02-10-2005, 07:18 PM | #1 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: io-where?
|
The use of hallucinogenic drugs as a means of worship.
A: Outrage
Q: What emotion am I currently feeling towards not only the government of the United States but governments all across the globe. Hallucinogenic drugs, wether it be psilocybic mushrooms, marijuana, salvia, yaje, or peyote, are against the law. Why? Entheogenetic drugs have been used by millions of people of all civilizations, Greeks, various Indo-European civilizations, Native American and Latin American civilizations, all throughout the course of human history have used etheogenetics to expand their view of God and explore their inner consciousness. It seems only Christian and Islamic religions view these as evil. Now, the US government under the Controlled Substances Act files both psilocybin and marijuana under Schedule I which are drugs that have a high potential for abuse and no recognizable medical use. Marijuana has proven it's medicinal use, look at how native cultures have used it for centries; psilocybin has even been studied to treat obessive compulsive disorder, and peyote is outlawed even for Native American religious ceremonies. How's that for freedom of religion? Even psychologists aren't able to study these great mind expanding drugs to even unlock their further benficial traits (of which there could be hundreds). To quote Timothy Leary's defense in court: Quote:
Mods, if this doesn't belong here feel free to move it.
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary Last edited by Fourtyrulz; 02-10-2005 at 07:26 PM.. |
|
02-11-2005, 05:25 AM | #3 (permalink) |
Guest
|
Leary wasn't arrested because he was a drug user, he was arrested because of his outspoken political beliefs and activities on charges of drug use.
But why is it outlawed? Because kids would be out in the streets using the stuff to get high, rather than using it in the way you describe, to extend and explore the realm of their consciousness. Fewer people are as interested in cosmic enlightenment as you might imagine. |
02-11-2005, 06:38 AM | #4 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
|
Quote:
a) is getting high really a bad thing? We already allow all kinds of pain-relieving/pleasure-inducing drugs to be sold, alcohol, nicotine, beef, why not allow more choices? Could it be because the pharmacuetical companies want you to pay top dollar for new expensive pain-relievers and drugs rather than stuff you can grow in your backyard? Pain-relief (for the kind of pain every workingman feels when he whores himself out to the man 10 or 12 hours every day of his life) is a legitimate medical concern, and these substances provide just that. b) Just because people might abuse something is not a reason to outlaw it. Some people really are interested in cosmic enlightenment and they are being denied that opportunity because of people's irrational fear of drugs. If people abuse drugs and they die, so what? Why should it be the government's job to protect people from their own actions? Of course, there's also an economic aspect to outlawing drugs. If people did more drugs they might be less focused on bullshit material goods used to fill the empty void inside them. That might make them less productive workers, and we can't have that. If you worked less and enjoyed life a little more, where would that leave the man? He relies on taking part of your salary to keep him in the lifestyle he has become accustomed to. If you produced less for him he might have to forget about a new car purchase this month. Life is empty, painful and meaningless. Drugs relieve some of that pain and let some people accept their fate. How can that be a bad thing? It's better than working under the delusion that you'll achieve the American dream someday. And in case you are wondering, no, I don't take illegal drugs. Not because I don't want to (I do) but because they are illegal and I don't want to go to prison and be ass-raped.
__________________
------------- You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here. |
|
02-11-2005, 07:00 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: io-where?
|
I'll go you one further zen-tom...
You said that we can't legalize drugs because of the risk of people abusing them. What about cigarettes? The only taxed and completely legal way to slowly kill yourself (and those around you) for about 5 bucks at a time. I've even asked some people why they smoke and they tell me the same thing, "It's my choice wether I want to or not." So what difference is it then if they choose to smoke cigarettes or I choose to take entheogenetic drugs for spiritual reasons? Besides, as long as I do not harm another person or interfere with their lives what power does the government have of blocking my spiritual paths and goals? They won't even let Native Americans use peyote in their centuries old religious rituals. In case you're wondering. Yes, I use hallucinogenic drugs on occasion as a means of obtaining an altered state of consiousness during meditation or just some good ol' fasioned introversion, seeking inner peace...you know, outrageous, illegal stuff like that.
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary Last edited by Fourtyrulz; 02-11-2005 at 07:04 AM.. |
02-11-2005, 08:20 AM | #6 (permalink) | |
has a plan
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
|
Quote:
Sure you have the occasional person that would use such drugs for a mind altering experience to understand their conscious and sub conscious better, but how many see it as that?
