Thread: Salvia divinorum banned in Illinois... Why????

Originally Posted by Howie

Well maybe O'nus' description may sink in.
"Yes. However, the golf ball accident is an unlikely incident that is a consequence rather than a deliberate action. There is a severe difference between accidentally hurting someone and deliberately hurting yourself." O'nus
Also feel free to look at my merged links to see many explanations.

What is the difference? Being messed up on peyote AND driving a car AND hitting somebody is an "unlikely incident". See the parallel yet? By the way, have you found any stories of people dying or killing because of salvia yet? That story about Brett of Brett's Law hysteria involved alcohol, depression, and acne medicine that makes people crazy, so it does not qualify. What have you come up with over the past few days? I gave you a golf ball story. It's your turn. I am not dealing with mere speculation when it comes to the deadly nature of golf balls.

Originally Posted by Howie

Sorry I assumed you meant alcohol -the legal prohibiting of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks for common consumption. Maybe becasue that was how you referance it in the reast of the thread?

Prohibition is the illegality of any drug, and it does not work. You said prohibition (of alcohol) did not work, so why do you think it works with psychedelic drugs?

Originally Posted by Howie

I answered it. LOOK
The tiger Woods joke that you insist on bringing up was just as I said. A dumb answer to an even more stupid question.

It was an evasion that does not illustrate the dichotomy I keep asking for. Merely saying that a question is "stupid" does not qualify as an actual answer. It is a total copout and an indirect admission of being stumped. You have been stumped. I challenge you one last time to show otherwise. Give the best answer you can possibly give. My question gets right to the heart of what we are very specifically debating, and all you are doing is tapping out. You should admit that you have realized that you have a double standard. If you still want to claim otherwise, I challenge you to prove that by giving an intelligent answer to my question. You can't do that, can you?

Originally Posted by Howie

No it certainly is not is it. Hitting someone is.
If it was deleiberate, then they held accountable for those actions.
Blank filled!

How in the world does that fill in the blank? It says nothing about the dichotomy I keep asking for. You have not given a straight answer regarding that dichotomy. So let's get this straight. Your answer is basically this... "Peyote should be illegal because see what I said earlier about how somebody might drive a car while on it and hit somebody and it is like LSD (whatever details that is supposed to involve), but golf should be legal because hitting a golf ball is not an accident, hitting someone is, and if it was deliberate then they held accountable for those actions." Is that really your answer? Can you tell me how in the world that explains the DICHOTOMY? Remember... It is the DICHOTOMY I am looking for. You have not explained it. All you have done is say that hitting somebody with a golf ball (effect) is an accident while taking peyote (cause) is deliberate. I am not asking for a difference between the cause in one scenario and the effect in the other. I am talking about the entire pictures, which in both cases involve a deliberate cause and an accidental effect. See the parallel? So what is the DIFFERENCE between the two scenarios? The scenarios... not one part of one and another part of the other. The scenarios as a whole.

I am not sure, but I think I will take a stab at this to try and make matters more clear.

Whilst taking a drug, you simultaneously admit to relinquishing responsibility as you deliberately inebriate yourself. The consequences that follow are the result and you can abolish individual responsibility vis-a-vis the drugs admission.

However, hitting a golf ball is with the intent for sport and game.

The difference is the initial intent. One is simultaneoulsy admitting to loss of responsibility while the other is with introverted intent directed at game. Of course, taking drugs is intended for "game and fun" but with the simultaneously admission of the loss of responsibility and conscientiousness.

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

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am not sure, but I think I will take a stab at this to try and make matters more clear.

Whilst taking a drug, you simultaneously admit to relinquishing responsibility as you deliberately inebriate yourself. The consequences that follow are the result and you can abolish individual responsibility vis-a-vis the drugs admission.

However, hitting a golf ball is with the intent for sport and game.

The difference is the initial intent. One is simultaneoulsy admitting to loss of responsibility while the other is with introverted intent directed at game. Of course, taking drugs is intended for "game and fun" but with the simultaneously admission of the loss of responsibility and conscientiousness.

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

What do you think...?
~

I think people have diminished responsibility and even tremendously diminished responsibility with some drugs, but I don't think they completely give up responsibility on any of them. The drugs that do the most to hijack somebody's personality are alcohol and meth. Those are the two grand daddys of, "What was I thinking when I acted like that last night?" However, there are varying degrees of self-control even with those drugs. The fact that a person drank a few beers or smoked two hits of meth does not mean the real him is suddenly absent and an alter ego has taken over. A fifth of whiskey or a high number of hits of meth can get people really far in that direction, though. The drugs we have been debating for that last few pages are not in that category. Salvia divinorum has people staying in one place and having what is like a ten minute lucid dream, except a lot less pleasant. It is not a go out and raise Hell kind of drug. The same is true of DMT. LSD, peyote/mescaline, and mushrooms are drugs people can do and go out into the world to do things, but they usually do not, unless they are on a blanket at a Widespread Panic concert or something. They still generally do not want to go around getting into stuff and causing trouble, and they still know what they are doing.

