have already said that, but you have not explained yourself. I explained how easy it is to get a hold of various types of psychedelic drug seeds and ingredients and how they are less conspicuous than alcohol ingredients, and SKA has explained it also. So please address our specific points on that. And again... Alcohol is a drug. It makes no sense to distinguish alcohol from drugs. It is like distinguishing trees from plants.

no, it would attract a larger audience, than the audience it would have were it illegal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

no, it would attract a larger audience, than the audience it would have were it illegal

---

That does not clarify your perspective on the specific points I brought up. I still think your view on drug illegality has a lot of inconsistencies, as I specifically illustrated. Please explain otherwise if you still believe otherwise.

i wasn't talking to you in the previous post i think, the messages are one minute apart, i didn't see yours when i began to write. Anyway...


About my jumping of a bridge argument. You were saying that we shouldn't keep drugs illegal because sleep, eating problems aren't illegal. If we can ban one problem or ban none isn't banning one (i.e drugs) the best option. You implied that we shouldn't ban drugs as other unhealthy things exist with no proposition to ban them, this is undoubtedly a view that would lead to the stagnation of society.

As to your debate about food and sleep, i see the point your attempting to make, but come on. Overeating and sleep deprivation are part of the human condition, they are inherent. Drug taking is not. Now, your argument about banning them if you ban drugs is completely radical ......why?...... because both, especially overeating are often caused by psychological problems not criminal acts. Essentially your verging on saying if we keep drugs illegal we might as well punish those with mental ilnesses, if their bad actions effect others. Notwithstanding eating, sleeping and exercise cannot be practically banned, thus this is not a option and should not really be debated. You gave me an example of people sending in "three videos a week of exercise". What world are you living in, maybe your still lucid dreaming?:) In America alone thats 900, 000, 000 (nine hundred million :shock:) videos a week. Now, lets point out the problems:
-massive strain on the post
-who is going to check them over? who will check them for authenticity?
-theres so many, people can never be caught. (you'll probably say, that they'll check a random sample, which is probably a million max a week, giving an 899 out of 900 chance of getting away with it every time)
- you mentioned jail time? in Britain, 90,000 prisoners would mean that prisons are full, surplus. I wonder how many criminals would potentially exist in this plan. Moreover, doing such a thing would undermine the point of banning drugs and unhealthy things in the first place: prison for so many people would detract from the economy.
- what if the checkers don't do their job, will there be people checking on them? What if the checker checkers don't do their job will there be people checking on them. Will they also go to jail.

The list is endless, it is unpoliceable. The governments know all of this, they know that such things are bad, but also that banning them is practically impossible. The way they deal with it is by education, scientific research and templates for ideal lifestyles. So all the conspiracy theorists that "the government ban drugs for sinister secret reasons, other things are as bad, the government is evil". No, the government is thinking beyond this argument and finding the best compromise that can be achieved. Between drugs and unhealthy lifestyles pertaining to food, sleep and exercise.

I distinguish alcohol from drugs on the basis of vastly different production materials.

Everybody on this thread, please answer this: :):):)
Which of the below would you rather be caught with if you didn't want to be convicted of conspiracy to create drugs (if all drugs and alcohol were illegal)???????

-Fruit, vegtables and yeast

or.......

-weed seeds,
magic mushrooms, freshly picked
ayahuasca vine and chacruna (ingredients well known by police to combine into a drug).

Quote:

---

magic mushrooms, freshly picked

---

i'll assume you mean spores, because in the US you can't be charged with anything if you're caught with spores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

About my jumping of a bridge argument. You were saying that we shouldn't keep drugs illegal because sleep, eating problems aren't illegal. If we can ban one problem or ban none isn't banning one (i.e drugs) the best option. You implied that we shouldn't ban drugs as other unhealthy things exist with no proposition to ban them, this is undoubtedly a view that would lead to the stagnation of society.

---

We can ban all of them. The government could outlaw high fat foods and refined sugar just like they have outlawed the nonlethal recreational drugs that don't have rich ass lobbies backing them. It can happen. If you don't think high fat foods and refined sugar should be illegal even though obesity and heart disease are killing people like flies, then why do you think nonlethal substances that are not addictive should be illegal? If it was logical to ban mushrooms and DMT, then wouldn't it be even more logical to ban high fat foods and refined sugar? I am looking for rhyme and reason to the distinctions, and saying that it's better to have some of them banned than none of them does not clear up that issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

As to your debate about food and sleep, i see the point your attempting to make, but come on. Overeating and sleep deprivation are part of the human condition, they are inherent. Drug taking is not. Now, your argument about banning them if you ban drugs is completely radical ......why?...... because both, especially overeating are often caused by psychological problems not criminal acts. Essentially your verging on saying if we keep drugs illegal we might as well punish those with mental ilnesses, if their bad actions effect others. Notwithstanding eating, sleeping and exercise cannot be practically banned, thus this is not a option and should not really be debated.