__________________
|
|
02-11-2005, 10:28 AM | #7 (permalink) |
Guest
|
Just for the record, I didn't say I agreed with the reasons it is outlawed, but those are the reasons (as I see them). That doesn't mean I don't agree with them either though
However, misuse of highly psycho-active substances can lead to extremely unpleasant consequences. I know this because I have been down that road. Strangely enough, many of my difficulties vanished as soon as I laid off the mindbending drugs. Yes, I used them both for concious-expanding reasons, as well as getting high and going to parties - and I broke the law in doing so. Had I ever been caught, I doubt I would have gone to jail. There is a difference in there being a law in place, and how that law is enforced - I'm not one to avoid doing something because the law tells me so. But I'm also not one for taking huge risks with my liberty either. Anyway, making something illegal does not remove it from existance, it simply limits its availability. Master_Shake, I don't get your point about getting high and not paying more money to 'the man'. If drugs were legal, who do you think would be profiting from them? Yes, it would be 'The Man'. He really doesn't care what you do, but as long as you require a need for organised distribution (of whatever product) he will be there. You could try mixing up your own medicines in the basement, but you will have first bought the basement from 'The Man', the chemicals and supplies from 'The Man' and so on and so forth. Who is this mythical person and what's your problem with him anyway? Also, you are unlikely to be 'ass-raped' for carrying a tab of acid, or a bag of shrooms. FortyRules, I take your point on the cigarrettes/alcohol thing - but again, laws never were supposed to make sense, they are organic things laid down by history. What I do think is that the supply should be restricted one way or another, and if it isn;t restricted through the tool of illegality, it should be restricted via some different method. No the state is not there to stop people from doing silly things, but it is responsible for cleaning up the mess afterwards - for that reason, it's probably more cost effective to limit the problems at one end, than it is to solve the ones at the other end of the process. |
02-11-2005, 11:01 AM | #8 (permalink) |
<Insert wise statement here>
Location: Hell if I know
|
Yes, drugs should be allowed for religious purposes as well as for individual enlightenment and just plain old stress relief.
zen_tom - How the hell is the outlawing of drugs cost effective? We've sunk billions in trying to keep them out of America, and it still hasn't stopped them from coming in. Plus the crime caused by drugs being unaffordable has cost who knows how much. Ok class, time for a question - Does anyone know why prohibition was repealed? Because it WASN'T WORKING. Very few people abided by the law, and the fact that drinking was illegal made it more attractive, causing even more people to start drinking. Once it became apparent that the law was causing more trouble than it was preventing, they repealed it. Does the drug situation sound a little similar to that? It should, it's pretty much the same situation, except the government has it's head up it's ass and refuses to admit it has failed. The outlawing of (some)* drugs causes more problems than it solves. The reason it breaks people financially is because to get them, they have to use the black market. If marijuana was grown like tobacco, instead of it costing $20 to get enough for around four joints, you could get 20 joints for about five bucks, or even ten, and the government could tax the hell out of it and still have it a lot cheaper than it is now. And because drugs are so expensive now, they become unnaffordable to the common man, causing him to resort to crime if he wants to support his habit. Yes, people would abuse the ability to use drugs, but it would be about the same as it is with alcohol and cigarettes, some would use them in moderation and with restraint, while some would abuse them whenever they can. That's life. *I'm referring to such drugs as marijuana, acid, peyote, and other "soft" drugs. PCP, Meth, etc. are illegal because they are known to cause extremely violent behavior and constitute an actual danger, plus they have very little in the way of mind expanding effects.
__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn. |
02-11-2005, 12:17 PM | #9 (permalink) | |
Guest
|
Quote:
If you make guns freely available, you will have people misuse them and cause themselves (and others) damage. Even the most gun crazy states in the US will restrict peoples access to REALLY powerfull weaponry because they don't want to have to clean up the mess. It's just easier that way. And in countries where gun ownership is illegal, surprise surprise, there are fewer gun-related deaths per capita. Likewise drugs. If you restrict availability, fewer people will tread down dangerous paths. If people want to tread down those paths, they are going to do it anyway - legal or not. If you keep it illegal, fewer people will take those chances. |
|
02-11-2005, 02:38 PM | #10 (permalink) |
Addict ed to smack
Location: Seattle
|
the use of hallucinogens has been allowed since the earlier 90s for a very small community of scientists for the very purpose of working on what was done with them in the 60s.
