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

Happy new year! New Year's Day 2008 marks the beginning of Schedule 1 classification of salvia divinorum, a hallucinogenic plant that is nonlethal and nonaddictive, in the U.S. state of Illinois. It is now a FELONY to possess this menace that the proponents of the bill have not been able to tell any serious stories about. The people of Illinois are safe at last! Just check out the intensely backed up rationale of the genius ban loving sheriff in this article...

http://www.14wfie.com/global/story.asp?s=7544430

Here is a Wikipedia article about salvia divinorum, and down the page it talks about Illinois politicians who supported the ban. Notice the brilliant logic they use, or would use if they actually gave a solid reason for the ban based on examples and not bizarre speculations based on flat out ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum

Since those politicians are apparently incapable of making solid arguments for why they made it a FELONY to possess something that has been legal all these centuries and has not been causing problems, maybe somebody else can make the argument for them. I would love to know what it is. Just pop open a beer, smoke some cigarettes, get heart disease from your daily Big Macs, and explain why people should go to prison for possession of salvia divinorum.

WHAT? SALVIA?

Too freaking bad just like you said, it's perfectly SAFE. And what they're saying is bullshit. Salvia does not have the properties of LSD; it's much more distinct and far less intense. It's also not addictive.

This just shows people are willing to ban ANYTHING that gives freedom of expression and thought. And that granda saying she'd be upset her daughter had access to it? Yes, because all she's been told is "it's a drug that causes a high." You know, just like caffeine, sugar, tea, etc.

It's funny how something that can do no harm to you (Salvia) is as illegal as Heroin. I'm very upset with Illinois.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Last paragraph of the article

In November after 14 News first reported salvia's effects, Indiana representative Dennis Avery said he would research the substance to possibly take action against it

---

Another example of how the media influences law in this country, holding our freedom and liberties in their control. Just a matter of time before this spreads to other states.

Defiantly safe. I have tryed is and eveything was alright except that the bonfire turned into an aquarium with fish in it, but thats about it. If it wasn't safe they probally wouldn't sell it at my local convenice store.

It's also somewhat unpleasant--fascinating, but not something you want to do every day.

Hmmm. An argument for why Salvia should be illegal. Well, the notion of the brain having electrical activity consitent with a wakeful state BUT being cut-off from sensory input does indeed sound dangerous to me. Why ... that would cause hallucinations.

Wait, holy crap - isn't that basically what happens when you're dreaming.

I need to contact Gov Rod immediately. We need to outlaw dreaming ASAP.

I'd rather get high and answer.

Haven't you heard the number 1 rule in parenting/ governing? Always control the things that your children/people might enjoy doing that have no practical application to society as a whole. With your children, this generally applies to limiting what T.V. your child watches and how much. With governing, this means putting restrictions on certain things; like drug use and certifications for dangerous, yet exhilarating sports.

What people don't realize is; one of the reasons why the government feels the need to do this, is because the parents push them to limit the things they are incapable or unwilling to limit themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrTechnical

Hmmm. An argument for why Salvia should be illegal. Well, the notion of the brain having electrical activity consitent with a wakeful state BUT being cut-off from sensory input does indeed sound dangerous to me. Why ... that would cause hallucinations.

Wait, holy crap - isn't that basically what happens when you're dreaming.

I need to contact Gov Rod immediately. We need to outlaw dreaming ASAP.

---

Best argument i've heard all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b12

WHAT? SALVIA?

Too freaking bad just like you said, it's perfectly SAFE. And what they're saying is bullshit. Salvia does not have the properties of LSD; it's much more distinct and far less intense. It's also not addictive.

This just shows people are willing to ban ANYTHING that gives freedom of expression and thought. And that granda saying she'd be upset her daughter had access to it? Yes, because all she's been told is "it's a drug that causes a high." You know, just like caffeine, sugar, tea, etc.

It's funny how something that can do no harm to you (Salvia) is as illegal as Heroin. I'm very upset with Illinois.

---

I'd never argue salvia is less intense than LSD, although that is subjective. I'd say it has a greater relative harm potential than LSD. I've done both many times, and only on salvia have I actually lost all conception of reality, and acted in an erratic way, and not out of fear.
Neither is particularly harmful either way, when used properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBeelzy

I'd never argue salvia is less intense than LSD, although that is subjective. I'd say it has a greater relative harm potential than LSD. I've done both many times, and only on salvia have I actually lost all conception of reality, and acted in an erratic way, and not out of fear.
Neither is particularly harmful either way, when used properly.

---

For me, salvia is about the most intense substance out there, but that is because I have not done DMT. It usually makes me see muppets trying to manipulate the fabric of reality in order to destroy reality. That might make it sound really freaky to some people, but it makes me realize that there is no way I would even think of driving a car on it. I don't even think I could find my car while on that stuff. I probably don't really even understand what a car is while on salvia. I lose all sense of up, down, left, right, here, there, forward, and backward. All I can do is just sit there and be still until the trip ends after ten minutes. Very basic knowledge of what that stuff does makes it very safe for virtually anybody. It just creates a crazy ten minute lucid dream.

Why don't we all get together (all like everyone not banning these things) and throw these people off a bridge and change the law?:lol: Free hallusinations for everyone! the world trips on Salvia, and DMT and the world is sane again. Seriously, ban booze while you're at it, hell ban fatty foods, and actually ban food all together and anything drinkable so we die of thirst and hunger so they can play amung themselves with free everything. This is all because they want us dead and they want tax free ferrarri's, and tons and tons of money, and stuff. It's all about them, they are thinking of their own needs when we all die from their a few thousand year old plan to slowly wipe us out from hunger, and thirst. Who's left to make them work for a living, or tell them it costs this much? Strike now while you can still eat and drink, for that will change in a few thousand years.

Probably because the high potency extracts can cause a more intense trip than LSD. Since LSD is illegal, they thought it would be good to make salvia illegal.... I dunno, that's my guess. I still haven't heard of any injuries or deaths from it, but I don't research salvia much. I hate that shit with a passion. Don't get me wrong though, it should be legal. I just don't enjoy the trips or get anything positive from them + They are usually physically painful for me...

Shrooms, LSD, and DMT FTW!!!

I am surprised salvia isn't illegal everywhere. I'm not FOR it being banned but I'm still surprised because it's way weirder than LSD or E or anything if you take it the right way. I never have I'm just going on other people's accounts :D.

It's still legal in England isn't it? Where does it grow???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idolfan

It's still legal in England isn't it? Where does it grow???

---

Salvia is indigenous to certain parts of Mexico. That's it. To my knowledge the only way it's been propogated for many years is by cloning. Somehow, it's really hard to pollinate a plant and have it produce seeds.

How long does the salvia last? Was it 5 seconds or 5 minutes?

Quote:

---

How long does the salvia last? Was it 5 seconds or 5 minutes?

---

Dudes, GOOGLE! You'll kill this thread if you start discussing the drug itself :nono:

(BTW, 5 seconds?! LOL, who the hell would bother with a drug that lasted 5 seconds?)

If this stuff lasts for about 30mins then I don;t think I would take it unless I had someone in the same room as me while I took it...just doesn't totally safe to my eyes.

Anway, sorry about that...just needed to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

(BTW, 5 seconds?! LOL, who the hell would bother with a drug that lasted 5 seconds?)

---

Well it is very hard to do something stupid in 5 seconds. Unless you are prepared... like standing on the roof or holding a knife. :P
I would try a 5 second drug, it would be a good "demo" to see what it's like.

But that's just me.

California has a hearing on January 15th I believe. If it goes illegal in California I'd say the rest of the states will just quickly follow suit and by the end of 2008 it'll be banned from the entire US.

It failed 3 to 2 (3 no, 2 yes) in March 2007 - I'm not sure how the voting system is setup, whether it's majority wins, or unanimous only...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

California has a hearing on January 15th I believe. If it goes illegal in California I'd say the rest of the states will just quickly follow suit and by the end of 2008 it'll be banned from the entire US.

It failed 3 to 2 (3 no, 2 yes) in March 2007 - I'm not sure how the voting system is setup, whether it's majority wins, or unanimous only...

---

I hope this outrageous hysteria will be used by war on drugs activists a lot in the future to illustrate the kind of mind set behind such laws. This one guy committed suicide and was on alcohol, acne medication with negative psychological side effects, and salvia divinorum, and he had a messed up childhood and suffered from depression. So the legislators from a lot of states look at that big picture and pick out just salvia divinorum, say nothing bad about the horribly deadly substance alcohol, the screwed up acne medicine, or the guy's depression, and decide to make it a FELONY to possess something nonlethal and nonaddictive. In Delaware, they even named the new law after the guy. That is so insane. I have been saying for years that it is that type of thinking behind the illegality of a lot of other drugs. This situation can be used as a great example when arguing against the prohibition of those other drugs.

Quote:

---

If it goes illegal in California I'd say the rest of the states will just quickly follow suit and by the end of 2008 it'll be banned from the entire US.

---

God damnit, I just bought a bong water pipe! <sigh>, I'm sure someone will find some other sage to take it's place, no?
:fro:

It's just so messed up how something I saw being sold in a record store today is actually a felony to posses in a nearby state!

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_vi...ml?id=3294888n

Aside from what you me or anyone else thinks we can get out of salvia, Have you witnessed this type of behavior?
If you have:
Do you care if someone exhibited this behavior while taking a hit behind the wheel?
If you have or some day, have a child, would you particiapate in taking salvia with them?

Just curious.
Trying to get more perspective.

Would you want to keep the drug legal, then through proper advice and education teach your children about this and other drugs?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_vi...ml?id=3294888n

Aside from what you me or anyone else thinks we can get out of salvia, Have you witnessed this type of behavior?
If you have:
Do you care if someone exhibited this behavior while taking a hit behind the wheel?
If you have or some day, have a child, would you particiapate in taking salvia with them?

Just curious.
Trying to get more perspective.

Would you want to keep the drug legal, then through proper advice and education teach your children about this and other drugs?

Thanks.

---

Anybody with very basic knowledge of what salvia does, especially people who have experienced it before, would never dream of driving a car while on it. Also, people who are within minutes of having just smoked salvia are not going to be able to find their cars and would know that they are not in any condition to drive. But alcohol on the other hand... What did you say about bringing back alcohol prohibition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anybody with very basic knowledge of what salvia does, especially people who have experienced it before, would never dream of driving a car while on it. Also, people who are within minutes of having just smoked salvia are not going to be able to find their cars and would know that they are not in any condition to drive.