---

Again... I am not talking about banning eating. I am NOT talking about banning eating. I am talking about banning high fat foods and refined sugar. It can be done. I want you to tell me why it shouldn't be while keeping in mind what you have said about the bans on certain psychedelic drugs that are not lethal, much less the top killer substances in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

because both, especially overeating are often caused by psychological problems not criminal acts.

---

The same is not true of drug abuse? Remember that we are talking mosty about drugs that people practically never abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Essentially your verging on saying if we keep drugs illegal we might as well punish those with mental ilnesses, if their bad actions effect others. Notwithstanding eating, sleeping and exercise cannot be practically banned, thus this is not a option and should not really be debated. You gave me an example of people sending in "three videos a week of exercise". What world are you living in, maybe your still lucid dreaming?:) In America alone thats 900, 000, 000 (nine hundred million :shock:) videos a week.

---

The last time I checked, which was 1997, the government was spending $639 per second on the war on drugs. So why not go to outrageous measures to fight a war on obesity and heart disease? We could start by banning the foods that are the biggest causes of it. People can send in their exercise videos by way of computer. Even if the government can't get to all of them, they can do random checks to create incentive. There is a way to do it. Obesity and heart disease are a humongous problem. They are killing people by the bus loads as I type this. Should we declare war on them?

I was also not talking about banning sleeping. I was talking about banning not getting enough sleep. The government could create monitors to check on people's biological situations during exercise and sleep. The checks would have to be random, but they would provide incentive to the extent that people avoid doing mushrooms because they might get caught with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

-massive strain on the post
-who is going to check them over? who will check them for authenticity?
-theres so many, people can never be caught. (you'll probably say, that they'll check a random sample, which is probably a million max a week, giving an 899 out of 900 chance of getting away with it every time)
- you mentioned jail time? in Britain, 90,000 prisoners would mean that prisons are full, surplus. I wonder how many criminals would potentially exist in this plan. Moreover, doing such a thing would undermine the point of banning drugs and unhealthy things in the first place: prison for so many people would detract from the economy.
- what if the checkers don't do their job, will there be people checking on them? What if the checker checkers don't do their job will there be people checking on them. Will they also go to jail.

---

That is a great argument against the war on drugs. ;) Such stuff is very absurd, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

The list is endless, it is unpoliceable. The governments know all of this, they know that such things are bad, but also that banning them is practically impossible. The way they deal with it is by education, scientific research and templates for ideal lifestyles.

---

As I have illustrated, it is not impossible to ban them. However, as you have illustrated, it would create a huge clusterfuck that does not come even close to getting the results it was originally designed to get. That is exactly the case with the war on drugs. A war on high fat foods, refined sugar, sleep deprivation, and lack of exercise would be the same kind of preposterous situation the war on drugs is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

So all the conspiracy theorists that "the government ban drugs for sinister secret reasons, other things are as bad, the government is evil". No, the government is thinking beyond this argument and finding the best compromise that can be achieved. Between drugs and unhealthy lifestyles pertaining to food, sleep and exercise.

---

They are the same, aside from the fact that high fat foods and refined sugar kill people like flies while psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, marijuana, salvia divinorum (which is legal in most states but the second strongest hallucinogen), morning glory seeds (as legal as bread), and LSD DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. That is a very important point. Those are nonlethal substances. The same is far from true in regard to high fat foods and refined sugar. Those are the biggest killers out there, along with alcohol and tobacco. That alone makes the difference astronomical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

I distinguish alcohol from drugs on the basis of vastly different production materials.

---

Well, you need to stop distinguishing alcohol from drugs because alcohol is a drug, and it is in the top few most dangerous of all recreational drugs. Keep that in mind. It is a scientific fact. Alcohol is a lethal, deranging, very addictive drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Everybody on this thread, please answer this: :):):)
Which of the below would you rather be caught with if you didn't want to be convicted of conspiracy to create drugs (if all drugs and alcohol were illegal)???????

-Fruit, vegtables and yeast

or.......

-weed seeds,
magic mushrooms, freshly picked
ayahuasca vine and chacruna (ingredients well known by police to combine into a drug).

---

Magic mushrooms because that would have nothing to do with a conspiracy to create drugs. They are already drugs. Weed seeds are not drugs, but they are illegal. The rest would not be enough for a conspiracy conviction, but if there were other evidence, they would all be equal. But I would choose ayahuasca and chacruna because most cops don't know jack about them.

I have a big question for you too. Right now, salvia divinorum is legal in most states, and morning glory seeds are completely legal for all ages in every state. Should all states ban salvia divinorum and morning glory seeds? Both are nonlethal and nonaddictive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Should they be illegal?
They? NO they should be dealt with. As they can pose an immediate threat.
You just can't differentiate between should and could eey? The difference between an attempt at public safety and that of an unhealthy habit.

---

I am tired of your ignorant analogies.
Are you one of the citizens who stand for something and fall for everything?