Brazil has legalized Ayahuasca(DMT) (bad spelling but its close) as a Religious use and churches have spread all over into the US and Europe, look into Santo Daime churches for them up here in the states. as already said Salvia Divinorum is legal but for how much longer is a good question seeing as how lots of people are toting it as a "legal marijuana" which if youve done it, is so far from the truth youd kick the people who advertise that in the nuts if you ever saw them. Marijuana is barely a misdemeanor in most places now and Alaska even went as far as to try and legalize in the last couple years, but it didnt pas. Peyote is legal for the native americans down south, Seeing as how its a indangered plant and takes 20+ years to mature i feel it should stay illegal to pick as numbers of it dwindle and much easier to get and legal cacti are a pretty close experience (Peruvianus/San Pedro) this was a pretty fragmented post i made, sorry ill fix it later edit i forgot to add, to answer some more questions i would highly recommend looking into [MAPS aka Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Last edited by skinnymofo; 02-11-2005 at 03:12 PM.. |
02-11-2005, 03:11 PM | #11 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
(should this be moved into politics? ...in any case.)
Quote:
First, if drugs were legal they could be taxed. If they were taxed then that tax could reflect the social cost of rehab programs, etc. Also, I do not feel that many people who do not do drugs now would do them if they were legal. Ask any random person who does not do drugs why they choose not to. Most people will tell you something to the effect of "they're bad for you" or "I wouldn't want to alter my state of mind" or "I wouldn't want to become addicted". Very few people would say that they don't do it because it's illegal, as it being illegal, in actuality, merely makes it more difficult and expensive to obtain, but does very little to curb use on a consumer level. Secondly, and this is where I feel it gets somewhat more complicated, making drugs illegal makes them more destructive. If drugs were legal they would likely be much less expensive. People addicted to expensive drugs would not lose their livelihoods trying to suuport their habits. As the financial burden of drug use decreases, people would not steal and kill for drugs, so drug-related crimes would significantly decrease. However, there are some drugs to which the "less destructive" idea does not apply. These would be drugs that have been shown to induce violent behavior, and these should not become legal. And personally, I think that education is a better prevention than law.
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|
02-11-2005, 03:25 PM | #12 (permalink) | ||
Addict ed to smack
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
Quote:
Which is why set and setting is pretty important and a problem with researching people as a all white hospital room with a 1 way window is far less homey than infact someones house or a calm park. i realize i kind of led off subject but its close to the same idea |
||
02-11-2005, 05:03 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
Skinnymofo...
Perhaps I should clarify... GOOD education is a better prevention than law. The government does not have a realistic viewpoint on drugs and such being the case, can not form a realistic drug education program. However, this is a generality. My local government had a reasonable DARE program, although they tried to institute it when we were too young to fully understand the issue. Yes, anything can cause someone to react in a violent manner. All people are different and will react differently to different experiences. However, there are drugs where the TENDENCY is towards violent behavior. These are the ones that I propose should remain illegal. Does this sit well with you?
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
02-11-2005, 05:25 PM | #14 (permalink) |
Addict ed to smack
Location: Seattle
|
sorry i was playing a little devils advocate, i agree good education is much better than prohibition
the old school drug tests..ive stil never heard of blue coral i am one of the people who try to get the most they can out of a psychadelic experience so i understand where you are coming from; which is why i tried to post of both sides of the spectrum |
02-11-2005, 07:04 PM | #15 (permalink) |
Fancy
Location: Chicago
|
I am surprised that no one has looked at the reason why marijuana is illegal...History lesson:
Making paper out of hemp is cheaper and better for the environment. Well, William Randolph Hearst knew this and also knew that he would lose money in his newspaper industry. He started calling cannibus, marijuana and portrayed it as this 'new' drug that was causing Hispanics and blacks to rape and murder people. Give people a good dose of fear anyday and they will go crazy (Salem Witch Trials, for instance). Anyway, the people were going crazy and lobbied to have this 'new' drug made illegal. Little did they know, it was their own pasttime drug they were fighting against. Well, the law was made and so it is today... Now, I am sure that there is a little bit more to that, but that is the gist. There is no real argument that anyone can stand behind on why it should be kept illegal. Beer is intoxicating and kills both the drinkers and innocent by-standers. Cigarettes, God bless them, kills the smoker and the non-smoker. Driving in a car can even kill you. I could walk down to the street tomorrow and get attacked and killed. Life is short and fragile. You cannot keep one item illegal because it could kill you. You might as well put everyone in a padded room with maximum security. If 'the Man' is looking out for me, he can quit.