Even if people did completely lose all sense of safety on those drugs and go out in public and do crazy things, they still know what they are doing before they make the decision to take drugs. That is analogous to the hitting of a golf ball. Then let's say they completely switch into alter egos and do dangerous stuff and have no idea what they are doing, so they have no more control. That is analogous to the flying of the golf ball. Once the golf ball has been hit and is in the air, control of it has been completely given up. If the hitter sees the ball flying at somebody's head 200 yards away, it is too late to call off the shot. It has been set into motion.

causes (Both done for "sport and game"):

- Take drug.
- Hit golf ball.

effects:

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

effects of effects:

- Car hits somebody.
- Golf ball hits somebody.

The situations are parallel.

I will simplify this for the sake of argument:

Any drug use:
- Before taking the drug, the user admits:
- This drug will influence my decision processes to some degree. This drug can be used as an excuse for my behaviour.

Golf ball t-off:
- Before t-ing off, the user admits:
- I will hit this ball and aim for a hole
- While hitting the ball, there may be an incident where it hurts someone. However, this is a consequence of probabilities rather than deliberate action of planning.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I will simplify this for the sake of argument:

Any drug use:
- Before taking the drug, the user admits:
- This drug will influence my decision processes to some degree. This drug can be used as an excuse for my behaviour.

I disagree. The psychedelic drugs we have been talking about are not that type of drug. Nobody will every honestly go play mailbox baseball, mutilate a dog, run over an old lady, slap a cop, flash a group of cheerleaders, or steal a bulldozer and go driving down the road and say, "But I was on mushrooms," or, "Oh, that's because I was all tripped out on salvia," or, "I was in the mood to act like a boy scout until I smoked that hit of DMT." That is not the ballpark we are in here. Alcohol, crystal meth, xanax, cocaine, and heroin will be used in that way. The psychedelics we have been talking about are in a completely different league.

People can function in public on mushrooms, but they usually don't want to. I have a lot of experience with mushrooms, and I can assure you that a really strong trip will generally have people not wanting to go screw around in society, and even when they do, the last thing in the universe they want is trouble. Trouble is the unthinkable when you are in that state. Salvia and DMT, when experienced on any kind of solid and worthy level, make it practically impossible to even find the door. I have never done peyote (Mescaline is the active ingredient in peyote, so those words can be alternated.), but I have read reports of experiences. You can find stories on the net about people who took peyote and had fun trying to get from one room to the other. They talk about it like it is that climb the runged ropes challenge at amusement parks. The weaker the trip, the more lucid the user. People on those drugs are not something to spend any time worrying about.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Golf ball t-off:
- Before t-ing off, the user admits:
- I will hit this ball and aim for a hole
- While hitting the ball, there may be an incident where it hurts someone. However, this is a consequence of probabilities rather than deliberate action of planning.

~

Probability is what is ultimately relevant here. The specific issue we have been discussing lately is public safety. Plus, once that golf ball is in the air, the hitter no longer has control of it. That could be his excuse. If the ball hits somebody in the head and kills him, he is just as dead as he would be if he had been run over and killed by somebody on salvia or if a guy on a three wheeler came blasting off a trail and ran into him and killed him. The end result is what it is, no matter what caused it. And two equal amounts of danger of differing types are still equal amounts of danger, just like a pound of iron weighs the same as a pound of feathers.

Wow, this thread has grown out of control. I guess I have a few comments.

1st, don't assume that everyone who finds salvia interesting is a burned out irresponsible person. I've smoked my fair share. Would you be surprised to know I have a Ph.D. in engineering? Would you be surprised to know I lead a team of engineers developing products that bring in 10's of millions of dollars per year? That I hold numerous US patents? My brain is working just fine - thank you.

2nd, while I would not be thrilled to hear my daughter was using salvia at some point in the future, I would be less concerned to hear that news, than to hear she's using almost any other recreational drug I can think of, especially alcohol. Those who understand Salvia know it's used for personal exploration and introspection, in private, lying on the floor where you can't hurt yourslef. Proper use of this drug is harmless.

Final point. I remember a story of a bad LSD trip someone told me about. It invloved some guy who had this horrible hallucination of the devil coming out of his chest and taunting him for hours. You know what - handle you're fucking drugs. If you're that guy, you stepped over the line. There's always going to be some idiot pushing the limits and getting himself into trouble. It doesn't matter what the substance or legal status is.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I disagree. The psychedelic drugs we have been talking about are not that type of drug. Nobody will every honestly go play mailbox baseball, mutilate a dog, run over an old lady, slap a cop, flash a group of cheerleaders, or steal a bulldozer and go driving down the road and say, "But I was on mushrooms," or, "Oh, that's because I was all tripped out on salvia," or, "I was in the mood to act like a boy scout until I smoked that hit of DMT." That is not the ballpark we are in here. Alcohol, crystal meth, xanax, cocaine, and heroin will be used in that way. The psychedelics we have been talking about are in a completely different league.