Quote:

---

The thing about psychedelic drugs is that people on them know when they are too messed up to drive cars and cranes.

---

Well that changes everything!

Quote:

---

The analogy helps people understand the drug legalization view. If you think alcohol and tobacco should be legal, then we don't have far to go in getting you to understand why the other drugs should be legal. That is why we use the analogy. Plus, the inconsistency of our drug laws proves the insincerity behind them.

---

Thanks, it all seems proportionate now.
I think your battling yourself. Who else in this thread is fighting to keep alcohol alive and well? I brought this up from the beginning because straight out of the gates the drug advocates run with this.
Is it inconsistent - YES That has no relevance to make another drug LEGAL. It only shows why another drug should be ILLEGAL.
you are not helping your cause IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

If pot were legal then still, obviously, only pot smokers would have and smoke it.
And putting it in such a context you made it sound like Marijuana smokers are Outlaws. And outlaw is a rather big word for someone who merely smokes a relaxing, inspiring herb.

---

And if it were legal? Then what. Would there not be MORE pot smokers?
Or would there only be the well educated few that decide to use another legal drug, like alcohol.

No Howie actually a reallife example shows the opposite. My next post was innitially directed at Psychology student, but it aplies to your last question too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

no, it would attract a larger audience, than the audience it would have were it illegal

---

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.

Exactly. If someone is interested in drugs they are going to try them, regardless of their legal status. I'm sure in many cases the fact that they are banned makes them more appealing. I have a lot of reasons for staying away from drugs but "getting caught" is not high among them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Should they be illegal?
They? NO they should be dealt with. As they do not pose an immediate threat.
You just can't differentiate between should and could eey? The difference between an attempt at public safety and that of an unhealthy habit.

---

You are going to have to clarify yourself because I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I am tired of your ignorant analogies.
Are you one of the citizens who stand for something and fall for everything?

---

This has suddenly turned into one of the strangest conversations I have had in a long time. Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Well that changes everything!

---

Uh, yes. That is correct. A drug that greatly inhibits a person's abilities while blocking the person from perceiving that he is too messed up to drive a car or a crane is far more dangerous than a drug that does not block that perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Thanks, it all seems proportionate now.
I think your battling yourself. Who else in this thread is fighting to keep alcohol alive and well? I brought this up from the beginning because straight out of the gates the drug advocates run with this.
Is it inconsistent - YES That has no relevance to make another drug LEGAL. It only shows why another drug should be ILLEGAL.
you are not helping your cause IMHO

---

It is a very simple concept. If alcohol should be legal, then the psychedelic drugs should be legal. If you do not think alcohol should be legal, then you are not somebody my alcohol analogies are meant for. I am going to type them any way because too many people out there, including some of the people in this thread (such as psychology student), support the simultaneous legality of alcohol and illegality of psychedelics. If you do not have that view, I don't really know what your beef is. My analogies point out the faultiness of such a view. If a person can understand why alcohol should be legal, he or she can understand why psychedelic drugs should be legal, so the alcohol analogy is a good starting point in addressing those people. If you disagree with that point, explain why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

And if it were legal? Then what. Would there not be MORE pot smokers?
Or would there only be the well educated few that decide to use another legal drug, like alcohol.

---

It seems that marijuana is less popular in places where it is legal. When it does not have forbidden fruit appeal to people in their teens, it does not infiltrate the society as much as it does where teenagers think they are cool just for smoking pot. But even if there are more pot smokers, that is their business, not ours. And it's not like they are going to be dying of overdoses or suddenly wanting to go out and get into fights because they are stoned. What would be the big crisis? An increase in sales of pizza and Grateful Dead albums?

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


Universal mind the rest is for you:

Universal Mind your mind is truly universal: you show traits of liberalism when talking about the legalisation of supposedly non-harmful drugs, yet, this trait vanishes when it comes to unhealthy food where draconian, utter left-wing communism takes the helm with the belief that everyone "should be required to mail in three videos of twenty minute ... workouts every week, and if they don't do it they should get jail time", and "the government could create monitors to check on people's biological situations during exercise and sleep".
In your last post you spoke as if such things were possible in a "war on obesity and heart disease", well they are self-defeating proposals because even contemplating such gut-wrechingly folly ideals is causing me to have heart palpatations and to swiftly and repeatedly dunk my hand into a 12 pack of doughnuts in sheer comfort eating fuelled by shock that such stupid ideas exist. Now please somebody else help me in saying that monitoring 900,000,000 videos a week, along with the biological data of 300,000,000 people round the clock is inherently impossible and is also largely unable to function as a deterrent due to such large numbers and a high chance of evading suspicion and criminalisation.
Now I am for banning excessively unhealthy foods, but the concept of "jail time" for unhealthy eating is absurd. Banning, outright is also not feasible as people are used to such things, i.e. it will just lead to a prohibition like situation. The key way to deal with it is by educating the next generation into healthy eating, controlling school meals and educating parents, not just snatching away all unhealthy food all at once.

