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

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 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!

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.