__________________
Whatever did happen to your soul? I heard you sold it Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company |
02-11-2005, 09:16 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Addict ed to smack
Location: Seattle
|
without hemp being illegal we wouldnt of had such diverse other fibers so soon although its hard to say.
and im still not convinced second hand smoke kills Everyday something new causes cancer and a week later it doesnt anymore. the only true thing second hand smoke does that i believe is cause people to have to smell the smoke. You dont have to be around smoking to get lung cancer and i would guess that everyone that gets it is a "victim" of someone smoking |
02-12-2005, 08:39 AM | #17 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
It boggles the mind...
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|
02-12-2005, 09:29 AM | #18 (permalink) | |
Adequate
Location: In my angry-dome.
|
Quote:
The 21st century is going to be a competitive bitch before dealing with the unpredictable spike & recovery of a toking nation. |
|
02-12-2005, 10:36 AM | #19 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|
02-12-2005, 11:36 AM | #20 (permalink) |
Pickles
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
|
I have news for you: we're already a toking nation. You'd be suprised how many people have smoked/eaten marijuana.
All drug laws should be removed, it's not the government's job to say what i can and can not do with my body. This case has been made time and time again with abortion rights, and drugs are the same deal. My body, my choice. The current drug industry lobby has helped to ruin america. Has anyone wondered why obesity is now classified as a disease? Has anyone wondered why there are commercials for perscription drugs on TV? Who here can name 5 adults who are not on atleast 1 perscription drug? I bet it'll be pretty tough. The government has over-stepped it's bounds in so many ways its disgusting. If the founding father's could have seen what the government has tured into many of them would have killed themselves and let us stay part of England.
__________________
We Must Dissent. |
02-12-2005, 11:40 AM | #21 (permalink) |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
When I was in hign school back in the sixties they used to show us the classic film "Reefer Madness" which said that if we smoked pot we would become sex addicts or something like that so of course most of us had to try it.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave the government should let us make our own drug choices. If they want to educate us with info films like "Reefer Madness" that's fine. There are probably substances out there that should be controlled but they should always err on the side of education instead of jail time. Just make the education truthful. Not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes a homeless drunk and not everyone who smokes tobacco dies of lung cancer. I suspect that most of the reasons for the opposition to drugs like marijuana is for moral reasons more than anything else. |
02-12-2005, 12:08 PM | #22 (permalink) | ||
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
||
02-12-2005, 01:03 PM | #23 (permalink) | |||
Addict
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why deny people the ability to feel less pain? Those images of crazed drug users rioting in the streets was propaganda nonsense from the government. Just let people be. Quote:
__________________
------------- You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here. Last edited by Master_Shake; 02-12-2005 at 01:09 PM.. |
|||
02-12-2005, 01:53 PM | #24 (permalink) |
Born Against
|
My chiropracter is my source.
During the summer my wife and I like to try to travel to Amsterdam. We've done it twice so far. As far as I know they haven't legalized crack or heroin, but certainly weed and shrooms of all kinds and varieties are available. You walk into a little shop, and you get a menu that describes about 10 varieties of pot you can buy, and how they taste and what their effects are. Or you can buy packages of various species of hallucinogenic mushrooms. And if it weren't for the aromatic smells wafting around, you'd be hard pressed to notice much of any difference from any other touristy north-European city. Society hasn't collapsed, everything functions and everybody's about as well off and happy as anywhere else. Not only that, but Holland has lower rates of pot and heroin use than the U.S., much lower spending on crime and lower prison incarceration rates per capita than the U.S. And they aren't racially profiling people, wiretapping, and sending "blacks" to prison for drug crimes at twice the rates of "whites." I suppose there are lots of good things about our Puritan roots. But this obsession with order and control and self-discipline that I think has contributed to what I believe is paranoic fear of drugs is not one of those positives. And my chiropracter agrees with me. |
02-12-2005, 02:54 PM | #25 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
my experience with hallucinogens and "worship" (for me the word does not mean much of anything) is that the hallucinogens allow you to skip steps. the advantage is that it is easier to subsequently be directed in various practices because you saw something of what is out there...the downside is that in the short run, everything is simply vision and you cannot direct it, cannot control it, cannot figure out things like development.
that and you can fuck up and erase a couple years like i did.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-12-2005 at 03:35 PM.. |
02-12-2005, 03:13 PM | #26 (permalink) |
I change
Location: USA
|
I found that people who have philosophical minds have philosophical experiences - others just party their time away.
I have never worshipped anything. My experiences were philosophical. But I've had these all my life. In retrospect, it wasn't necessary to distort any of my lenses to get here. And the toll - yeah - live and learn...