Moreover, I am for banning alcohol, but it cannot be feasibly done by immediate illegality but gradually, like the same process as the latter. As I have argued, immediate withdrawal will lead to unpoliceability to the extent that no other ban can match, as we saw with prohibition.

As drugs are already illegal, there is no sense in legalising them; they have no real benefit. As I have previously stressed, it is the psychological elements of your supposed physically non-harmful hallucinogenic drugs that are a main problem. Are people's lives so bad that they need to escape reality in such a perverted way. Such drugs draw people away from reality, mask other psychological problems such as depression and social inabilities. They create dependence where people depend on the for happiness instead of the highs of regular life. And people that have taken them hence are no good judges of whether they are good or not!

And, if the war on drugs was so preposterous and unpoliceable as you say in your last post (to the parallel of banning certain foods or alcohol) why are you pining for their legalisation?:boogie: AMEN

Quote:

---

Are people's lives so bad that they need to escape reality in such a perverted way.

---

yes

Quote:

---

And, if the war on drugs was so preposterous and unpoliceable as you say in your last post (to the parallel of banning certain foods or alcohol) why are you pining for their legalisation?

---

that makes no sense

Quote:

---

They create dependence where people depend on the for happiness instead of the highs of regular life

---

can you give me an example of such a high in real life? and it has to affect everyone in similar ways

Quote:

---

And people that have taken them hence are no good judges of whether they are good or not!

---

i have a question for you, are people who've never seen a certain movie better judges of how good the movie is than people who've seen the movie?

pyro, the thing that you said makes no sense, was meant for universal mind in something he said, so you replying to it makes no sense.

Whats so bad about peoples lives, please tell me?


the highs of real life like, promotion, employment, relationships, marriage, children, general life experiences you know. They are highs but do not compare to drugs in that sense and are completely different; they need not have a universal happiness but are subjectively plesurable to those experiencing them.

Drugs are the easy way out, if life is hard, avoiding it will make it worse, drugs will make it worse. If life is hard, get counselling, find a psychiatrist, get support from friends and family if possible and fight to make it better.

Drugs don't compare to a movie, because a movie can be bad to large proportions of its viewers. With drugs, the physiological high and hallucinogenic properties are bound to be good to the vast majority of users. Therefore a preferable movie comparison is:
if a movie hypnotises people into liking it, and does not do so out of its own merit, are those who have seen it good judges of how good a movie it was?
this is essentially what drugs do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Universal mind the rest is for you:

Universal Mind your mind is truly universal: you show traits of liberalism when talking about the legalisation of supposedly non-harmful drugs, yet, this trait vanishes when it comes to unhealthy food where draconian, utter left-wing communism takes the helm with the belief that everyone "should be required to mail in three videos of twenty minute ... workouts every week, and if they don't do it they should get jail time", and "the government could create monitors to check on people's biological situations during exercise and sleep".
In your last post you spoke as if such things were possible in a "war on obesity and heart disease", well they are self-defeating proposals because even contemplating such gut-wrechingly folly ideals is causing me to have heart palpatations and to swiftly and repeatedly dunk my hand into a 12 pack of doughnuts in sheer comfort eating fuelled by shock that such stupid ideas exist. Now please somebody else help me in saying that monitoring 900,000,000 videos a week, along with the biological data of 300,000,000 people round the clock is inherently impossible and is also largely unable to function as a deterrent due to such large numbers and a high chance of evading suspicion and criminalisation.

---

You did catch where I said such a thing would be absurd, didn't you? I am just using that to illustrate how insane the war on drugs is. If the government monitored the videos or biological data of a small fraction of the population, it would be as good of a deterrent to not exercising and not sleeping enough as the war on drugs is to potential mushroom and marijuana users. The war on drugs is an outrageous example of way too much government, and it is ridiculous.

The idea of such government gone mad stuff makes you want to eat a 12 pack of doughnuts? Then you can see what the war on drugs does to how bad people want to do drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Now I am for banning excessively unhealthy foods, but the concept of "jail time" for unhealthy eating is absurd. Banning, outright is also not feasible as people are used to such things, i.e. it will just lead to a prohibition like situation. The key way to deal with it is by educating the next generation into healthy eating, controlling school meals and educating parents, not just snatching away all unhealthy food all at once.

---

Oh, you want to fight on the demand side and not the supply side? That is how I feel about fighting drugs. But first you said you are for banning unhealthy foods? Your 12 pack of doughnuts would be one of the first items in line. But it's for your own good! ;) And yes, jail time would be absurd. I am totally with you on that. In being consistent, I feel the same way about drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Moreover, I am for banning alcohol, but it cannot be feasibly done by immediate illegality but gradually, like the same process as the latter. As I have argued, immediate withdrawal will lead to unpoliceability to the extent that no other ban can match, as we saw with prohibition.