---

So we all have this basic knowledge? And none of us would dream of it.
They can't even find their car but are capable of realizing they cannot drive.
Ok. :P

Quote:

---

But alcohol on the other hand... What did you say about bringing back alcohol prohibition?

---

I said nothing of bringing back alcohol prohibition!
I said it should be illegal. Hind site is always 20/20 isn't it? We saw that prohibition did not work.
What I said is, making an illegal drug legal is a lot different than making a legal drug illegal. But now that saliva is legal in some states this much better suites your argument. The drug still demonstrates the same effects.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_vi...ml?id=3294888n

Aside from what you me or anyone else thinks we can get out of salvia, Have you witnessed this type of behavior?
If you have:
Do you care if someone exhibited this behavior while taking a hit behind the wheel?
If you have or some day, have a child, would you particiapate in taking salvia with them?

Just curious.
Trying to get more perspective.

Would you want to keep the drug legal, then through proper advice and education teach your children about this and other drugs?

Thanks

Edit:
I could find posts like I did above all day long. Blogs, own experiences and the like, all for you to more than likely say they are not credible. You yourself said "they don't know jack shit about salvia & morning glory." They do know a lot about aspirin. Can you connect the dots? You want "real life" example. Man, I don't know what you call real life, I'm in it Sir. With that in mind, I have put forth the basis, a very concise compilation of realistic, comprehensive and Logic premise to this argument.

We can still use our ability to reason in the face of the ever present danger of our dwindling liberties.
Reason: using sound judgment; good sense, normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

Good day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_vi...ml?id=3294888n

Aside from what you me or anyone else thinks we can get out of salvia, Have you witnessed this type of behavior?
If you have:
Do you care if someone exhibited this behavior while taking a hit behind the wheel?
If you have or some day, have a child, would you particiapate in taking salvia with them?

Just curious.
Trying to get more perspective.

Would you want to keep the drug legal, then through proper advice and education teach your children about this and other drugs?

Thanks.

---

Witnessing that horrifically misinformed report, I'm pretty sure salvia is going the way of cannabis and LSD, because it's a freebie crusade for politicians. Classifying salvia as having "high potential for abuse" is nonsensical--few people who try it will ever repeat the experience, and I've never heard of anyone using it often. I'd be interested to know how often the suicide kid actually used salvia. The only way I could see salvia getting truly popular is in response to a prohibition.

Most of the points in the video seemed like almost deliberate misinformation. Does it correlate with depression? There's no evidence, and if it gets classified Schedule One, we'll never know. Are teenagers using it? All they showed us were Youtube videos, most if not all of which showed adults in their own dorms/apartments. Do we want people driving around on this stuff? Wtf? Given the duration and effects of this substance, as well as the techniques required to get an effective dose, you would have to be a suicidal acrobat to even try it.

If they're able to access Youtube, they could at least have taken two minute to look over the single most read document on salvia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

So we all have this basic knowledge? And none of us would dream of it.
They can't even find their car but are capable of realizing they cannot drive.
Ok. :P

---

Anyone who knows enough about salvia to go out and buy it does have this knowledge, yes. And as for your second sentence, just read it again, man. I understand you don't know how this substance operates, but we're telling you, they will not be capable of forming the notion of driving their car until well after the effects have passed.

As for doing it with your kids, again it's not a party drug, it's not "fun." You can't really share the trip. But I would advise my hypothetical kids or my actual nephew about the same on any hallucinogen: I'd give them all the information I could, recommend they wait until they're an adult to avoid developmental complications, and recommend they take up meditation instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

So we all have this basic knowledge? And none of us would dream of it.
They can't even find their car but are capable of realizing they cannot drive.
Ok. :P

---

If you had ever smoked salvia, you would never dream of smoking it while driving. That is correct. Also, there could be simple warning labels on the packages. Also, anybody smoking the stuff is going to have a reason to do so, and that reason is going to have to do with knowing something about what the stuff does. It would be a rare person who knows nothing about what it does, decides to do it any way, and decides to do it while driving. It would be even rarer for somebody to do all of that and completely ignore a warning that says, "WARNING: THIS STUFF WILL TIE YOUR MIND IN KNOTS FOR TEN MINUTES AND MAKE DRIVING IMPOSSIBLE." Even if some rare nut does it any way, he will immediately hit the breaks once the stuff kicks in. Did you hear about that guy who was killed by a flying golf ball?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I said nothing of bringing back alcohol prohibition!

---

That is exactly my point. Your point on salvia in your last post had to do with what effect it could have on drivers. Do you know what alcohol does to drivers? Do you want to learn some absolutely outrageous statistics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

We saw that prohibition did not work.

---

That's right. Drug prohibition does not work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Aside from what you me or anyone else thinks we can get out of salvia, Have you witnessed this type of behavior?
If you have:
Do you care if someone exhibited this behavior while taking a hit behind the wheel?
If you have or some day, have a child, would you particiapate in taking salvia with them?

---

No, I don't want people smoking salvia while driving. But I already argued how incredibly rare that would be. Plus, drug prohibition does not work. The prohibition of salvia is not going to do anything to stop what you are worried could happen. If anything, the prohibition is going to make the drug many times more famous and influence a whole lot more people to start doing it. Those legislators are giving salvia a major spot on the map. It used to not have one.

If I had adult children, I would definitely teach them about the dangers of addiction and overdose of the drugs that involve such risks. If they never got into any drugs at all, I would not be the person who opens that door for them. If they already are in the door, then I would do salvia with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Would you want to keep the drug legal, then through proper advice and education teach your children about this and other drugs?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I could find posts like I did above all day long. Blogs, own experiences and the like, all for you to more than likely say they are not credible. You yourself said "they don't know jack shit about salvia & morning glory." They do know a lot about aspirin. Can you connect the dots?

---

No. Please connect them for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_vi...ml?id=3294888n

---

That video is about the guy who committed suicide and influenced the current hysteria. As I said in the other thread, he had a screwed up childhood and had problems with depression, was on an acne medication with negative psychological side-effects, and was also under the influence of ALCOHOL when he committted suicide.

Did those people rolling around and laughing in the video act like they wanted to commit suicide? There were much bigger factors involved in Brett's suicide. But the politicians don't say anything about banning those things, do they?

Quote:

---

Anyone who knows enough about salvia to go out and buy it does have this knowledge, yes. And as for your second sentence, just read it again, man. I understand you don't know how this substance operates, but we're telling you, they will not be capable of forming the notion of driving their car until well after the effects have passed.

As for doing it with your kids, again it's not a party drug, it's not "fun." You can't really share the trip. But I would advise my hypothetical kids or my actual nephew about the same on any hallucinogen: I'd give them all the information I could, recommend they wait until they're an adult to avoid developmental complications, and recommend they take up meditation instead.

---

Ok then.
To the contrary I DO know... Thanks for the assumption. There is another thread you should check out. Why are drugs illegal? A lot of information towards both sides of this argument.
So anyone and everyone who uses salvia is the one who buys it?
You can't share a trip? Unique to each individual yes, but I do not agree.
Why mediation, if saliva is harmless?

Yes, about developmental complications. Thanks for bringing that up.
This is from psychology class. It was years ago, it may not be in verbatum to what I had learned.
LSD and PCP for an example. Individuals who took some psychedelic drugs first come to the conclusion that they are widening or expanding their mind. In short, Becoming smarter. The drugs make up activates dendrites (small firing - communicating neurons) to branch out. This results in a biological and physical change of the brain. As these branch out, we witness abstract and developing new thoughts. When studies further the dendrites become mutated, this giving them the inability to grow and effectively communicate as they once did. Again, this information may not be right on the money. There is also information from the Harvard school of medication with regards to experiential studies in psychedelics.
This just came to my mind. How did all the "hippies" become burnouts?
Oh yes, flashbacks too.
Strict nine shivers. Do you know about those?

I have difficulty believing that anyone with firsthand knowledge of this substance could seriously propose that someone might obtain salvia with sufficient knowledge of its use to get an effective dose (it's not like smoking other things) and sufficient ignorance of its effects to try it for the first time behind the wheel of a car. We could outlaw pocketknives because someone might decide to peel an apple while driving and stab themselves in the eye, but it would be absurd.

I have no personal stake in the legality of Salvia, or much of anything else that is or may be outlawed. I'm simply offended by the crass political maneuvering that drives these campaigns, the total infidelity to truth and the common good, and the stupidity of prohibition as a method if your goal is really to decrease the attractiveness of a substance.

As for how all the hippies became burnouts: they didn't. Plenty became sellouts instead--lawyers, executives, salesmen, entrepreneurs. The burnouts are just the ones still living like they did in their teens and twenties when we identified them as "hippies." Plenty of former--and some current--drug users have perfectly respectable-looking lifestyles. People who can't keep their lives together rarely have just one problem, and when they do it's usually booze.

What are they trying to do, I've researched this stuff and it has no known bad effects, you'd think someone would report one by know if there were any at all, seems like their puting bans on pleasure or something, what are they going to do now outlaw sex.

I'm against the war against drugs anyway, I beleive it's wrong to tell someone they cannot put something in their own body, most people who know me would be shocked I'm ok with drug use. Though I think drug safty should be tought "honestly" (not exagerated claims) and theropy and any kind of help with addiction should be out there.

salvia can be more intense than lsd but it only lasts 5 mins

People don't like the idea of having a society in which people can (excuse my words) abuse substance. Savlia is harmless, but not in the eyes of a worried mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmazeO XD

People don't like the idea of having a society in which people can (excuse my words) abuse substance. Savlia is harmless, but not in the eyes of a worried mother.

---

Mothers should worry about their sons and daughers going to prison for undeserved reasons.

I agree. But, you know how it is

Banning Salvia is idiotic, as has been pointed out by this thread. Makes no sense. I hope they don't ban nitrous oxide where I live. My hope isn't strong though. After all, it's a CHAMICAL DRUGZORS. Apart from it being a mere gas, not damaging the lungs and the flash lasting no longer than 3-5 minutes.

They already announced that they planned on banning it. The only way to get it now is to buy whip cream chargers. Hey, you fucking morons, how about you legalize it for recreational use, so kids can't get a hold of it and users could get medical quality. Idiots. Instead they want to only allow chargers with CO2, OMG GLOBEL WARMING. I'll wait for news of kids asphyxiating themselves, not knowing that N2O is now CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Banning Salvia is idiotic, as has been pointed out by this thread. Makes no sense. I hope they don't ban nitrous oxide where I live. My hope isn't strong though. After all, it's a CHAMICAL DRUGZORS. Apart from it being a mere gas, not damaging the lungs and the flash lasting no longer than 3-5 minutes.