I see what you are saying because if we are to universalise a policy to include all 'drugs' then we ought to also ommit DXM and cough medication, right? So, I think the problem is the sake of universal treatment and how many people will argue over the properties of drugs compared to others. Of course, some drugs are beneficial and others are harmful. However, others are beneficial and deadly depending on the dosage.

With all this in mind, I think we can agree that the best means is truly to legalise drugs in order to regulate them with simultaneous education on them. For example, if I want to go buy heroin, I will get something similar on the cigarette packages to inform me of the consequences and what it does (also likely how to take it). Of course, this is not with the intent to deter peoples choice to take the drug, but to let them know that their free choice will have consequences.

Any further acts, like driving a car and killing people, would be separated so that it can be treated appropriately. For example, if I took that heroin, which warned me that it would inebriate me, then I should also take responsibility for hurting others while my decision process was inebriated.

Right?

Probability is what is ultimately relevant here. The specific issue we have been discussing lately is public safety. Plus, once that golf ball is in the air, the hitter no longer has control of it. That could be his excuse. If the ball hits somebody in the head and kills him, he is just as dead as he would be if he had been run over and killed by somebody on salvia or if a guy on a three wheeler came blasting off a trail and ran into him and killed him. The end result is what it is, no matter what caused it. And two equal amounts of danger of differing types are still equal amounts of danger, just like a pound of iron weighs the same as a pound of feathers.

lol yes.. but try and get the pound of feather to have terminal velocity. :p

I think these are decent grounds to rest on. I wish Howie would respond instead of running away. *Shakes fist*

~

I am an Illinois resident. Sadly, I just experienced salvia divinorum for the first time in December, loved it, and now can no longer continue use. BLEH!

Where do people get this drug?

~

I bought mine at a store called 60's spirit, sold in a vial for incense purposed only. It can be bought online as well. It's not cheap, especially for the higher extracts.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I see what you are saying because if we are to universalise a policy to include all 'drugs' then we ought to also ommit DXM and cough medication, right? So, I think the problem is the sake of universal treatment and how many people will argue over the properties of drugs compared to others. Of course, some drugs are beneficial and others are harmful. However, others are beneficial and deadly depending on the dosage.

With all this in mind, I think we can agree that the best means is truly to legalise drugs in order to regulate them with simultaneous education on them. For example, if I want to go buy heroin, I will get something similar on the cigarette packages to inform me of the consequences and what it does (also likely how to take it). Of course, this is not with the intent to deter peoples choice to take the drug, but to let them know that their free choice will have consequences.

Any further acts, like driving a car and killing people, would be separated so that it can be treated appropriately. For example, if I took that heroin, which warned me that it would inebriate me, then I should also take responsibility for hurting others while my decision process was inebriated.

Right?

I agree with every bit of that.

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol yes.. but try and get the pound of feather to have terminal velocity. :p

But maybe the pound of feathers could turn into a squirrel falling from a tree. (For those who didn't get that, see O'nus's evolution thread.)

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think these are decent grounds to rest on. I wish Howie would respond instead of running away. *Shakes fist*

I think he might have been converted to the bright side of the force. Welcome aboard, Howie!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Where do people get this drug?

You can buy it at Local Color in Oxford, Mississippi. That is a head shop that is right by Ole Miss (University of Mississippi). Guess what. Local Color has been selling salvia for years and years, and salvia is not at all popular among Ole Miss students. The guy who owns the place just keeps a box of bags for the rare occasions when people go there and want to buy it. When my sister went to Ole Miss a few years ago, I stayed with her and got her and a bunch of her friends to try salvia, and some of them were regular pot smokers and even regular users of other drugs. I also sometimes would get my sister or friends of hers to bring salvia down to Jackson when they came, and I would get them to try it. None of them really liked it, even though it twisted their minds into crazy knots (It causes a certain degree of physical pain, makes people extremely hot and sweaty, and is usually a good bit frightening.), and salvia is STILL not popular among Ole Miss students. But if Mississippi ever makes salvia illegal, God forbid, I guarantee you salvia will greatly increase in popularity at Ole Miss and the rest of the state because of the new hype and the new taboo giving birth to a whatever scale rebellion craze. That is what happens every time a drug gets banned.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think these are decent grounds to rest on. I wish Howie would respond instead of running away. *Shakes fist*
~

Reasons:

Originally Posted by Universal

The most important thing to consider here is that people on salvia are not going to be skipping rocks. I am not sure you quite understand just how disorienting salvia is. Have you ever done it? What all have you read about it? It is not a skip rocks at a picnic kind of drug. I can't even stand up for more than a few seconds when I am on it.