---

Oh, you want to ban alcohol? You did not say that until now. You spent so much time taking up for its legality as if it is somehow different and not even a drug. So you think alcohol prohibition could be a success on the second attempt if the government is gradual with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

As drugs are already illegal, there is no sense in legalising them; they have no real benefit.

---

Wrong. People enjoy them, and a lot of people claim they enhance their creativity and perspectives. Also, the government could stop blowing its $639 per second or whatever it is up to now, and a lot fewer good people would be in prison. That would benefit them and their families greatly. There is a lot of sense in legalizing drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

As I have previously stressed, it is the psychological elements of your supposed physically non-harmful hallucinogenic drugs that are a main problem. Are people's lives so bad that they need to escape reality in such a perverted way. Such drugs draw people away from reality, mask other psychological problems such as depression and social inabilities. They create dependence where people depend on the for happiness instead of the highs of regular life. And people that have taken them hence are no good judges of whether they are good or not!

---

I am not sure how closely you are reading my posts. Most psychedelic drugs only work well if you do them once in a while, and cases of psychedelic drug addiction are practically unheard of. Psychedelic drugs usually throw people face first into dealing with reality and are most often not an escape from reality. But even if people do abuse them just to stay escaped from reality, why is that any of your business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

And, if the war on drugs was so preposterous and unpoliceable as you say in your last post (to the parallel of banning certain foods or alcohol) why are you pining for their legalisation?:boogie: AMEN

---

:hrm: Partly because the war on drugs is so preposterous and unpoliceable. But more importantly because I believe in the freedom of a person to make his own choices about his own life and because I don't think people deserve prison for doing drugs, just like they don't deserve prison for eating a 12 pack of doughnuts. I am a big believer in freedom.

Do you remember the boldface question you posed to me the other day? I answered it, right? Well, you did not answer my boldface question. Here it is again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have a big question for you too. Right now, salvia divinorum is legal in most states, and morning glory seeds are completely legal for all ages in every state. Should all states ban salvia divinorum and morning glory seeds? Both are nonlethal and nonaddictive.

---

Where the hell has this conversation gone? It's turned into people's subjective fears and propagandized bias' towards drugs being used as logic to ban them outright? Give me a break... Stop watching movies like Traffic, and Requiem for a Dream and start thinking for yourself.

Would you avoid eating a certain food just because it tasted so good all other foods paled in comparison? Umm... No.

Would you never have sex just because when you're not having sex it doesn't feel as good? Umm... No.

That's basically your rational... to be willfully ignorant out of the fear of losing control over being able to restrain yourself from continually pushing the envelope of experiencing something pleasurable and new. How about allowing an individual to make their own choices and control them with their own willpower?

I can tell you from experience I function completely fine in society, and can probably attribute a lot of my realizations and personal goals and accomplishments (music being one of them) largely in part to drug use. How can you sit there and tell me that because you are personally afraid of what control might be lost, we should avoid the experience all together.

If that's not being willfully ignorant and naive, I don't know what is...

Quote:

---

Whats so bad about peoples lives, please tell me?

---

poverty, death and abuse are 3 i can think of the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Drugs don't compare to a movie, because a movie can be bad to large proportions of its viewers. With drugs, the physiological high and hallucinogenic properties are bound to be good to the vast majority of users.

---

i wasn't comparing drugs to movies in that sense, you said that people who have used drugs can't decide if they're good or not, but while we're on the topic of metaphors comparing hallucinogenic drugs and movies hallucinogenic drugs can and will induce bad trips which nobody will enjoy and like we've said before hallucinogenic drugs are not powerfully addictive (if at all), nobody is going to kill for them.

and you said that if people have problems they should go to a psychologist. well what if they can't afford one? drugs can be cheap as hell considering that mushroom and marijuana are living things.

Can anyone tell me where the drug laws were before the 19th century?

You can't tell me that everyone was just overdosing in the streets and pillaging their neighbors for their next fix... They were truly masters of their own domain. What's so wrong about going back to that? We obviously aren't doing something right with all these minor drug offenders in jail for possession with these ridiculous bloated sentences. Let's not forget, America has more people in jail than any other country combined... Think about it.

Drugs have been used on a widespread basis since the beginning of the modern period. In the 19th century, opium, morphine, cocaine and cannabis were all used by millions of people in Europe, America, Asia and Africa. None of these drugs were illegal at that time. In most countries, including the UK, opium could be purchased from the local apothecary or chemist, or even by the penny-worth in the local grocer's shop.

In the second half of the 19th century, the forces that would eventually lead to the establishment of drug prohibition began to appear and to lobby governments to enact laws against drug use.

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

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

To solskye, I have not watched such movies as you suggest, i don't have time because i am busy organizing meetings and sit-ins in my capacity as chairman of the SFPBTD ("Subjective Fears and Propagandized Bias' Towards Drugs").
Seriously, though, the only thing that drugs bring is "pleasure", oh well, lets legalise them then!. They bring nothing useful to society otherwise and arguably bring a whole league of problems. Lets not complicate society which is already a pit of festering desires and fancies with drugs galore outside of your proposals. Don't you feel inadequate that you need drugs to help you with your music, doesn;t that make you seem inhibited. Moreover, its only your subjective experience that claims that drugs have helped, I see no empirical evidence! Furthermore, you have been exposed to the drugs that you advocate, ofcourse you will vouch for them!