They already announced that they planned on banning it. The only way to get it now is to buy whip cream chargers. Hey, you fucking morons, how about you legalize it for recreational use, so kids can't get a hold of it and users could get medical quality. Idiots. Instead they want to only allow chargers with CO2, OMG GLOBEL WARMING. I'll wait for news of kids asphyxiating themselves, not knowing that N2O is now CO2.

---

Off to prison they go... for their protection! :goodjob2:

[QUOTE="Universal"]Mothers should worry about their sons and daughers going to prison for undeserved reasons.[QUOTE]

True

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Banning Salvia is idiotic, as has been pointed out by this thread. Makes no sense. I hope they don't ban nitrous oxide where I live. My hope isn't strong though. After all, it's a CHAMICAL DRUGZORS. Apart from it being a mere gas, not damaging the lungs and the flash lasting no longer than 3-5 minutes.

---

Some real wise words. supported of coarse. It is just mere gas. And it does not harm brain cells -as you can see here. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Some real wise words. supported of coarse. It is just mere gas. And it does not harm brain cells -as you can see here. :roll:

---

I don't get it. Did I make a language mistake? If so, please excuse. N2O probably does damage and/or kill brain cells, however I would guess that it doesn't do so as much as alcohol. It is also non-addictive. However, I haven't taken any drugs (except a gallon of beer) in the last 6 months so I would assume that my brain is in a relatively healthy state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

I don't get it. Did I make a language mistake? If so, please excuse. N2O probably does damage and/or kill brain cells, however I would guess that it doesn't do so as much as alcohol. It is also non-addictive. However, I haven't taken any drugs (except a gallon of beer) in the last 6 months so I would assume that my brain is in a relatively healthy state.

---

Why does everyone use the inadequacies in our judicial system and the effect of alcohol to justify the reasoning behind something else?

"it probably does" ??

Did you know that inhaling paint thinner kills brain cells? But not to worry. It is not as much as alcohol, and that is legal! :shakehead2:

It is a must comparison because we need to know the parallel to why one drug is legal and the other is not. But all I see is everyone using it to justify their means between each other.

A bunch of pot smokers sitting around a bong -
woooo man. This is rad. Those fucking alcoholics, angry belligerent, dangerous.
~They are right and they are wrong.
I bunch of straight edges sitting around a monopoly game.
I tell you Fred. All those burnouts sitting around with their munchies, wasting time. They should be shipped off to jail. It should be a felony.
~ They are right and they are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Why does everyone use the inadequacies in our judicial system and the effect of alcohol to justify the reasoning behind something else?

---

[COLOR=Black]Because I expect a judicial system to be based on a set of guiding principles and the laws to be derived from that. Inconsistencies in laws and their reasoning are unacceptable. I expect laws to be consistent and congruent.

The principle that is the reasoning for allowing alcohol is that people should be allowed to intoxicate themselves to a state of total numbness to the world, by means of ingesting alcoholic fluids. There is no reason to not apply this principle to any other drug that is of a similar nature or less harmful than alcohol.

Apart from that, it's not even about the alcohol. There's no reason to ban LSD, Salvia, N2O, weed. Even if they would kill you or give you instant cancer and alcohol was illegal, those drugs shouldn't be illegal and neither should alcohol be.

Quote:

---

"it probably does" ??

Did you know that inhaling paint thinner kills brain cells? But not to worry. It is not as much as alcohol, and that is legal! :shakehead2:

---

The health effects of a substance shouldn't have anything to do with its legality. Many toxic chemicals (cleaners, washing powder, acids etc.) are available to buy, so that's not an argument.
I'm not saying that people should go ahead and kill their brain cells - but they should be allowed to if they wish to do so. Inhaling paint thinner is idiotic, while taking drugs has very pleasant side effects. What you said doesn't make much sense.

You could go "BAN washing powder - someone might take 10 spoons full and then attempt to drive a car". However, this would be stupid. It is also stupid if you replace washing powder with LSD.

Quote:

---

It is a must comparison because we need to know the parallel to why one drug is legal and the other is not. But all I see is everyone using it to justify their means between each other.

---

This is wrong. Unlike most politicians I do have a foundation of reasons and beliefs that lead me to being in favor of allowing most drugs that are now illegal.

People should be allowed to bring themselves to whatever state of mind they feel they should be in. Someone who is stupid enough to attempt to drive a car on LSD is also stupid enough to do other stupid things when sober.

Quote:

---

A bunch of pot smokers sitting around a bong -
woooo man. This is rad. Those fucking alcoholics, angry belligerent, dangerous.
~They are right and they are wrong.
I bunch of straight edges sitting around a monopoly game.
I tell you Fred. All those burnouts sitting around with their munchies, wasting time. They should be shipped off to jail. It should be a felony.
~ They are right and they are wrong.

---

Where are you going with this? I agree with neither group.

As has been said, I would be in favor of more drug education. This is essential to legalizing drugs. I didn't learn shit about drugs in school because most of my teachers were regressive pigs. Nobody in their right mind would choose to take H only because it is legal, if he knows enough about it. Responsible drug use is key and really not many people would want to end up fucked. It's quite hard to end up permanently fucked with drugs like Salvia, weed, N2O, LSD, shrooms though, anyway.

Wooh, I missed a lot in just a day - LOL!

Ok,

Quote:

---

If anything, the prohibition is going to make the drug many times more famous and influence a whole lot more people to start doing it. Those legislators are giving salvia a major spot on the map. It used to not have one.

---

That's what I've been thinking. Really, how long has salvia been in use? Years? How many people, ordinary squares (such as yours truly) ever even heard of it? I didn't untill I got into lucid dreaming and read some posts on some forum somewhere :paranoid:. One person has an experience which gets spotlighted in the media - and bam, now it's a fkn crisis and everone must heed to the lowest common denominator - the fucking idiot in question. :roll:

I haven't tried salvia myself...yet. However, out of curiosity I went through and searched it on YouTube and saw some pretty scary reactions. Granted, these were people either taking way too much or doing it in a "party" environment surrounded by idiots, but still. It almost made me change my mind. This brings me to Koritts point:

Quote:

---

As has been said, I would be in favor of more drug education. This is essential to legalizing drugs. I didn't learn shit about drugs in school because most of my teachers were regressive pigs. Nobody in their right mind would choose to take H only because it is legal, if he knows enough about it. Responsible drug use is key and really not many people would want to end up fucked.

---

Yup, I fell right for that whole "drugs are bad, don't do them" bit when I was in school (back then it was big campaign). Just as in sex education, everyone at a certain responsible age in school (probably 7th grade or so) be exposed to the effects and see what each of these drugs do. Not in a "drugs are bad, don't do them" way - such as the way I was taught. But more like "This drug will make you do this - this other one can make you end up like this. It's up to you to decide whether you want to do it or not. If you do, for god's sake do it responsibly!" Just as you hear in the beer commercials "Drink Responsibly", so should drug use be. Sex can be just as dangerous to a teen, what do we teach them? Do it responsibly - safe sex! Most importantly, don't mix any of the above either!

Naturally, the downside is exposing teens to the existance of drugs of which they may normaly never hear of - but, isn't that what they call education? More than likely they WILL hear of it... who's to say they may not have at that point already. :wtf:

IMO, I believe there are drugs which should not be legal - period. I think we all know which those are. Alcohol is a tricky one, cuz that's just something that has become a social and cultural pastime. You can go to a bar and sit around with others and enjoy the various forms of spirits. Now, there's a hookah bar not too far from where I live. That's quite a weird thing to see, acually. Sure, that's just tobacco, no one's going to get high. But could you imagine marijuana being legal and going to such a bar and having THAT on the menu?!

How about this? How about making driving (or operating heavy machinery) under the influence of certain 'drugs' a felony, but private use legal? This way, only those who are irresponsible get punished. What's wrong with doing that? :whyme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Why does everyone use the inadequacies in our judicial system and the effect of alcohol to justify the reasoning behind something else?

---

I have explained that to you a few times. Here is the answer, again.

1. Because most people think alcohol should be legal, which makes the alcohol analogy an effective means of illustrating why other drugs should be legal.

2. Because inconsistency in the law proves that at least some of the laws involved in the inconsistency are wrong and usually suggests bad intentions on the parts of the lawmakers as opposed to intentions of doing what is actually good for society, which suggests that such laws are not good for society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

That's what I've been thinking. Really, how long has salvia been in use? Years? How many people, ordinary squares (such as yours truly) ever even heard of it? I didn't untill I got into lucid dreaming and read some posts on some forum somewhere :paranoid:. One person has an experience which gets spotlighted in the media - and bam, now it's a fkn crisis and everone must heed to the lowest common denominator - the fucking idiot in question. :roll:

I haven't tried salvia myself...yet. However, out of curiosity I went through and searched it on YouTube and saw some pretty scary reactions. Granted, these were people either taking way too much or doing it in a "party" environment surrounded by idiots, but still. It almost made me change my mind. This brings me to Koritts point:


Yup, I fell right for that whole "drugs are bad, don't do them" bit when I was in school (back then it was big campaign). Just as in sex education, everyone at a certain responsible age in school (probably 7th grade or so) be exposed to the effects and see what each of these drugs do. Not in a "drugs are bad, don't do them" way - such as the way I was taught. But more like "This drug will make you do this - this other one can make you end up like this. It's up to you to decide whether you want to do it or not. If you do, for god's sake do it responsibly!" Just as you hear in the beer commercials "Drink Responsibly", so should drug use be. Sex can be just as dangerous to a teen, what do we teach them? Do it responsibly - safe sex! Most importantly, don't mix any of the above either!

Naturally, the downside is exposing teens to the existance of drugs of which they may normaly never hear of - but, isn't that what they call education? More than likely they WILL hear of it... who's to say they may not have at that point already. :wtf:

IMO, I believe there are drugs which should not be legal - period. I think we all know which those are. Alcohol is a tricky one, cuz that's just something that has become a social and cultural pastime. You can go to a bar and sit around with others and enjoy the various forms of spirits. Now, there's a hookah bar not too far from where I live. That's quite a weird thing to see, acually. Sure, that's just tobacco, no one's going to get high. But could you imagine marijuana being legal and going to such a bar and having THAT on the menu?!

How about this? How about making driving (or operating heavy machinery) under the influence of certain 'drugs' a felony, but private use legal? This way, only those who are irresponsible get punished. What's wrong with doing that? :whyme:

---

You pretty much have a moderate view on this issue. Joe. I like that something has been brought to the table as far as some neutral ground, some advancement towards any solution. Posted in your last sentence.
Look though how a social or cultural pastime has swayed you decision on alcohol consumption.
Drink responsible, and safe sex education, has that been working? Of coarse we should use them responsibly. But how many do. Sadly for the old traditions and cultural ceremonies, how many people act responsibly, young adults in particular. With no regard for sacred beliefs and self exploration. Will we go on to say trip responsibly?