First this is and has been his subjective argument.

people on salvia are not going to be skipping rocks.

As you can clearly see by what he claims of his experience, it is a dangerous drug. I too know this from experience.
To look at the larger scope, to include all the psychedelics mentioned, which have very similar effects, consider phycodic episodes for information.
So for Universal, I must find a "real life" example of a dangerous activity while under the effects of salvia to quantify any reason to monitor this drug under the classification of an illegal substance. Little is known about this drug. Little facts exist. Making salvia any easy topic to glorify as he has done. In effect making his argument seem more credible. Other physcedelics fell by the way side.
Where as you could try to take this variable out of the equation. <--- How we differ in opinions. Effects on the societies legality of these substances .
I will too note that I have stated what I feel differentiates making an existing legal drug illegal, (salvia/alcohol ) compared to the opposite. Such as LSD. Had he gone back, as I have so often asked him to do. He may have seen that.

Here is another example of him not reading my content.

Have you ever done it? What all have you read about it?

I have actually posted one of MY salvia experiences. ~To the wind' Also several times I had talked about this. Also leading me to the conclusion I have -my subjective experience on these chemicals. This, not to mention the many other things I have pointed out, only to fall upon deaf ears. So I condensed my posts for easy reference. This is also why I decided any further discussion would only lead to animosity towards Universal and myself.
Plus it is taking up a hell of a lot of time.

The ever so stupid comparison that I won't even spell out again.
Universal insists on --->

Salvia divinorum should be illegal because _________________________________, but golf should be legal because ______________________________________________.

I have written in great length for this answer. I am guessing he wants me to fit this in one (his) sentence. That, I will not do, I can not do, because I had to express the fundamentals of reasoning and the underlying concept. As a result the topic has been dumbed down. Sad really.

O'nus and SKA, I would like to discuss something you both have brought up. Something that me in particular had not addressed.
That is the effect of the legalization in other countries. This is what I was eluding to when I said, "Look at our culture."
I do not think it is a comparison that holds enough weight. Our culture is a statisfy me NOW culture. Unlike that of Europe's. (this is not from my own experience though.) This is from what I have read and here from other people.

To add a partially subjective perspective on my part:
I live in a somewhat unique economic area. One of the higher per capita income per household in the entire region. Having grown up in this area my entire life, I have seen the abuse of psychedelics. --psychedelics ! More so alcohol....of coarse. The abuse of "hardcore drugs" too, but having a larger impact..ofcoarse. But none the less, the problem does exist. It does exist!

Originally Posted by Howie

O'nus and SKA, I would like to discuss something you both have brought up. Something that me in particular had not addressed.
That is the effect of the legalization in other countries. This is what I was eluding to when I said, "Look at our culture."
I do not think it is a comparison that holds enough weight. Our culture is a statisfy me NOW culture. Unlike that of Europe's. (this is not from my own experience though.) This is from what I have read and here from other people.

Could you elaborate more..?

Are you saying that other countries do not want to be "satisfied now" and are more relaxed and laid back?

Why do you think our (well, USA, I think you are referring to) is like that? What do you think contributed to perpetuating that characteristic?

With your response to that in mind, do you think that people's response to illegalising drugs would not cause reactance like that of "don't touch the cookies in the cookie jar"?

To add a partially subjective perspective on my part:
I live in a somewhat unique economic area. One of the higher per capita income per household in the entire region. Having grown up in this area my entire life, I have seen the abuse of psychedelics. --psychedelics ! More so alcohol....of coarse. The abuse of "hardcore drugs" too, but having a larger impact..ofcoarse. But none the less, the problem does exist. It does exist!

Perhaps you would like to consider the safe injection sites (SIS) that then help people with these problems and how they have significantly helped decrease deaths and overdoses. In the past years, Vancouver has utilized this facility and has seen a significant drop in overdoses and hospital visits, etc. I could reap the sources, if you wanted.

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by Howie

Reasons:
First this is and has been his subjective argument.

Why do you want to keep talking about this if you are going to keep dodging what I say?

My argument is not merely subjective. It is historically factual. Also, people don't go into society and act like Beavis and Butthead when they are on salvia. If that is false, then prove it with real life stories.

Originally Posted by Howie

Reasons:

As you can clearly see by what he claims of his experience, it is a dangerous drug. I too know this from experience.
To look at the larger scope, to include all the psychedelics mentioned, which have very similar effects, consider phycodic episodes for information.
So for Universal, I must find a "real life" example of a dangerous activity while under the effects of salvia to quantify any reason to monitor this drug under the classification of an illegal substance. Little is known about this drug. Little facts exist. Making salvia any easy topic to glorify as he has done. In effect making his argument seem more credible. Other physcedelics fell by the way side.