Pyrofan: are you poor? do you have no food on the table? what about all the really desperate people in Africa, how comes they aren't all on drugs? Death is part of life, deal with it, get counselling, drugs aren't the only option to resolve hardship. Perhaps we are all spoilt in this western world.

go to a psychologist: here we have the NHS so we can get one for free. But you have private healthcare, which is just stupid, not your fault, so don't vote for giuliani! vote for the candidate who proposes a public health system.

in the 19th century drugs were used in a very different context: a famous cocaine user, Sigmund Freud said that cocaine was "not addictive". Clearly his subjective experience was wrong, and/or drugs altered his perception as cocaine is clearly addictive.
In 19th century England, cocaine was used to escape hunger and squalid lifestyles in the large poor population, not for pleasure; the escapist benefit outweighed the harm. Life spans were significantly shorter then, although not necessarily the drugs fault.

Today they are prohibited as their harm outweighs their benefit. There is nothing substantially bad to escape from, and drugs are harmful. Each and every one but to different extents and in different aspects.

Quote:

---

Pyrofan: are you poor? do you have no food on the table?

---

well, i did only have one meal today that consisted of a glass of ice tea, a small bag of chips and a slice of pizza and i do only have 2 dollars in my bank account.

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.
:banana:

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.
:banana:

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

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

---

Salvia divinorum cannot be illegal, practically speaking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

---

A user, under his own will, makes the decision to take a mind altering drug.
This in effect was his decision. upon that decision, he makes the mistake of taking a hit of acid on the way to a concert. Now this decision is now capable of effecting others. Others that did not have any say in this decision.
Regardless of what is now legal or what offense it is considered, how I relate to, what I believe is right has no relevance to the consideration of legalizing something else.
Do I believe it should be a felony - no
Is it a waste to put these offenders in jail - yes. All those parallels you insist on bringing up, while pertinent in its own right, do still not justify the reason behind legalization.
Notice: smoking bands, speed limits, drug enforcement, driver's logs, trespassing -these are all things that infringe on another citizens life without their consent.
Jet skiing? Football? Gymnastics? Boxing? Cave diving? Hot air ballooning? Recreational/Sunday/country automobile driving? Motorcycling? Three wheeling? BMX biking? Trampoline jumping? Hang gliding?
These are all done on a persons own will and the effects are on that individual alone.
To argue that a three wheeler ran out of control and hit an innocent bystander would be an rational, grasping for straws, argument.

Do you see this difference?
Becasue I realize that these psychedelics have on occasions been an eye opening experience and at times just fun, I will use reason and forgo my right to use those substances for the sake that I realize the vast majority of decision making of the average individual is flawed.

All the while I can still insist that the government should remain in check.
There have been a vast array of topics towards discussion of an intrusive government.
This still seems to be subjective in nature and I will acknowledge it always will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

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.

---

To the best of my ability, I have outlined the reasons to why I have sided on one side of the fence, rather than the other. I understand that I will be viewed as narrow minded, weak and stupid.
Notice too:
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are all legal. to a degree. < Right or wrong!
Taking away someones right opposed to giving someone a right, is a very loaded quandary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

If they treated an illness but had the same risk, legalisation is plausible, but they don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Although I have heard of LSD healing depression from a link posted by 27 on behalf of Howie.

---

Marijuana is currently used to treat cancer and AIDS patients among many others. You said if illegal drugs could treat diseases they could be legalized. So, Marijuana and psychedelics treat illness, should they be legal?

Medicinal purposes.
An entirely different proposition don't you think?
just like:
Should alcohol be illegal?
Do psychedelics enhance an artist' ability? <-- I would like to argue that one. But it just takes us further away from the issue
Should this should that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

A user, under his own will, makes the decision to take a mind altering drug.
This in effect was his decision. upon that decision, he makes the mistake of taking a hit of acid on the way to a concert. Now this decision is now capable of effecting others. Others that did not have any say in this decision.

---

Something could happen to somebody else. I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

AJet skiing? Football? Gymnastics? Boxing? Cave diving? Hot air ballooning? Recreational/Sunday/country automobile driving? Motorcycling? Three wheeling? BMX biking? Trampoline jumping? Hang gliding?
These are all done on a persons own will and the effects are on that individual alone.
To argue that a three wheeler ran out of control and hit an innocent bystander would be an rational, grasping for straws, argument.

---

No, those things do happen. The statistics on death and serious injuries resulting to others from recreational driving are pretty high. All of those other things can and soemtimes do hurt people not participating too.