Quote:

---

Because I expect a judicial system to be based on a set of guiding principles and the laws to be derived from that. Inconsistencies in laws and their reasoning are unacceptable. I expect laws to be consistent and congruent.

---

I do too. Maybe that is how they are coming to a conclusion that salvia has like effects of other psychedelics. They are being consistent.

Quote:

---

The principle that is the reasoning for allowing alcohol is that people should be allowed to intoxicate themselves to a state of total numbness to the world, by means of ingesting alcoholic fluids. There is no reason to not apply this principle to any other drug that is of a similar nature or less harmful than alcohol.

Apart from that, it's not even about the alcohol. There's no reason to ban LSD, Salvia, N2O, weed. Even if they would kill you or give you instant cancer and alcohol was illegal, those drugs shouldn't be illegal and neither should alcohol be

---

Ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

Because inconsistency in the law proves that at least some of the laws involved in the inconsistency are wrong and usually suggests bad intentions on the parts of the lawmakers as opposed to intentions of doing what is actually good for society, which suggests that such laws are not good for society.

---

This, from your perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I do too. Maybe that is how they are coming to a conclusion that salvia has like effects of other psychedelics. They are being consistent.

---

Alcohol also has effects similar to psychedelics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Alcohol also has effects similar to psychedelics.

---

Yes it does. an Alteration in a person's perception.
So?

[Edit] sorry I forgot to address this.

Quote:

---

No, I don't want people smoking salvia while driving. But I already argued how incredibly rare that would be. Plus, drug prohibition does not work

---

.
Like the ever so rare event of your golf ball apology?
Also you failed to quote me when I said twice about the difference between taking away somebodies rights - Even if we both agree it was a mistake as in alcohol. Prohibition did not work because it tried to fix something that was wrong.
If drugs were legalized, the same would come to be true in the future. This is why it is such an outrage and topic of discussion about salvia. It is not so much that it really does have hallucinogenics effects, it is more that a liberty once had is being taken away.
The right thing to do. The argument of reason therefore is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Like the ever so rare event of your golf ball apology?

---

Yes, like that. So now you see why I used that analogy? You keep talking about how salvia should be illegal because of what it might do but has not already done. Golf has already killed people. Why do you think golf should be legal? You talked about "accident", but the hitting of the golf ball is deliberate. So why do you think golf should be legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Also you failed to quote me when I said twice about the difference between taking away somebodies rights - Even if we both agree it was a mistake as in alcohol. Prohibition did not work because it tried to fix something that was wrong.

---

Should alcohol prohibition have been repealed?

All of the drugs that are illegal now were legal at one time. Was making them illegal a mistake? If so, then why not correct that mistake now by legalizing them? What exactly is the big difference between legalizing something and never making it illegal? You keep saying there is a difference, but what is that difference? Plus, you have expressed agreement with making salvia illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

If drugs were legalized, the same would come to be true in the future. This is why it is such an outrage and topic of discussion about salvia. It is not so much that it really does have hallucinogenics effects, it is more that a liberty once had is being taken away.
The right thing to do. The argument of reason therefore is moot.

---

So why exactly is taking away the liberty to smoke salvia the right thing to do? I don't see what you are saying there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, like that. So now you see why I used that analogy? You keep talking about how salvia should be illegal because of what it might do but has not already done. Golf has already killed people. Why do you think golf should be legal? You talked about "accident", but the hitting of the golf ball is deliberate. So why do you think golf should be legal?

---

Take this very example to the streets, relay this too others. See how pathetic this really is. I called this back long ago... You are grasping for straws.
How many ways can I explain human error? Go ahead and quote all my examples. PLEASE. For heavens sake. At least do that much. Surely you can find something in there that you can extract some sense out of.
Tell me you really know the difference.

Quote:

---

Should alcohol prohibition have been repealed?

---

No. For reasons we have already discussed.

Quote:

---

All of the drugs that are illegal now were legal at one time. Was making them illegal a mistake? If so, then why not correct that mistake now by legalizing them? What exactly is the big difference between legalizing something and never making it illegal? You keep saying there is a difference, but what is that difference? Plus, you have expressed agreement with making salvia illegal.

---

talking about taking something out of context. Further pulling this conversation in more directions making this so vague. Very customary in this entire disagreement.
Why not correct the mistake? Have we not said time and again prohibition was not effective? Yes we have.

Drugs back before prohibition.? That was probably the only time that only spiritual people used them on a level of any responsibility. At least move to the Fifties and sixties when drug use was introduced to the mainstream.
Good grief. Slavery was allowed at one point too.

Quote:

---

So why exactly is taking away the liberty to smoke salvia the right thing to do? I don't see what you are saying there.

---

Yes. This is getting ever more apparent. Why would I go on to explain in any length as I have, for you to just ask such a simplistic question.

Does saliva alter your perception?
Can drug use of any kind lead to experimentation of harder drugs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Take this very example to the streets, relay this too others. See how pathetic this really is. I called this back long ago... You are grasping for straws.
How many ways can I explain human error? Go ahead and quote all my examples. PLEASE. For heavens sake. At least do that much. Surely you can find something in there that you can extract some sense out of.
Tell me you really know the difference.

---

You have explained human error, and I understand human error. What you have not explained is how it relates to why golf should be legal while salvia divinorum (etc.) should be illegal. Despite all of your talking, all of your insults against my ability to understand things, and all of your expressions of frustration, you have not clearly illustrated the dichotomy. I tried really hard in the other thread to get you to simply fill in two blanks so we could get to the bottom of this, and you refused to do it with anything that qualifies as an actual answer. Now you are just resorting to, "Tell me you know the difference." No, I do NOT know the difference. I want you to tell me what it supposedly is FINALLY. Are you ever going to?

You talk over here about what is dangerous about psychedelic drugs, and then you talk over there about how killing people with golf balls is an accident. What you do not do is nail it down and explain the DICHOTOMY between golf (and recreational driving and three wheeling and so forth) and the psychedelic drugs that are nonlethal and nonaddictive. You are not explaining the difference. I challenge you to do it. I don't think you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

talking about taking something out of context. Further pulling this conversation in more directions making this so vague. Very customary in this entire disagreement.
Why not correct the mistake? Have we not said time and again prohibition was not effective? Yes we have.

---

:bang: I know! Prohibition is not effective! I keep agreeing with that! What in the world is your point? You support drug prohibition, yet you say it does not work. Your part of this discussion is extremely fuzzy. Are you playing a practical joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Drugs back before prohibition.? That was probably the only time that only spiritual people used them on a level of any responsibility. At least move to the Fifties and sixties when drug use was introduced to the mainstream.
Good grief. Slavery was allowed at one point too.

---

I was responding to the fact that YOU think salvia should be banned. Or have you suddenly changed your mind? Yet you speak negatively about banning drugs that are legal. You are all over the place. I am getting dizzy.

Making drugs illegal is exactly what made them popular. Drugs were not a major problem before they became illegal. All of your worries about salvia are going to have a much higher likelihood of becoming realities now that salvia is getting a major spot on the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Yes. This is getting ever more apparent. Why would I go on to explain in any length as I have, for you to just ask such a simplistic question.

---

Because you are giving the fuzziest arguments I have ever come across in this forum. You contradict yourself all over the place and don't answer the most important questions. You talked against banning drugs that are currently legal, such as alcohol, but then you turned around and said that banning salvia is "the right thing to do". That is a contradiction. I am asking you to clarify what in the world you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Does saliva alter your perception?
Can drug use of any kind lead to experimentation of harder drugs?

---

Yes and yes. Have people been killed by flying golf balls? Are people killed every day by recreational drivers? Then why not ban those things? Actually answer me this time.

Since when is taking a drug an accident?

When did i support prohibition?

Quote:

---

Yes and yes. Have people been killed by flying golf balls? Are people killed every day by recreational drivers? Then why not ban those things? Actually answer me this time.

---

I do not know how to explain this to you Universal mind. This is my shortcoming.
Maybe I will try to compile all my posts, you can see that I jump from here to there as you switch from one drug to another one analogy to the next.

Accountability for ones own actions. This, I know I have said.
Taking a drug is not an accident. I have no control over you having a trip and shooting my dog do I?
Had someone lost control on an ice patch, flew into my lawn and killed my dog. I had no control over this > Neither did they.
I cannot believe I am still arguing this.
Over the coarse of several days, I have chosen to ask several people and post these same questions we have went around and around about.
I have chosen (or tried ) to choose people of various ages and different ideals than myself. To see if I am so off in my ideas.
= :dreaming:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=50219

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Since when is taking a drug an accident?

---

It is not, just like hitting a golf ball is not an accident. Running over somebody while driving a car while on peyote is an accident, just like hitting somebody in the head with a golf ball is an accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

When did i support prohibition?

---

Huh? It is exactly what we are talking about. You support prohibition of psychedelic drugs and other drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I do not know how to explain this to you Universal mind. This is my shortcoming.

---

I will tell you exactly how to do it. Fill in those blanks with actual answers. That will clear up everything. Why are you so afraid to do that very simple task? Instead of making that Tiger Woods joke, you could have taken those few seconds to type a real answer, if you had one. You could have also filled in the first blank with something other than a reference to other posts and a vague statement about how peyote is like LSD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Accountability for ones own actions. This, I know I have said.
Taking a drug is not an accident. I have no control over you having a trip and shooting my dog do I?
Had someone lost control on an ice patch, flew into my lawn and killed my dog. I had no control over this > Neither did they.
I cannot believe I am still arguing this.
Over the coarse of several days, I have chosen to ask several people and post these same questions we have went around and around about.
I have chosen (or tried ) to choose people of various ages and different ideals than myself. To see if I am so off in my ideas.
= :dreaming:

---

Hitting a golf ball is not an accident. Now fill in those blanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is not, just like hitting a golf ball is not an accident. Running over somebody while driving a car while on peyote is an accident, just like hitting somebody in the head with a golf ball is an accident.

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Huh? It is exactly what we are talking about. You support prohibition of psychedelic drugs and other drugs

---

.

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?

Quote:

---

I will tell you exactly how to do it. Fill in those blanks with actual answers. That will clear up everything. Why are you so afraid to do that very simple task? Instead of making that Tiger Woods joke, you could have taken those few seconds to type a real answer, if you had one. You could have also filled in the first blank with something other than a reference to other posts and a vague statement about how peyote is like LSD.