Then give me even ONE story about where salvia has gotten somebody hurt. How many times have I requested that? But you have not done it. Do you see the importance of that? You keep talking about what salvia might do, but you can't even give me one story about where it has done it. That's pretty strikingly relevant, isn't it? Also, this is a salvia thread. Remember? But you are welcome to fill in those blanks with the other psychedelic drugs I have mentioned. Did you see where I posted the other golf death stories? Now it is your turn to tell some salvia death stories.

Originally Posted by Howie

Where as you could try to take this variable out of the equation. <--- How we differ in opinions. Effects on the societies legality of these substances .
I will too note that I have stated what I feel differentiates making an existing legal drug illegal, (salvia/alcohol ) compared to the opposite. Such as LSD. Had he gone back, as I have so often asked him to do. He may have seen that.

You have merely made the general assertion without being specific. Did you see my point about a thousand deaths hypothetically resulting from driving while stoned? Then counter it. How would the statistics be different between the two situations?

Originally Posted by Howie

Here is another example of him not reading my content. I have actually posted one of MY salvia experiences. ~To the wind' Also several times I had talked about this. Also leading me to the conclusion I have -my subjective experience on these chemicals. This, not to mention the many other things I have pointed out, only to fall upon deaf ears. So I condensed my posts for easy reference. This is also why I decided any further discussion would only lead to animosity towards Universal and myself.
Plus it is taking up a hell of a lot of time.

You talk like somebody who has never done it, and I don't exactly trust your intellectual honesty at this point, at least not on this particular topic.

Originally Posted by Howie

The ever so stupid comparison that I won't even spell out again.
Universal insists on --->
I have written in great length for this answer. I am guessing he wants me to fit this in one (his) sentence. That, I will not do, I can not do, because I had to express the fundamentals of reasoning and the underlying concept. As a result the topic has been dumbed down. Sad really.

You keep dodging it because you are stumped. I would quit telling you that if you would quit popping back in here just to run away. The reason I set up the blanks the way I did is that when you answer the two questions back to back, the contradictions becomes obvious. You know that, and that is why you keep dodging.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Could you elaborate more..?

Are you saying that other countries do not want to be "satisfied now" and are more relaxed and laid back?

Yes. Hustle bustle, nose to the grind stone type attitude. This doesn't seem so prevalent in most other developing nations.
It seems that our satisfaction has no ceiling. So we are never content.

Oh yes. United States.

Why do you think our (well, USA, I think you are referring to) is like that? What do you think contributed to perpetuating that characteristic?

Specifically.... WWll. With the entrance of woman into the work place and the following booming economy gave the average Joe a taste of the forbidden fruit. We have manifested into a nation to - Be The Best! The biggest, most powerful and driven.

With your response to that in mind, do you think that people's response to illegalising drugs would not cause reactance like that of "don't touch the cookies in the cookie jar"?

Yes that will inevitably happen, as I said, you can see this in the salvia debacle now. However, the other drugs are already illegal. So making them legal could create the same malfunctioning culture of as we see with legal alcohol.
No I do not think this will create some perverse nation. No I do not feel that the number of people that would seek out drugs just because they are illegal, would come anywhere close to the number of people that would do drugs if they became legal.


Now what is taking place. Salvia, when compared to the other illegal psychedelic drugs, has the same attributes and characteristics. It has recently been noticed, a drug that was virtually unknown to most of the public ~(It is not as well documented as golf you Know. ) would be a case that when compared to the illegal drugs, has the same attributes and characteristics. This in effect would be why illlegislation is sought out by a lot of people. Right or wrong.

Perhaps you would like to consider the safe injection sites (SIS) that then help people with these problems and how they have significantly helped decrease deaths and overdoses. In the past years, Vancouver has utilized this facility and has seen a significant drop in overdoses and hospital visits, etc. I could reap the sources, if you wanted.

What do you think...?
~

I'm not sure what you are proposing here O'nus.
This atmosphere is much different than inner cities and impoverished areas. That where you would see methadone clinics and such.
Unlike the hardcore drugs, that we all seem to agree, have some negative effects. I am talking more specially of psychedelic drugs. These drugs you do not see the over doses that cause death. BUT > because they do not kill as many people as golf balls, I am arguing the point that it does have an negative effect on a society. They are not always used in good measure. People do stupid things on these drugs and most importantally, it has a very negative impact on the immediate culture and inevitably an adverse outcome for the entire society

Originally Posted by Howie

Now what is taking place. Salvia, when compared to the other illegal psychedelic drugs, has the same attributes and characteristics.