__________________
create evolution |
02-12-2005, 04:19 PM | #28 (permalink) |
Pickles
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
|
While the majority of hallucinogenic drugs are illegal, there is one that works quite well with stuff like out of body experiences and the like that is very much legal and over-the-counter. *cough* It's more of a dissociative, but it works for all intents and purposes. *cough* I wont say what it is because if you pick up the wrong kind you could end up bleeding out of pretty much every hole in your body, *cough* but its good medicine. *cough* Especially for coughs.
__________________
We Must Dissent. |
02-12-2005, 04:27 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
And ObieX... You're crackin' me up, man!!! Haha...
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|
02-12-2005, 08:19 PM | #31 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
|
Quote:
Taking some pills to ease the pain is a lot cheaper than going into debt to buy a car to improve my self-esteem. And yes, that green OTC stuff is great.
__________________
------------- You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here. Last edited by Master_Shake; 02-12-2005 at 08:21 PM.. |
|
02-14-2005, 05:26 AM | #32 (permalink) | |
Adequate
Location: In my angry-dome.
|
Quote:
Anyway, I've had my experiences but have been clean the last couple years. With age came the realization that life provides enough challenges without taking myself out of the game. That was a liberating decision for me. At the same time I know others who seem to function well UI, so I'm not going to legislate the decision for anyone. I'll help if I can, question motivations, experiences, but it's their thing. BTW, don't mean to snipe. I'm not near home or a consistent connection. |
|
02-14-2005, 06:19 AM | #33 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|
02-14-2005, 10:50 PM | #34 (permalink) | |
lost and found
Location: Berkeley
|
Quote:
I agree that a healthy society can handle legal drug usage of this nature. However, Holland and the Netherlands are not America. The countries of Western Europe have a generally superior level of education and health care. They are also governed secularly--to a degree of which most Americans aren't aware. I wasn't aware of how secular they were until recently. For example, Margeret Thatcher, in her entire career has prime minister of England, invoke the name of God once and was reprimanded. Our leaders, however, invoke God and often reference the Bible in their public discourse. Thus do ethics become obscured with morality, and "God bless America" is codified. We were founded on humanist ideals by a council of men who were deists at best, but we have become a Christian nation. And this Christian nation does not approve of marijuana, peyote, mushroom, or their relatives. Particularly if it's being used in the practice of a heathen religion. And you can bet the pharmaceutical industry isn't pleased with a drug people can grow in their backyards. The tobacco lobby isn't pleased with something that makes people feel good but isn't chemically addictive. In short, America is its own largest roadblock to legalizing these drugs. |
|
02-15-2005, 08:17 AM | #35 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: io-where?
|
All the reasons we have given so far point to some kind of Christian morality as being the reason hallucinogens are illegal. Does that mean that Christians, who believe God created the Earth and all it's inhabitants plant and animal in a week, interpret God's word to say that hallucinogenic drugs are sinful and in fact immoral?
Quote:
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary |
|
02-15-2005, 11:57 AM | #36 (permalink) | ||
Upright
Location: In this weak human flesh
|
Good points raised all round. I liked this quote:
Quote:
Back to the legalisation discussion. Quote:
__________________
"Don't take any guff from these swine" |
||
02-15-2005, 06:03 PM | #37 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: io-where?
|
Quote:
And sure, "fulltime" abuse of hallucinogens coupled with the use of synthetic club drugs, coke, and booze will give you mental problems.
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary |
|
02-15-2005, 08:56 PM | #38 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: io-where?
|
Interesting news article I dug up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3528730.stm Quote:
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary |
|
02-17-2005, 10:00 AM | #39 (permalink) |
I change
Location: USA
|
As to whether or not philosophical speculation and partying are mutually exclusive, I have found in my own experience of focused awareness that the mind is able to focus on one thing only in any instant. As it is my preference, I inevitably choose philosophical speculation.
__________________
create evolution |
02-17-2005, 10:18 AM | #40 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
1. It is not the case that every use of a drug is an instance of "partying". Or in other words, drug use behavior is not entirely a subset of partying behavior. Just as there are types of partying behavior that are not drug use, there are also types of drug use behavior that are not partying. So these two sets are partially overlapping but not coincident, and neither contains the other. 2. While it is true that focussed concentration simultaneously on two activities is difficult (though not impossible) this fact is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether a person can engage in philosophical thought while under the influence of a drug. This is because the state of being under the influence of a drug does not necessarly require any conscious activity at all, let alone focussed conscious activity that might distract from philosophical speculation. |
|
Tags |
drugs, hallucinogenic, means, worship |
|
|