---

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

Quote:

---

Hitting a golf ball is not an accident. Now fill in those blanks.

---

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

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I answered it. LOOK :shock:
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?

Quote:

---

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...?
~

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :lol: (For those who didn't get that, see O'nus's evolution thread.)

Quote:

---

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! :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 --->

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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"?

Quote:

---

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...?
~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :P

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :o ) 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.

Quote:

---

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 :!:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

*Shakes fist*
Hey. like wise pal! ;)

Quote:

---

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? :roll:
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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

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 judgment and decision making.

---

Actually SKA I am more than aware. I can give you two examples. First conducted on my own accord, I deprived my self of sleep. It pertained to my own experimental ideas about remote viewing. I exhibited the delirium you speak of.
Second, owning my own business, for CDL licenses you are to maintain logs for safety purposes. The BWC under their policy holds seminars and gives literatures for that purpose. So this is something that has been recognized. A decision made with out intervening of any drug. All the other arguments do not show this. We can decide that a person has chosen to neglect this advice, drive deprived of sleep and then held accountable for this. It was his poor decision. We can eliminate that the "drug" played any part of this accident.
An example of me making a judgment. Snow plowing. It can lake effect snow for days at a time. The worst since I have been in business was five straight days. Although I need all of the plow trucks on the road I had to make the call that we go in shifts

I posted one of my accounts of my salvia experiment. That one, pertaining to art, was insufficient. My other experience on psychedelics has also led me to stand where I am today. A bad trip is a terrifying thing. On the other hand, it can be a cloud nine experience. In both the good and the bad experiences (not them all) I could not use proper judgment. I also had a sitter when I had taken a higher dose.
So both are cases are empirical in nature. I have had both scenarios.
Is altering impairing? Depends I guess.
I have witnessed many occasions that recreational drug use was not handled as you and Universal most likely do.

Drugs are something that you choose to seek out and take on your own will, They alter perception? You play baseball with an intend to win. With no intention of altering your perception, you hit the pitcher and kill him.
So the ball was out of my hands after I hit the ball. same for golf. All these intentions seem to neglect the fact that the added variable that a drug was used from the beginning.
.

I wanted to bring this up a few days ago. One of my friends and I were saying how funny it is. I it is in part mocking the bad publicity that marijuana gets. But I too know that much of what is said is part of the behavior of an habitual smoker.
Have you guys seen this behavior, attitude or lifestyle?

Based on my argument towards a society, you will know what I mean.

Because I Got High



I was gonna clean my room until I got high
I was gonna get up and find the broom but then I got high
my room is still messed up and I know why
- cause I got high (repeat 3X)

I was gonna go to class before I got high
I coulda cheated and I coulda passed but I got high
I am taking it next semester and I know why
- cause I got high (repeat 3X)

I was gonna go to work but then I got high
I just got a new promotion but I got high
now I'm selling dope and I know why
- cause I got high (repeat 3X)

I was gonna go to court before I got high
I was gonna pay my child support but then I got high
they took my whole paycheck and I know why
- cause I got high (repeat 3X)

I wasnt gonna run from the cops but I was high
I was gonna pull right over and stop but I was high
Now I am a paraplegic - because I got high (repeat 3X)

I was gonna pay my car note until I got high
I was gonna gamble on the boat but then I got high
now the tow truck is pulling away and I know why
- because I got high (repeat 3X)

I was gonna make love to you but then I got high
I was gonna eat yo pussy too but then I got high
now I'm jacking off and I know why
- cause I got high (repeat 3X)

I messed up my entire life because I got high
I lost my kids and wife because I got high
now I'm sleeping on the sidewalk and I know why
- cause I got high (repeat 3X)

I'm gonna stop singing this song because I'm high
I'm singing this whole thing wrong because I'm high
and if I dont sell one copy I know why
- cause I'm high (repeat 3X)

Well this Marijuana Additude is a clich&#233; stereotype. I TRUELY hope you see that this is Afroman's JOKE, a parodie, on the rediculous Stereotypes and biased views on Marijuana.
I hope it's not your view on Reality, cause you probably don't know how many of your, hard working, respectable employees smoke Marijuana to get by from a hard days work, where as others may drink a beer for that purpose instead. There's no way to really know since if your Employees smoke Marijuana in their spare time they're very unlikely to talk about it since they face being fired and prosecution. Which is completely rediculous, but happens to be the injust, harsh reality.

Would it be any of your busyness how they spend the spare time? If your employees become non-productive, wether or not they smoke Cannabis, You can just fire them right?

No need to get way into people's personal lives and tell them what psycho-actives they CAn and CAN'T take. I will tell you this stereo-type is indeed partially based on truth as I also have seen people become unproductive and slacker-ish from smoking Marijuana; This does not represent Marijuana's effect. It rather represents the slacker's personality and it's their logical response to the relaxing effects of Marijana. A hyperactive, passionate, productive person like me has no such effects from Marijuana. Yes I relax blissfully when I smoke this herb, but I am very productive. When I am high on Marijuana I am actually MORE productive since my work is based uppon Creativity: Graphical arts and Music. So for me Marijuana means quite a different thing than to the kind of people I just mentioned.

And also:

If that's how THEY want to live their lives, unmotivated, slacker-ish: It should be their right no matter how disagreeable and dispicable you may find it. I would even agree with you these people are weak, pittyfull, passive characters without motivation, but that doesn't mean you, or me, or the government have the right to dictate their lifestyle. Not even Critisize it. It's their Life.
If they're too lazy to find a job it's pretty much THEIR problem. They will never rise out of lower or middle class: Something I'm willing to DIE for if I must.

If anyone would have the right to judge or enforce someone's Drug use or abuse it would have to be their family and close friends. The idea that there should be laws dictating people a healthy and productive lifestyle is just rediculous. What ever happened to individual freedom?

If people smoke Marijuana it is their right. And touching that right means making laws on how to live their personal lives and spend their spare time. I see prisonwalls closing in on society. How far should we go in this lawsystem concerning Drugs?

You do not believe in drug testing policies for work places? In my case, running heavy equipment?
I have been in the position to see some very high people very unsuitable for their task. Putting others at risk. That is the first priority. Their productivity another. One aspect of my entire argument.

You are right SKA. I have been very surprised a few times when I found out that some people smoked. On a regular basis too. This acknowledges that it effects us all differently. No surprise there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

You do not believe in drug testing policies for work places? In my case, running heavy equipment?
I have been in the position to see some very high people very unsuitable for their task. Putting others at risk. That is the first priority. Their productivity another. One aspect of my entire argument.

You are right SKA. I have been very surprised a few times when I found out that some people smoked. On a regular basis too. This acknowledges that it effects us all differently. No surprise there.

---

Finally we seem to understand eachother better. I think the reason you were so surprised was because these respectable, responsible, productive people that you found out smoke Marijuana create a conflict with the Slacker-nonproductive image you expressed earlier in this topic over and over again. It turned out to be not such a Realistic Image at all and these people broke the stereotype image. Am I right? Or not?

Here's my view on people high on drugs operating heavy machinery or driving cars:

They are jackasses that put other's lives in Danger and Also harm the Productivity of a Company. They SHOULD be punished serverely. EVEN though Marijuana doesn't impair people as seriously as Alcohol and I personally believe one can perfectly drive a car after having smoked 1 joint: You hold the lives of other people in your hands when you're on the road or operating heavy duty machinery. This responsibility makes it desirable to be a 100&#37; sober, cuz we are all different in our reactions to different drugs. If you want you can smoke as much marijuana, Salvia or eat as much Mushrooms or LSD as you want at HOME in your spare time when you have no responibilities.
This fits into my views of Responisble drug use.

But did you know that if one smokes Marijuana that, while the high lasts only about 4 hours, the THC stays in their blood for weeks and even months? It is the reason why, allthough I would like to, I am rather reluctant to visit the united States:

If I were to be asked to take a drug test THC would surely show up in my urine and blood, while the last time I smoked Marijuana back in The Netherlands could be months ago. Same goes for your Employees. They could be sober at work, but a drug test would show THC in their blood and urine. This doesn't at all prove wether or not they are high ATM.


Also since this Topic is about Salvia Divinorum, the Diviner's Sage:
Salvia lasts only very short, and like DMT, you are back to baseline in no time. How would that negatively influence the productivity of your Employees if they would smoke,chew or quid Salvia at times in their spare time?

Firstly, Howie, that quote you made was not me; it was Universal.

There are ultimately only a couple of stances that you can venture with.

Keeping the logic of universality in mind, let us take a look at the stances:

+ Drugs cause inebriation and, thus, can cause further mistakes and collateral damage, etc.
- This relies on physical harm and physical harm of others
- This is keeping in mind that it is the deliberate harm of oneself or potential harm

For the sake of universality, we have to apply this to everything.
- Thus, anything that potentially hurts you or can change your biological make-up and invariably influence your judgement, should be under the same criticism.
- We must question at what level it is to be "inebriated". Stochastic systems demonstrate that any little level, no matter how insignificant, has dramatic effects on a diverse amount of variables.
- Eating cake can be placed under this premise. How?

You deliberately eat cake.
The cake heightens your calorie intake and sugar, disrupts insulin levels, etc. These contribute to your eventual decaying of teeth and disruption of homeostasis.
The heightened sugar and calorie intake will cause heightened awareness (of course, depending on the homeostatic state, but, let's go from this stance), and thus, can cause someones anger to be exaggerated and kill someone.

Of course, this seems like an unlikely case because we never look at it like this. However, it is entirely plausible and cogent series of cause and effect.

Furthermore, behaviourism will fully support this foundation of logic being the biological reductionist view of all behaviour as the resulting reticular system of neurology.

+ Taking drugs is a form of experience and we should be allowed to have free choice to do whatever we want.
- Although some drugs may be bad for you, we ought to be able to make the free choice to take them or not.

This is simply refuted by the stance of Hobbes' harm principle in the fact that killing can fall under this premise. Killing hurts you (psychological and likely physical) and severely harms others (it kills them). Thus, if you accept the premise, you must also accept this.

+ But these drugs are not physically harmful.....

As we have shown, if you go this route in the sense to ban drugs, you must also ban all other forms of statistically influential variables. Considering that human biology functions on a stochastic system, anything can influence your behaviour and behaviourism is this very foundation.

+ But these drugs are not harmful and we ought to be allowed to take them....

So should rape then.

+ What stance can we take then?