No, it does not. It debilitates people from being able to go out and do stuff in public. But allowing people to go out in public for long periods of time is not a problem with other psychedelic drugs any way. The only psychedelic salvia strongly parallels is DMT, which also has never been a public problem.

Originally Posted by Howie

People do stupid things on these drugs and most importantally, it has a very negative impact on the immediate culture and inevitably an adverse outcome for the entire society

Can you give some real life examples of that? As for salvia, if people were really doing these things you are afraid of, it would not be "relatively unkown". This new legislation is bringing it out of "relatively unkwown" status, unlike its history of damage, which does not even exist.

Did you read those extra golf death stories I posted? Can you explain how those people are any less dead than they would be if somebody had done something crazy on salvia and killed them instead of dying because they were hit by golf balls that people deliberately hit into the air and had no more control of once they were in the air?

I think these are decent grounds to rest on. I wish Howie would respond instead of running away.

*Shakes fist*
Hey. like wise pal!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Probability is what is ultimately relevant here. The specific issue we have been discussing lately is public safety. Plus, once that golf ball is in the air, the hitter no longer has control of it. That could be his excuse. If the ball hits somebody in the head and kills him, he is just as dead as he would be if he had been run over and killed by somebody on salvia or if a guy on a three wheeler came blasting off a trail and ran into him and killed him. The end result is what it is, no matter what caused it. And two equal amounts of danger of differing types are still equal amounts of danger, just like a pound of iron weighs the same as a pound of feathers. lol yes.. but try and get the pound of feather to have terminal velocity.

:p

This is what you call decent grounds to rest on?
Driving drunk and killing someone is the same as a mere car accident and killing someone. <That is what you both consider equal, the end result. Maybe consider starting from the beginning, to change the end result?
It does not matter to me anymore how Universal wants to justify his reasoning. Reasoning at this point seems out of the question.
He wants to see the end parallel as death, which it is. I want to distinguish the difference between the actions of an intentionally altered mind compared to that of one that is not intentionally altered by a substance.
Aside from that immediate difference above, consider a more long term effect too;
It has a very negative impact on the immediate culture and inevitably an adverse outcome for the entire society!

Originally Posted by Howie

It does not matter to me anymore how Universal wants to justify his reasoning. Reasoning at this point seems out of the question.
He wants to see the end parallel as death, which it is. I want to distinguish the difference between the actions of an intentionally altered mind compared to that of one that is not intentionally altered by a substance.
Aside from that immediate difference above, consider a more long term effect too;
It has a very negative impact on the immediate culture and inevitably an adverse outcome for the entire society!

Reasoning is impossible because you relentlessly dodge questions and points.

The end result is what is relevant. Your position is about preventing death and serious injury, right? If not, then what? And once again, a point you continually refuse to respond to is that even though psychedelic "alter" people's minds (Whatever difference that makes between the two situations, you have not specifically said.), they have not been shown to be much of a danger to society, and salvia and DMT have not been proven to be dangers at all. So what is is your point? Even if psychedelics make people lose some control of themselves, it is not a major issue if that to some extent loss of control does not lead them to doing things that are dangerous to others. I have explained that such incidents are not a big issue in terms of such history. I have also explained why they never would be. All you do is ignore. And very importantly, another point you keep refusing to respond to is that once a golf ball is in the air, the hitter has ZERO control over it. So what in the world is the difference?

I would also like to know how salvia divinorum and the other psychedelics we have been talking about have a negative impact on society, especially considering that most of them are not popular at all.

Since you kept dodging the back to back blanks I set up for the purpose of clearly illustrating contradiction, I will try something else. Just give a straight, intelligent, on-point, and to-the-point answer to a question. It is very easy, and ultimately relevant. One question:

1. Why should golf be legal?

My psychic powers tell me that instead of answering the question, it will be dodged.

I have now seen this go on for some time and I have to say that I agree with Universal Mind.

Whether or not one's state of mind is altered has no ultimate relevance, unless you want to take from people the liberty to specifically determine what they think their state of mind should be.

The basic premise is that there are two categories of accidents: those that happen while sober and those that happen while intoxicated. The latter notably being different in that a sense of responsibility can be absent due to intoxication and direct impairment of judgment. Thus resulting in a loss of control. However, this is no valid argument... why? Because you presume that the absence of responsibility can not in it self be part of a larger responsibility. Specifically the ability to determine very directly when and under which circumstances to take which drug in which quantity with which precautions taken, exactly because drugs are ingestible pieces of matter, directly under one's control, and are therefore part of general responsibility. And this is the mistake you keep making.

The loss of control has already been explained by the golf analogy. Once you do something, there is a series of events that follow as a result, yet they are not in the range of your control and therefore you are not responsible. If you chose to let this series of events begin by willfully impairing your judgment, then you shall do so. However,
(a) on drugs, your sense of control is not as diminished or dangerous, as has been alleged
(b) you can still be held accountable for stupid things.