Think about your hypothetical concert goer. That guy could be hit by somebody out driving recreationally. The person who hits him could be in a car or a motorcycle. It happens all the time, does it not? If he walks through the woods, he could be hit by somebody on a three wheeler, quite possibly a drunk person on a three wheeler. Have you ever seen a football player run out of bounds and run over reporters or others on the sidelines? What if the concert goer takes a hot air balloon to the concert and lands in traffic, causing a multitude of wrecks? Your what if is just like my what ifs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Do you see this difference?
Becasue I realize that these psychedelics have on occasions been an eye opening experience and at times just fun, I will use reason and forgo my right to use those substances for the sake that I realize the vast majority of decision making of the average individual is flawed.

---

Will you do the same for the activities I listed? You could at least do it with recreational driving. Are you up for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Notice too:
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are all legal. to a degree. < Right or wrong!
Taking away someones right opposed to giving someone a right, is a very loaded quandary.

---

So you don't think salvia divinorum needed to be banned? What do you think of banning morning glory seeds?

Your forgot about this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Medicinal purposes.
An entirely different proposition don't you think?
just like:
Should alcohol be illegal?
Do psychedelics enhance an artist' ability? <-- I would like to argue that one. But it just takes us further away from the issue
Should this should that.

---

I didn't bring it up, psychology student did, I want to know what he thinks.

27 said "Marijuana is currently used to treat cancer and AIDS"
I don't imagine that they cure cancer or Aids but probably provide pain relief? Im not sure, what do they do?
The point is they don't cure ilnesses, so they aren't covered by my "plausible" point. And the LSD treating depression is a recent study, i think.
If reliable, multiple empirical evidences emerge showing that an illness can be treated by illegal drugs then in is plausible for legalisation or prescription. Though this need not mean legal for leisurely use!

For example anti-psychotic drugs have a whole list of dangerous side-effects: one being that they lead to Parkinson's-like symptoms in long-term users. Yet they often can treat schizophrenia and psychosis which are serious mental illnesses not only for individuals but for society.

Its ultimately about weighing up the benefits and disadvantages not to the users fancies but to his and societes needs; drug legalisation depends on this.

And to SKA's american indian religious question (sorry i forgot). I don't think that we should legalise potentially dangerous substances on purely religious grounds; although I read that this does occur with mescaline in some states in the USA, correct me if im wrong, whereas it is a Class A drug (the worst kind) here. On this basis, (and im pushing the boat out a little too far, dammit i got my trousers wet :() should we legalise polygamous relationships or consensual murder should some satanic cult ask for it?
Rastafarianism demands the compulsory smoking of marijuana, but it is not legal in Britain or America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

27 said "Marijuana is currently used to treat cancer and AIDS"

---

I said "cancer and AIDS patients". Pain relief, yes. Anyway, it's a whole lot less addicting and harmful than the pain killers usually used.

Yes, it provides pain relief as well as battles nausea from medication. Also just like 27 said, it's less addicting and less harmful than other painkillers.

Cannibanoids in the bloodstream have also been proven to fight cancer cells.

I want to make sure that everybody understands the horrors of golf and the need to ban this terrible sport that has no beneficial use in society. Some guy was killed by a golf ball. The golf ball hitter thought he was minding his own business, but his dangerous decision to play golf turned out to not be just all about him. It's time to declare WAR on golf!

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

Okay, get your legislators ready. Off to prison the golfers go. This demands an immediate pissing on freedom!

P.S.- Has anybody found any serious business salvia divinorum stories yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I want to make sure that everybody understands the horrors of golf and the need to ban this terrible sport that has no beneficial use in society. Some guy was killed by a golf ball. The golf ball hitter thought he was minding his own business, but his dangerous decision to play golf turned out to not be just all about him. It's time to declare WAR on golf!

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

Okay, get your legislators ready. Off to prison the golfers go. This demands an immediate pissing on freedom!

P.S.- Has anybody found any serious business salvia divinorum stories yet?

---

Omg, BAN GOLF!!!!!!!!!! ban video games too, ban schooling, ban freedom of speech (although it's pretty much non existant because pricks with authority say "stfu or i will prison you foo" for saying something), BAN THE INTARNET!

Quote:

---

BAN THE INTARNET!

---

i believe it's called the interblag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

i believe it's called the interblag.

---

Intarnag...INTARNAG!

Psychology student needs some first hand drug education. It should be a prerequisite for psychology classes or something. Lol!

Quote:

---

No, those things do happen. The statistics on death and serious injuries resulting to others from recreational driving are pretty high. All of those other things can and soemtimes do hurt people not participating too.

---

Like I said -grasping for straws. I can't believe I have to point this out *An accident. Just as it even says -"How afwul the younger Parlin must feel about this terrible accident. Our condolences go out to the family, and we hope that the younger Parlin finds a healthy way to deal with the terrible emotions he must be feeling right now."
Those people you do speak of on the sidelines, are there on their own will too. If they are not, it is still considered an accident. Don't you agree?
Like talking on cell phones. That is a decision not an accident. It is proving to effect others, hence the ban on driving & using them in some areas.
Accident. wow.
This thread was an accident. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Omg, BAN GOLF!!!!!!!!!! ban video games too, ban schooling, ban freedom of speech (although it's pretty much non existant because pricks with authority say "stfu or i will prison you foo" for saying something), BAN THE INTARNET!