You ought to be able to regulate the drugs. This is easily acceptable on a universal scale as, literally, everything is regulated (food and drugs administration [FDA]). Furthermore, the grounds for ethical debate ought to be how to regulate these drugs.

The fact is that people are aware of these drugs, they can buy these drugs, and the fact that the government does not approve of them does cause a residual desire for them. Therefore, we ought to regulate them in order to tax them, employ people, and control the residual health defects and property damage caused by drug use.

Taking a simply look at East Hastings in Vancouver, British Columbia; once the safe injection site (SIS) was implemented there was a significant drop in overdoses and deaths. Furthermore, AIDS was controlled (as the SIS offered clean needles and nurses on stand-by) and, invariably, so were deaths and health system costs.

These same results were seem across the other (few) SIS across the world. (Citations are avaible if needed).

That is my conclusion on this.

Argue for a world where all drugs are banned = ban anything that can be harmful (including cake).
Argue for a world where we can freely take drugs without regulation = argue for a world where you can freely rape people.

The only thing left, it seems to me, is to argue for regulation.

What do you think...?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

+ But these drugs are not harmful and we ought to be allowed to take them....

So should rape then.

" blablabla"
That is my conclusion on this.

Argue for a world where all drugs are banned = ban anything that can be harmful (including cake).
Argue for a world where we can freely take drugs without regulation = argue for a world where you can freely rape people.

The only thing left, it seems to me, is to argue for regulation.

What do you think...?
~

---

O'nus, your Comparison of Drugs and Rape really goes beyond my reasoning.
Rape is Psychologically and Physically harmfull. It is the ultimate disrespect and abuse of your fellow humans and most importantly: it is HARMING OTHERS.

Drugs, with exception to Cocaine, Alcohol, Meth and Heroin, are not at all likely to harm others, And the Drugs we mentioned, the Natural Hallucinogens, are not Physically harmfull. Why you compair a world where you could freely take drugs to a world where you can freely rape people really is beyond me.

You're not on Drugs are you? ;)
I really DO agree with you on that the best way to REGULATE drugs is to legalise, tax and control them (Purity, Age restriction and Mandatory Education) BUT... :P
Please explain me the logic you use to compair free morals concerning drug-use with free morals concerning sexual Agression; which is what Rape is. To me this makes as much sense as a cow being a very dangerious animal to be feared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

But did you know that if one smokes Marijuana that, while the high lasts only about 4 hours, the THC stays in their blood for weeks and even months? It is the reason why, allthough I would like to, I am rather reluctant to visit the united States:

If I were to be asked to take a drug test THC would surely show up in my urine and blood, while the last time I smoked Marijuana back in The Netherlands could be months ago. Same goes for your Employees. They could be sober at work, but a drug test would show THC in their blood and urine. This doesn't at all prove wether or not they are high ATM.

---

If you're high it's in your blood, if you've been in it's the piss but not blood, if it's long ago it's in the hair but neither urine nor blood. Would be cool if it stayed in your blood for weeks though. Wwwwoooooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

O'nus, your Comparison of Drugs and Rape really goes beyond my reasoning.
Rape is Psychologically and Physically harmfull. It is the ultimate disrespect and abuse of your fellow humans and most importantly: it is HARMING OTHERS.

---

I was following from the premise that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want even if it hurts them. This is ignoring the hurt of others which is why I empahsised rape as it acknolwedges the harm done to others.

Quote:

---

You're not on Drugs are you? ;)

---

What makes you think that?

Quote:

---

I really DO agree with you on that the best way to REGULATE drugs is to legalise, tax and control them (Purity, Age restriction and Mandatory Education) BUT... :P
Please explain me the logic you use to compair free morals concerning drug-use with free morals concerning sexual Agression; which is what Rape is. To me this makes as much sense as a cow being a very dangerious animal to be feared.

---

I hope the above clarifies it for you then.

~

Your premise is sound if the world was a math equation. I understand what your reasoning is. Not all things can be determined in this manner. That is the human paradox. Our Onus?

You could apply this same proposition to any legislation no? It is unreasonable.
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 difference between any of those and then the deduction of an added chemical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I was following from the premise that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want even if it hurts them. This is ignoring the hurt of others which is why I empahsised rape as it acknolwedges the harm done to others.

I hope the above clarifies it for you then.

~

---

Well I can assure you I smoke might masses of Marijuana: But I'm hurting no one with it. I sometimes go on a Spiritual Journey with Magic Mushrooms, but I've never hurt anyone with that either*!*, I've done LSD 3 times and I haven't hurt anyone with that either. Not even myself. So I don't know what you mean by the pain that the use of such drugs cause to others.

I find your comparison unrealistic and it lacks common sense. That's why I, in a joking manner, asked if you were on drugs. Making a parody on your, and howie's Claims that Drugs impair decision making and behaviour and here's the PERFECT example how:


-----------------------------------



*!* Actually while tripping quite serverely on Mushrooms with my best friend we went for a walk through Downtown Rotterdam once. We were having a good time and sat down with a guy who was just to drunk to reason. We chatted a bit with him and we exchanged views about alcohol and Mushrooms.

A brittish guy came walking our way with some friends. He was VERY drunk and he looked me in the eyes and wouldn't look away. He asked me"Whataya lookin at?" in an agressive tone. I said"Well I'm looking at you" He found that enough reason to stand close to me and hang over me threatening. I was sitting on the ground and I felt threatened so all I did was stand up and look him in the eyes.

He started softly but gradually harder and harder hitting me in the groin when his dutch, sober friend pulled him away from me and apologised for his friend's behaviour telling us he drank too much alcohol. It was true because he walked a few more meters away from us and started puking intensly.

I could have easily punched him down since I was seriously 1 head if not more taller an much broader than him. So much for the Myth that someone on Mushrooms is likely cause harm to others in any way. I was just waaay to peacefully high to even consider something as low and pittyfull as participating in Violence. We can, concluding from this incident, however not say the same of alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Your premise is sound if the world was a math equation. I understand what your reasoning is. Not all things can be determined in this manner. That is the human paradox. Our Onus?

---

All things can be understand, or can only be understand, through these means. For now, anyway. But that is a different topic.

Quote:

---

You could apply this same proposition to any legislation no? It is unreasonable.
With regards to the entire premise. You are accepting this argument as moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy.

---

You can apply this method to all legislation. However, none do. This is the problem. Governments and capitalism function on a selectionist method which is severely subject to bias. Perhaps drugs are not legal because they make more profit by manipulating them on the side outside of government systems? Of course, this is room for conspiracy, but just an idea.. (which I believe would be a very plausible one, wouldn't you?).

Otherwise, how is it unreasonable...?

Quote:

---

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.

---

The difference between...?

Quote:

---

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

---

My point was; where do you draw the line? My exaggerated examples were to exploit the extreme sides in order to illustrate the illogical process of legislation.

What do you think..?

~

Quote:

---

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?

---

The end result was your argument. You said salvia, peyote/mescaline, mushrooms, and DMT should be illegal because of what the end result could end up being, so you speculate. That has been your argument. The inebriation and alterations in judgment have been the premise for your conclusion, but your conclusion has been that bystanders could get hurt if people do those drugs. Right? Well, I have proven that golf poses the danger of bringing about the same outcome by posting real life instances of it. I have also made the point that hitting a golf ball is deliberate. I have also pointed out that once a golf ball has been hit and is in the air, the hitter not only has a mere lack of control of it. He has ZERO control. So you still have not explained a relevant difference.

YOU ALSO DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION WHICH HAD A "1." BEFORE IT TO SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION! WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THAT EXTREMELY RELEVANT QUESTION????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

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.

---

I can find death statistics and stories on all of those things you just listed, and I have already posted three golf death stories. It is your turn to do it with salvia, which this thread is primarily about. I challenge you to prove to me that peyote, mushrooms, DMT (the other drugs we have been focussing on) have killed or injured more people than hair dryers or sports or plugging in lamps. They have not. While you might be able to find a little something about peyote or mushrooms that happened somewhere in the entire course of human history, you will not be able to find ANY such stories about salvia or DMT even though native cultures have been using them for thousands of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

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?
[/color]

---

Then you add an extra variable. We are not comparing golf to mind altered golf. We are comparing four specific psychedelic drugs, mainly salvia divinorum, to golf in general. A golf ball in the air is not under the control of anybody. That is relevant. A golf ball is deliberately hit. That is relevant. Golf balls kill people even when the person hitting the ball is sober. That is relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

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

---

That is false, as I just illustrated. Now tell me the answer to the million dollar question... WHY SHOULD GOLF BE LEGAL???????????????????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

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!

---

You could not find juicy stories on the four psychedelics I keep bringing up, including the one that is the overall topic of this thread, so you went and found stuff about LSD. Nice one. LSD is the psychedelic that probably comes second to PCP in terms of being a danger to bystanders, but it still very rarely causes death or injury for bystanders. It is also not lethal and not addictive. Now tell me your excuse for why you have brought us to this diversion.

Why do you think golf should be legal? (Repeated dodging shows awareness of being stumped. You know that, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

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

---

Nostradamus, is that you? Your prophecy came to be fulfilled.

As for golf, the universality of logic can be applied to golf. Regulation of golf integrates rules and consequences for unethical behaviour (ie. deliberately hitting someone with a golf club is assault, etc.).

Agreed...?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

As for golf, the universality of logic can be applied to golf. Regulation of golf integrates rules and consequences for unethical behaviour (ie. deliberately hitting someone with a golf club is assault, etc.).

Agreed...?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

I sometimes go on a Spiritual Journey with Magic Mushrooms, but I've never hurt anyone with that either*!

---

You live in Amsterdam, where mushrooms are legal. So please tell us about the horror story Amsterdam has turned into over that. I tried to learn about the tragedy Ole Miss has become since a head shop a mile from the campus started selling salvia divinorum many years ago, but my research came up completely empty. That makes me think that maybe Howie is just speculating about unsubstantiated what ifs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes.



You live in Amsterdam, where mushrooms are legal. So please tell us about the horror story Amsterdam has turned into over that. I tried to learn about the tragedy Ole Miss has become since a head shop a mile from the campus started selling salvia divinorum many years ago, but my research came up completely empty. That makes me think that maybe Howie is just speculating about unsubstantiated what ifs.

---

Actually I live in Rotterdam, which is also a city in The Netherlands. Magic Mushrooms are (still) legal in the Netherlands. There have been a series of mushroom incidents with tourists. These tourists were in most cases also loaded with Alcohol and other Drugs. It is hard to determine what caused them to freak out. As you see from my Bad trip it can bring extreme ungrounded anxiety, but it didn't drive me to make impaired judgement and stupid decisions. I'm guessing it took a number of other, extra factors that drove them over the edge. I tried but couldn't find any scientific, organised reports about these incidents where I could find the details(Mushroom dose, Setting, Other Drugs found in their blood, Psychological backgrounds..etc) so really not much can be concluded from these incidents untill we can access the specific details of these incidents.