It's basically like saying that someone who attempts to drive after one hour of sleep acts irresponsible. Very true. Yet, this does not make it reasonable to ban sleeping less than 1 hour, does it? It only makes it reasonable to ban driving while unable to do so skillfully, but this law already exists, in particular even addressing the issue of intoxication. There's no need to ban all the actions that could lead to this happening. That's why alcohol is legal and drunk driving is not.

End of argument.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Reasoning is impossible because you relentlessly dodge questions and points.

The end result is what is relevant. Your position is about preventing death and serious injury, right? If not, then what? And once again, a point you continually refuse to respond to is that even though psychedelic "alter" people's minds (Whatever difference that makes between the two situations, you have not specifically said.), they have not been shown to be much of a danger to society, and salvia and DMT have not been proven to be dangers at all. So what is is your point? Even if psychedelics make people lose some control of themselves, it is not a major issue if that to some extent loss of control does not lead them to doing things that are dangerous to others. I have explained that such incidents are not a big issue in terms of such history. I have also explained why they never would be. All you do is ignore. And very importantly, another point you keep refusing to respond to is that once a golf ball is in the air, the hitter has ZERO control over it. So what in the world is the difference?

I would also like to know how salvia divinorum and the other psychedelics we have been talking about have a negative impact on society, especially considering that most of them are not popular at all.

Since you kept dodging the back to back blanks I set up for the purpose of clearly illustrating contradiction, I will try something else. Just give a straight, intelligent, on-point, and to-the-point answer to a question. It is very easy, and ultimately relevant. One question:

1. Why should golf be legal?

The end result is what is relevant. Your position is about preventing death and serious injury, right? If not, then what?

You act as if there is no beginning. Since the end result is relevant, do you not have to consider the variable that led to the end result? That is not relevant?

What is not relevant is golf. For you can put ANY thing in that sentence and conclude it could be danger.
blow drying your hair, plugging in a lamp, any sport. I see what point you are trying to make. The differences out way what you have concluded as equal.

It is ludicrous and IMO quite childish in this discussion. At least so far as the quantifiable reasoning pertinent to this discussion. It holds absolutely no relevance to this discussion unless the person playing golf was on a mind altering substance, what ever that substance may be and regardless of what the substance is, changes the entire outcome. Is that not correct?

If those two things are not correct, then your golf ball analogy will have to be considered. Along with any other verb.

Because I believed that logical reasoning would be the case for this discussion, I had chosen not to resort to Googling the effects that I had already known existed, and so do you. So in addition to effects, there are outcomes. Outcomes that at the beginning of a scenario has an impact on the end result.[/color]

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/lsd07.htm
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/art...d_accident.htm
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/lsd/lsd1_text.htm
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/LSD.html

Could this have negative impact on the immediate culture? If so it would inevitably have an adverse outcome for the entire society!

Misinterpretation of reactions. Before 1962, when LSD bad trips occurred, they were accepted as an inherent part of the total LSD experience; sometimes they were even perceived as therapeutic in themselves, and therefore welcomed.

After 1962, however, these bad trips were labeled psychotic. From a review of the medical literature of the 1960s it is evident that some of the psychotic reactions of that decade were actually bad trips similar to what therapists and patients alike had taken in their stride during the 1950s.

Indeed, the label psychotic itself affected the reactions of both physicians and patients and thus contributed its share to making bad trips worse.

This is a part of the first link you posted Howie. It uses the label psychotic to describe a Bad trip. And in turn this is enough to label it "Risky".
Let me tell you: a Psychedelic Trip, good or bad, indeed resembles a Psychosis. In psychedelic psychotherapy they labeled it a Controlled Psychosis. I've had well over 15 Magic Mushroom trips and 3 LSD trips. I can tell you they have all been quite similair to a Psychosis: And I've had a "Natural" Psychosis once( a broken home can do that ) so I know what I'm compairing my trips with.
I say YES they closely resemble Psychotic states AND yes these psychotic states HAVE been very therapeutical to me and many others I know who've had similair experiences.
The fact that they indeed closely resemble psychotic mindstates doesn't mean they CAN'T be therapeutical.

My first mushroom trip, due to a rediculously high dose for a beginner and the most Inapropriate scene for a mushroom trip(Party @ lake, people, music), was a VERY bad trip. Mostly made VERY anxious and panicky. YES your Rationality is supressed somewhat and you can start thinking illogical, panicking thoughts. This also allows Imagination to flow more freely without being interrupted by reason. Yet when I really felt very anxious I simply asked 2 good friends of mine to bring me home: How's that for rationalising and making good decisions? I was in a servere bad trip and I did what woul calm me down. It worked. I didn't hurl myself in front of a car. I didn't think I could fly. I just reasoned I should go home, lock myself up in my bathroom(my sanctuary) and calm down again. I give you the example of MY personal experience as it would destroy the idea that Psychedelics like Mushrooms and LSD would make one totally irrational and jump off of buildings. These cases you mentioned are VERY rare. Coffee and Alcohol fatalities are ANYTHING but rare. The risk of psychedelics are greatly overrated.