---

This is always something to be aware of too. How easy it is to band together and stand behind something that, on the surface looks so obvious and easy to stand for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

Psychology student needs some first hand drug education. It should be a prerequisite for psychology classes or something. Lol!

---

I learned about drugs and their effects in my Psychology 101 class...i assume other people would too?

I also did a summer interning at a medical clinic under the substances branch pretty much doing research. That's where a lot of my knowledge comes from. And, um...experience. :-P

by "first hand" I supose you mean drug-taking, in which case :bslap: And also I dispute the location of b12.
But no I have not learned directly about drugs first-hand. Im starting uni in september, guess which subject? So hopefully I'll learn more about it then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Like I said -grasping for straws. I can't believe I have to point this out *An accident. Just as it even says -"How afwul the younger Parlin must feel about this terrible accident. Our condolences go out to the family, and we hope that the younger Parlin finds a healthy way to deal with the terrible emotions he must be feeling right now."
Those people you do speak of on the sidelines, are there on their own will too. If they are not, it is still considered an accident. Don't you agree?
Like talking on cell phones. That is a decision not an accident. It is proving to effect others, hence the ban on driving & using them in some areas.
Accident. wow.
This thread was an accident. :|



This is always something to be aware of too. How easy it is to band together and stand behind something that, on the surface looks so obvious and easy to stand for.

---

Now tell me what your point is. Then tell me about some salvia accidents.

Well the only case I could find was this one. Apparently this case is the reason salvia has been made illegal in seven states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now tell me what your point is. Then tell me about some salvia accidents.

---

By Now Universal, if you do not get my point, you will never get it.
Salvia, that is now the new diversion aside from alcohol, cigarettes and what ever else you can conjure up.
Let's talk of peyote now. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 27

Well the only case I could find was this one. Apparently this case is the reason salvia has been made illegal in seven states.

---

It is interesting that alcohol was also in the suicide committer's blood, yet the politicians that banned salvia because of the suicide did not say one thing about any need to ban alcohol even though 65&#37; of suicides happen under the influence of alcohol. The guy was also thought to have been in a depression, and he was on an acne medication that has strong psychological side-effects? Is there a push to ban that acne medication? That ONE case is what influenced the banning of salvia in Delaware, and other states are being influenced by it too. How could those politicians possibly not know how absurd that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

By Now Universal, if you do not get my point, you will never get it.
Salvia, that is now the new diversion aside from alcohol, cigarettes and what ever else you can conjure up.
Let's talk of peyote now. :roll:

---

Okay, let's talk about peyote. Fill in the blanks... Peyote should be illegal because ___________________________________________, but golf should be legal because _______________________________________. Try to work your bizarre tangent about "accident" into your answer.

I mentioned salvia specifically because I asked you repeatedly in the other thread to tell me some stories about salvia causing death or serious injury. You still have not done that. I think we should compare notes on salvia and golf. But we can compare peyote and golf first. We can get DMT into the discussion after that if you want to.

Posted 12/30/06

'Salvia Divinorum Experience'

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I mentioned salvia specifically because I asked you repeatedly in the other thread to tell me some stories about salvia causing death or serious injury. You still have not done that. I think we should compare notes on salvia and golf. But we can compare peyote and golf first. We can get DMT into the discussion after that if you want to.

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is interesting that alcohol was also in the suicide committer's blood, yet the politicians that banned salvia because of the suicide did not say one thing about any need to ban alcohol even though 65% of suicides happen under the influence of alcohol. The guy was also thought to have been in a depression, and he was on an acne medication that has strong psychological side-effects? Is there a push to ban that acne medication? That ONE case is what influenced the banning of salvia in Delaware, and other states are being influenced by it too. How could those politicians possibly not know how absurd that is?



Okay, let's talk about peyote. Fill in the blanks... Peyote should be illegal because ___________________________________________, but golf should be legal because _______________________________________. Try to work your bizarre tangent about "accident" into your answer

---

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?

Exactly, when you are driving a car, you are responsible for your own actions. Shouldn't it be the same way with drugs? If you hurt someone while on drugs, you should be responsible for that. But it shouldn't be illegal to posses or use drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 27

Exactly, when you are driving a car, you are responsible for your own actions. Shouldn't it be the same way with drugs? If you hurt someone while on drugs, you should be responsible for that. But it shouldn't be illegal to posses or use drugs.

---

:lolxtreme:
It does take an action in both cases. You have to get behind the wheel.
You do ingest drugs, chemicals or herbs consciously, on your own will and terms. This unfortuantly varies for some who are the responsible user. A car does not alter a person's perception - chemically!!!!!!!!!
Is this that hard to understand?