ONE factor that in some of the incidents DEFENITELY played a role was POOR education on Mushrooms and a Desirable Set&Setting.

Having had as many Mushroom experiences as I have I can tell you walking through Downtown Amsterdam in a MushroomTrip is THE recipe for a Bad Trip. In fact I find walking sober through downtown Amsterdam to allready be a Bad Trip on it's own. It's chaos.
If you're in a state of great Psychological excitement, Experiencing colorfull and dense ghostlike hallucinations and being extremely oversensative to external impulses: can you imagine how Downtown Amsterdam is a Nightmare on Mushrooms?

Education is once again the Key. We are still far behind in proper education.

I wonder if anyone actually ever read the Risk Assesment Report from CAM I posted Earlier. It sais a whole lot on this subject:
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...089#post657089

And Salvia is such a stupifying experience that you are very unlikely to hurt yourself while under it's influence...I don't think you'll be going anywhere for while :P I have tried 3 times but failed to trip on Salvia but I know the stories of people who have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

All things can be understand, or can only be understand, through these means. For now, anyway. But that is a different topic.

---

I had a feeling this would come up with the response I gave. And I understand this idea as well. That is why I completely understand your premises for your comparison with drugs and rape. This method can be applied to legislation, but should it? Doesn't it need some leeway to impose logical reason? That's what gives us the power over a systematic response. It allows us to use experience, judgment, knowledge etc. Human traits. I do agree this does open up the flood gates to bias.
So you have a set of rules based on those traits I described, then particular to each individual case, the judicial system has the flexibility to work on a more fair basis. We are human and this will inevitability lead to error. Is that better or worse than following a solid, unwaivering doctrine?

It seems that you are leaning that way.

Quote:

---

Otherwise, how is it unreasonable.

---

Just that. Not having the faculty of reason. We eliminate variables. Which in this case is drug uses. We can see we have a ton of variables within this discussion.
When someone like myself has experienced the effects of these drugs, adding the fact that I would actually like to use many drugs more often I logically conclude that for the better they should not be legal.
On the other hand, there are other users that deem the use as their right. They have come to a conclusion that they do not think that the effects on their mind, body, morals or society either exist at all or do not warrants a reason to make drugs illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

This method can be applied to legislation, but should it? Doesn't it need some leeway to impose logical reason? That's what gives us the power over a systematic response. It allows us to use experience, judgment, knowledge etc. Human traits. I do agree this does open up the flood gates to bias.

---

Yes, and a tyrant for a leader. Open the flood gates to bias? It IS bias in its incarnate form. What you are suggesting is paternalism which is the same as a parent making all the decisions for you and "looking out for what is in your best interests". Which is where you must answer, not only how do you know, but where do you draw the line for the sake of unviersality? Because this line of thinking is very inclined to be subject to hypocrisy which is what I think universal mind was trying to show.

Quote:

---

So you have a set of rules based on those traits I described, then particular to each individual case, the judicial system has the flexibility to work on a more fair basis. We are human and this will inevitability lead to error. Is that better or worse than following a solid, unwaivering doctrine?

It seems that you are leaning that way.

---

The universal application of regulation in conjunction with the harm principle is a very appropriate way to approach politics. Overall, I would suggest socialism. However, I hate political debate as it inevitably and inexorably leads to aporia.

Quote:

---

Just that. Not having the faculty of reason. We eliminate variables. Which in this case is drug uses. We can see we have a ton of variables within this discussion.

---

Wait; you are saying that we ought to utilize unreason? Politics ought to strive to pontificate nonsense?

Quote:

---

When someone like myself has experienced the effects of these drugs, adding the fact that I would actually like to use many drugs more often I logically conclude that for the better they should not be legal.

---

This is the very basis for paternalistic government. I would also suspect, then, that you would control your children to the point of forcing belief systems upon them because "it is for their benefit".

Unfortunately, I must assert that I thoroughly disagree with such a controlling approach to the world. It isolates experience, life, and discourse. Your life is not the life of others. The fact is that drugs have actually helped many people and many people enjoy drugs. Your experience is not universal and not what all people experience.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, there are other users that deem the use as their right. They have come to a conclusion that they do not think that the effects on their mind, body, morals or society either exist at all or do not warrants a reason to make drugs illegal.

---

This is of course simply ignorance which we can brush off with education.

~

Let's keep this Conversation Clear and not stray too far with too many Comparisons, or in no time this Topic will become devoted to Golf :P


It is so very simple: DMT, Salvia, Mushrooms, Ayahuasca, Peyote/San Pedro Cacti, LSD and Marijuana are not risky drugs at all. A society where these entheogens would be free to buy, sell and consume would not at all be a high risk society. Alot of cultures, especially meso-american cultures, have used these entheogens for divination, healing and the finding of lost objects for 1000ns of years and, like Universal Mind said, they killed less people over the course of 1000nds of years than hairdryers or Golf. In fact non of these kill anyone, because they're simply hardily Toxic and the case of someone loosing it and doing something really stupid harming themselves is very rare. You guys still seem to believe that if one Eats Mushrooms or smokes Salvia one believes they can fly. Which is a rediculously distorted view of the reality of these drugs.

I simply haven't heard a good argument against these Entheogens. I think it has something to do with you guys, somewhere deep down inside, agreeing with us that these substances are innocent enough to be considered perfectly safe.


Next time I have a Psychedelic Trip I'm going to install a Camera and film it. I'll do a couple of " Reasoning and Decision making" tests which will show my level of Clearity and responsibility. I will upload the video to YouTube and post the link here. I think it would tear apart the current image you have of the Psychedelic Inebriation.

I am not sure where you think I disagree with you Ska.

When I say regulation, I mean completely. A toaster can be used to kill someone, does that mean it should be illegal? No, but the regulation of behaviour in conjunction with objects can be.

Perhaps you can clear this concern up..?

~

O'nus. How much regulations should we make to make our lives "Safe and responsible"?
If someone uses a toaster to kill someone, they will be punished: NOT for abusing a toaster, but for Murder. Simple.

Now how does this apply to Drugs such as Mushrooms, LSD, DMT and Salvia?

Wouldn't life be rediculous if there were regulations for every detail in life which may cause trouble? What kind of society would that be? One where we can be arrested and put in jail for eating unhealthy, fat foods? Or for playing Golf irresponsibly? Or for drinking too much Coffee? It would become quite a rediculous, prison-society where papa government would dictate every detail of our lives.

How far does law-enforcement and regulation have to invade into our personal lives and our freedom?
THAT is my concern. Very much so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

O'nus. How much regulations should we make to make our lives "Safe and responsible"?
If someone uses a toaster to kill someone, they will be punished: NOT for abusing a toaster, but for Murder. Simple.

Now how does this apply to Drugs such as Mushrooms, LSD, DMT and Salvia?

Wouldn't life be rediculous if there were regulations for every detail in life which may cause trouble? What kind of society would that be? One where we can be arrested and put in jail for eating unhealthy, fat foods? Or for playing Golf irresponsibly? Or for drinking too much Coffee? It would become quite a rediculous, prison-society where papa government would dictate every detail of our lives.

How far does law-enforcement and regulation have to invade into our personal lives and our freedom?
THAT is my concern. Very much so.

---

You are very right and, I must re-iterate that this is not actually what I would desire. Obviously you are inclining to a totalitarian state which I suggested earlier. This is why I am now trying to focus entirely on regulation rather than anything further (unless it is just a euphemism). But it is just, what I think to be, the best resolve we can come up with; for now.

Otherwise, I encourage a Socialist political atmosphere or Anarchy. How many wars can you have in a society living in anarchy? In Anarchy, it is impossible to have a war on such a grand scale as any other political scheme simply because of the lack of globalization and communication. You might have a few tribe wars, but not world wars.

Anyways, it delves into political debate which I firmly hold is aporetic. If I had to say anything while keeping in mind that anything in this topic is debatable (literally anything) then I would say a free socialist society. I do encourage the legalisation of drugs even to the point of no regulation. However, it just would not work in society right now. We need to make steps towards it simply because of the stubborness of other people.

It is really conjecture that I am ponitifcating now so, feel free to share criticism. Just keep in mind that I am not intending to be "right" or "the most logical" but simply sharing my "idea".

~

Okay so what do you mean by Regulations? Regulations for everything? Wouldn't Regulations mean mini-laws?

Don't you think that there is any way of finding a way half way in between the way you describe anarchism and the free market/democracy we live in now? No need to see it black and white, one way or the other.

I say our Free market is a fine thing, but too much liberalism is what's causing the hypocritical profit-based laws and society. Too much conservatism is what's making our system too stark and unflexible to respond to new problems that come with new times and changes. I think more Socialism-influence would be a good thing, but yet again not too much so our wonderfull free market economy doesn't suffer under it's laws.


As I see it we don't nececairily have to be EITHER Liberal, OR Socialistic, OR Kapitalistic.
I see more and, and, and-oppertunities. I think a mixture of these meeting to the demands of society and flexible enough to change when nececairy would be the proper system to rule us.

When it comes to drugs conservatism is being very unflexible and not responding to the problems their current drug-prohibition is causing.

Anarchy is something I've always found a very unrealistic ideology: It's VERY good at pointing out what's so messed up about the systems of controls, but doesn't come up with a solution as to how it SHOULD be in my eyes. If Anarchy were to prevail, it would simply become the law of the jungle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Okay so what do you mean by Regulations? Regulations for everything? Wouldn't Regulations mean mini-laws?

---

I suppose ideally. Like I said, it seems to be the best path for North America, anyway. Do I like it? No. Do I like where it may lead to? Yes, which is what I think you are referring to. I think it is a necessary first step in that direction. Of course, with the consequence of the potential regulation of everything to the point of control of everything.

This is more or less political conversation and, honestly, I am not really sure how to stand on it. Thus, my opinion is rather flexible and, I just wanted to let you know, that I find your thoughts very contributional not only to the thread, but my developing thoughts.

Quote:

---

Don't you think that there is any way of finding a way half way in between the way you describe anarchism and the free market/democracy we live in now? No need to see it black and white, one way or the other.

---

I realize the consequences of operating on a binary mentality. My point is simply to be as parsimonious and as universal as possible for the sake of not being a hypocrit or a bias tyrant.