Now the reason I had such a bad trip was because I was very underinformed about these mushrooms. This proves how Proper, widespread education about these substances can prevent such bad trips. Eversince I've done it in the safe, warm comfort of my Room and they were amazing, indeed quite Psychotic, but very enlightening, insightfull and enjoyable experiences.

I guess you just don't see the Positive side of "Going crazy"

----------------------------------------------------------
It seems that the Authorities that wanna and do ban all these Psycho active substances are not at all concerned about health, but it rather seems they think of "Getting High" and Experiencing Visionairy states of Mind is a Crime.

There are no Health-risks to smoking or quidding(sublingual) Salvia, so this ban is just another move to stop people from getting high.

What kind of Politicians govern Illinois? Liberals? Christian Conservatives?


oh and people: keep getting high. Skyhigh. As long as you don't fuck up your body and don't harm another person you have the full 100&#37;, moral right to get higher than the stars.

Originally Posted by Howie

You act as if there is no beginning. Since the end result is relevant, do you not have to consider the variable that led to the end result? That is not relevant?

I want to answer too :p It is not. Because taking a drug responsibly is part of responsibility as a sober person. If you take a drug non-responsibly, negative things might happen. But non-responsibility leads to negative things anyway, so the argument is nada. All you do is assume that drugs will be taken non-responsibly and bring chaos to society. Nobody would want to take a drug that causes you to commit crimes. Because you will be prosecuted, no matter if you where intoxicated or not. But none of the drugs actually do anything like that so I don't really have any idea where you're going with this.

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/lsd07.htm
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/art...d_accident.htm
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/lsd/lsd1_text.htm
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/LSD.html

Could this have negative impact on the immediate culture? If so it would inevitably have an adverse outcome for the entire society!

None of that mentions anything about an impact on society. It's just a bunch of health warnings. Present even one article on someone getting into a violent fight while on LSD.
In fact, the first link can only be interpreted as being in favor of legalization, in terms of negative effects that can be avoided (shit quality, black market, unknown dosage, filling up jails and courts for no reason, lack of supervision because of illegality.)

Originally Posted by Korittke

My psychic powers tell me that instead of answering the question, it will be dodged.

I have now seen this go on for some time and I have to say that I agree with Universal Mind.

Whether or not one's state of mind is altered has no ultimate relevance, unless you want to take from people the liberty to specifically determine what they think their state of mind should be.

The basic premise is that there are two categories of accidents: those that happen while sober and those that happen while intoxicated. The latter notably being different in that a sense of responsibility can be absent due to intoxication and direct impairment of judgment. Thus resulting in a loss of control. However, this is no valid argument... why? Because you presume that the absence of responsibility can not in it self be part of a larger responsibility. Specifically the ability to determine very directly when and under which circumstances to take which drug in which quantity with which precautions taken, exactly because drugs are ingestible pieces of matter, directly under one's control, and are therefore part of general responsibility. And this is the mistake you keep making.

The loss of control has already been explained by the golf analogy. Once you do something, there is a series of events that follow as a result, yet they are not in the range of your control and therefore you are not responsible. If you chose to let this series of events begin by willfully impairing your judgment, then you shall do so. However,
(a) on drugs, your sense of control is not as diminished or dangerous, as has been alleged
(b) you can still be held accountable for stupid things.

It's basically like saying that someone who attempts to drive after one hour of sleep acts irresponsible. Very true. Yet, this does not make it reasonable to ban sleeping less than 1 hour, does it? It only makes it reasonable to ban driving while unable to do so skillfully, but this law already exists, in particular even addressing the issue of intoxication. There's no need to ban all the actions that could lead to this happening. That's why alcohol is legal and drunk driving is not.

End of argument.

Korittke, your points are well taken.

(a) on drugs, your sense of control is not as diminished or dangerous, as has been alleged

You find this to be true?

With regards to the entire premise. You are accepting this argument as moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy.

This is why it is so imperative to understand the effects of reasoning.
You have concluded that taking away this right determines that any right we have is in danger.
Thank goodness for legislators that know the difference.

Gun control
depriving yourself of sleep
abortion
Very good examples of liberties that people try to keep.
Can you see the differance between any of those and the deduction of an added chemical?

I guess you are unaware of how truely delirious and even suicidal one can become due to sleep deprivation.

And in my previous post I've showed you the example of how I was in a VERY bad bad trip and how it didn't impair my judgement and decision making.