I am not sure what a middle ground would be. I often think the whole world under one free government would be a good step. It would be awkward for the economy, but it seems to be a possibility..? I am not sure..

Quote:

---

I say our Free market is a fine thing, but too much liberalism is what's causing the hypocritical profit-based laws and society. Too much conservatism is what's making our system too stark and unflexible to respond to new problems that come with new times and changes. I think more Socialism-influence would be a good thing, but yet again not too much so our wonderfull free market economy doesn't suffer under it's laws.

As I see it we don't nececairily have to be EITHER Liberal, OR Socialistic, OR Kapitalistic.
I see more and, and, and-oppertunities. I think a mixture of these meeting to the demands of society and flexible enough to change when nececairy would be the proper system to rule us.

---

Yes, I fully support an ecclectic approach. I hope that it eventually formulates a socialist like party rather than a sovereign body so that our classes are not severely gapped or solidified.

However, the approach you offer is very subject to bias and selectionism and this is the problem with politics; you will always be. There will always be people who disagree with your political stance (mostly liberal vs paternal).

Quote:

---

When it comes to drugs conservatism is being very unflexible and not responding to the problems their current drug-prohibition is causing.

---

I entirely agree. No argument here.

Quote:

---

Anarchy is something I've always found a very unrealistic ideology: It's VERY good at pointing out what's so messed up about the systems of controls, but doesn't come up with a solution as to how it SHOULD be in my eyes. If Anarchy were to prevail, it would simply become the law of the jungle.

---

Perhaps I should define how I am using anarchy; a world without government or global communication. In this world, there cannot be world wars, technological advancements (thus, climate problems), etc. The question is, obviously, the aesthetic of living and the venture of knowledge. However, I must say that I have often questioned the real purpose of knowledge and how it always seems to inexorably lead to the conclusion that I should just simply make love to my girl.

I am really unsure what to say about the political stance but I do not think that we should lead to slippery slope to either a paternal sovereign government ("i know what's best for you!") or a pure hedonistic liberal body ("do whatever you want"). I can only hope that by taking an ecclectic approach, with some regulation and monitoring, that a new form of politics can arise.

Other than that.. this pretty much illustrates why I typically avoid politics; I feel hopeless.

~

Way to go California!

Regulated only to those under the age of 18! Now hopefully the rest of the US can follow with this fair regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

Way to go California!

Regulated only to those under the age of 18! Now hopefully the rest of the US can follow with this fair regulation.

---

That is ssssssssoooooooooo much better than what has happened in other states. However, I think the state goverments should have just kept their mouths shut about it and never put it on the map. Now teenagers in California are going to start doing the stuff in larger numbers (Though it will never be that popular.) and trying to look cool by being idiots with a now illegal substance. Salvia was not a popular drug at all before the legislation started getting passed. If salvia were a cable station, it would have been channel 48236718305795735417303 before the legislation craze. The politicians are pushing it toward being more like The Gardening Channel or something. But... I think it's awesome that California passed a much smarter law than Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, and other states.

SALVIA is ILLEGAL for the SAME REASON PSILOCYBIN and its COMPONENTS are ILLEGAL.

Bill Hicks Explains it All... Skip to 1:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeIv-i7aVwE



The Government does not want you to have this knowledge.

ok...

[1] - If you smoke enough salvia for it to do anything more intense than a little tingle throughout your body (hallucinations) then you are incapable of driving. By incapable I mean if you were in your car with it started the doors locked and you seat buckled to the driver's seat with the vehicle in park as soon as it hit you you would not be able to even get out of the driveway.

So driving is not even an issue sadly enough.

[2] - If you've ever gotten to level 5 of salvia nearing level 6 it is possible for the world itself to melt, turn into hands, you can roll around reality on a sphereical axis while meating through and combining with inanamate objects, etc., etc., etc.

Note: I'm not going to explain it i'm just going to say it; Noone becomes a habitual salvia smoker. Use your imagination to think of what a bad trip might be like and how that may affect a person's opinion of salvia. They either stop or they control it responsibly and do this VERY infrequently.

[3] - There should be at the VERY VERY least a little packet in kind with an instructional manual so people know what they're getting into if they think of buying it.

[4] - Sheltered children are the most common, but many kids these days try many things by accident and just out of simple peer-pressure and because of this salvia needs to only be allowed to be sold by people who have a license to sell it, much like liquor stores except for at head shops.

all i have time to say right now i could write multiple books on this but gotta get goin...later


Mutex

I watched a kid about 15 years old at the very most purchase some salvia at the flea market yesterday. If you ask me, someone who's used the drug with success, that is WAAAAY too young to be experimenting with salvia. I asked the kid if he'd ever done it before and he said he had, but that didn't convince me. He really seemed like he had no idea what he was in for.

Apparently it's illegal as of July 1st here in Florida. What a step in the wrong direction.. people are ridiculous.

eLiSD, you are absolutely right, but the video was removed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCf2fJsBxRc
Probably a different video

Governments thrive off of division, if people were able to use psychedelics responsibly, people would come to realizations that the government doesn't want them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ape

Governments thrive off of division, if people were able to use psychedelics responsibly, people would come to realizations that the government doesn't want them to.

---

Yah, well - I'm kind of convinced that we are evolving according to the great 'cosmic plan' of some sort. Their efforts are only going to push the movement towards personal enlightenment and conscious awareness even harder; resulting in quicker process.

3 more years....

Hi ape - great to have another Ohioan on board :goodjob2:

Salvia divinorum is now illegal in Mississippi too. I feel so much safer now! :?

I watched that CBS video and in no way did it offer any logical correlation between the kid's suicide and Salvia usage. Because he used salvia, he committed suicide. Bullshit. He was probably using that drug BECAUSE he was depressed. Fuck the mainstream media, all the assholes who worship it, and all their false analogies.

Add Ohio to the list, as of April 1st (yeah, was hoping it was a joke, unfortunately not...)

Fucking Gov. Strickland. :bslap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Add Ohio to the list, as of April 1st (yeah, was hoping it was a joke, unfortunately not...)

Fucking Gov. Strickland. :bslap:

---

Yup. Ohio is kinda known for limiting personal freedoms. I have out-of-state friends who call it "No-hio" for all of the laws we've passed like this.

And yet, we have a medical marijuana bill that's waiting to be heard in committee.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/a...0343-i-127.htm

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/b...?ID=127_SB_343

The second one's got a bunch of unnecessary stuff in it, but has links to other things related to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Add Ohio to the list, as of April 1st (yeah, was hoping it was a joke, unfortunately not...)

Fucking Gov. Strickland. :bslap:

---

:shock: I thought that happened a long time ago. We usually are near the front of the pack on empty tough-on-crime legislation.

We passed it a long time ago, it just takes a while for things to go into effect.

Ohio is kinda slow on a few things. :imslow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Add Ohio to the list, as of April 1st (yeah, was hoping it was a joke, unfortunately not...)

Fucking Gov. Strickland. :bslap:

---

Yes! There won't be a few people in Ohio tripping out on their couches for ten minutes at a time, about twice a year each (because there will be lots more due to the publicity). I can safely go into Ohio now!!! :uhm:

I wanna try Salvia so bad, but I'm underage and I don't know where to buy it. My dad definetely wouldn't buy it for me, and I'm not too sure my mom would either.

You know the world has gone down hill when plants can be illegal. I mean come on...

Prohibition of mind altering substances is one the most ignorant and offensive policies in practice to day. Limiting what plants are allowed to be grown and what states of mind we are allowed to have is insanity.

Enjoy your natural right to the plants of this earth and ignore the "law" set up by a small group of individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UM

There won't be a few people in Ohio tripping out on their couches for ten minutes at a time, about twice a year each (because there will be lots more due to the publicity)

---

Haha, yeah that's about as often as I use it. Hell, I pretty much have to schedule myself a time to use it because it's not something I ever crave or anything. I skipped the last time I planned on meditating with it due to lazyness.

I just regret never getting the chance to purchase the 20x. Now I don't know now if I'll ever have a 'breakthrough' with it. :(

i tried it a few times a while ago.
the last time i did it it was the scariest moment of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elis D.

SALVIA is ILLEGAL for the SAME REASON PSILOCYBIN and its COMPONENTS are ILLEGAL.

Bill Hicks Explains it All... Skip to 1:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeIv-i7aVwE



The Government does not want you to have this knowledge.

---

DAMMIT!! They removed the video from youtube...i want the TRUTH. What exactly does he say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

DAMMIT!! They removed the video from youtube...i want the TRUTH. What exactly does he say?

---

PLEASE!! what is it>??

this herb isn't even that good, the effects don't last long and the sensation is all THAT mind-blowing. the kush is way better, though perhaps a mix of both would be pretty interesting, mm, I haven't tried that yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AirRick101

this herb isn't even that good, the effects don't last long and the sensation is all THAT mind-blowing. the kush is way better, though perhaps a mix of both would be pretty interesting, mm, I haven't tried that yet.

---

varies from individual to individual..

Quote:

---

the effects don't last long and the sensation is all THAT mind-blowing

---

if smoked it doesnt last that long; ingested, however, is another story. So I've heard, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AirRick101

this herb isn't even that good, the effects don't last long and the sensation is all THAT mind-blowing. the kush is way better, though perhaps a mix of both would be pretty interesting, mm, I haven't tried that yet.

---

It only works when smoked if you get a HUGE hit (best out of a bong) and hold it for 15-30 seconds. Also, the leaves don't work well. It takes at least a 5x extract. 10x and above are very effective if smoked the way I talked about. I have watched people take just regular hits of it and not get much of an effect. If you do it the way I described, it should turn reality inside out for you.

It's a horrible trip everytime. Maybe a lower extract than 80x would be different, I don't know. Tried it 4-5 times and each time was pure dread.

Still against making any drug illegal though. It's illegal here in Florida now, and I kinda wanted to try weaker extract or something. I don't see why it is illegal. One good hit with a torch/bong/ held in for 30 seconds and you won't be moving far for 10 mins. Then it wears off and you're back to normal................. Alcohol is more far more dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

80x

---

:shock: My God. I didn't know such a thing existed.

Quote:

---

My God. I didn't know such a thing existed.

---

No shit - I'd question the validity of what you were sold. 40x is the highest I've seen, and I would be reluctant to even go that potent.

Quote:

---

My God. I didn't know such a thing existed.

---

Yeah, lets not get into that whole argument again. As I mentioned earlier in a post - I think making it illegal for public use would be enough - definitely ok for private use.

Here it goes up to 100x

http://www.dockunda.com/salvia_d/buy...ract_frame.htm

And I think I've even read of 120.