The use of hallucinogenic drugs as a means of worship. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Fourtyrulz · 02-10-2005, 07:18 PM

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:

I am pleading not guilty in this case, because I am an American citizen.

As such, I am entitled to the free exercise of my religion.

I am entitled to engage in scientific research.

I am entitled to live in my home, travel in my car and bring up my children the best I can in accordance with my beliefs and values.

My motives before and during the incident of my arrest are clearly spiritual, interior and not ulterior.

These are not personal privileges that I claim, but constitutional rights of every citizen.

In defending myself against this prosecution, I am defending the right of every American citizen to lead the religious life of his own conviction, to worship, to experience, to commune with universal forces, to transcend his ego and dissolve the petty differences that divide men whom love should bind, to seek religious ecstasy, revelation and truth as men have done throughout the ages.

If you want to celebrate god through the nature he himself has created, what power does any government have of stopping you? Nature...against the law?

Mods, if this doesn't belong here feel free to move it.

go-bots · 02-10-2005, 10:15 PM

salvia is legal

02-11-2005, 05:25 AM

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.

Master_Shake · 02-11-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

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.

Probably true on both charges, but

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.

Fourtyrulz · 02-11-2005, 07:00 AM

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.

Hain · 02-11-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

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.

I happen to agree here. People would abuse such priviledges and use them for the intended uses you describe.

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

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.

MageB420666 · 02-11-2005, 11:01 AM

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.

02-11-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MageB420666

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.

I guess it's cheaper to employ customs guards and law enforcement officers than it is to employ Doctors, Nurses and Psychiatrists.

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.

skinnymofo · 02-11-2005, 02:38 PM

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

C4 Diesel · 02-11-2005, 03:11 PM

(should this be moved into politics? ...in any case.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

I guess it's cheaper to employ customs guards and law enforcement officers than it is to employ Doctors, Nurses and Psychiatrists.

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.

I disagree...

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.

skinnymofo · 02-11-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

And personally, I think that education is a better prevention than law.

look at the D.A.R.E. program or todays abstinence program with schools, they use complete lies and do you think they work? hell no

Quote:

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

unfortuneately most drugs can cause someone to react in a violent manner, since drugs effect everyone differently and some people do not like altered states of being, this causes anxiousness and that intern with a less clear mind turns into panic and panic can intern turn to anger with adrenaline pumping and no rational thought to calm a person.
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

C4 Diesel · 02-11-2005, 05:03 PM

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?

skinnymofo · 02-11-2005, 05:25 PM

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

shesus · 02-11-2005, 07:04 PM

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.

skinnymofo · 02-11-2005, 09:16 PM

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

C4 Diesel · 02-12-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinnymofo

the old school drug tests..ive stil never heard of blue coral

Haha... What the f*** is blue coral? I even did a google search for " 'blue coral' drug " and all I got was stuff on actual coral reefs and the company "Blue Coral" which makes the Rain-X line of auto glass cleaners.

It boggles the mind...

cyrnel · 02-12-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohh_shesus

There is no real argument that anyone can stand behind on why it should be kept illegal.

GNP.

The 21st century is going to be a competitive bitch before dealing with the unpredictable spike & recovery of a toking nation.

C4 Diesel · 02-12-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

GNP

The 21st century is going to be a competitive bitch before dealing with the unpredictable spike & recovery of a toking nation.

Does this statment have a basis or is it just personal opinion?

ObieX · 02-12-2005, 11:36 AM

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.

flstf · 02-12-2005, 11:40 AM

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.

C4 Diesel · 02-12-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Who here can name 5 adults who are not on atleast 1 perscription drug?

Is this sarcasm? If not, I can name at least 20 people over the age of 40 who aren't on any prescription drugs. Heck, I could name 5 senior citizens that aren't on any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

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.

I watched that once when I was really stoned. It amused me to no end. The fact that the government tries to push this stuff off as educational material is a great display of how removed the government can be from reality.

Master_Shake · 02-12-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zen_Tom

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.

But it doesn't have to be that way. There's no reason I couldn't grow marijuana in my basement (I'm pretty sure others are doing this right now) except for the laws prohibiting it. I wouldn't need his organized distribution, I could go down to the local "druger's market" (like a farmer's market not too far from here) and spend my money there.

Quote:

Also, you are unlikely to be 'ass-raped' for carrying a tab of acid, or a bag of shrooms.

Maybe not for the first offense, but after a few repeated violations (especially if I crossed state lines or entered federal jurisdiction) I would be sent to jail, wherein I, a pudgy, weak white boy, would probably be passed around for a pack of smokes.

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:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

GNP.

The 21st century is going to be a competitive bitch before dealing with the unpredictable spike & recovery of a toking nation.

Exactly, it's all about economics. We have to keep the rich in the lifestyle the've become accustomed to. It would be a real shame if the upper 1% in America had less than the upper 1% in China or Europe. Or if people recognized that the tireless pursuit of material goods to fill the empty hollow voids that are their souls was a line of bullshit.

raveneye · 02-12-2005, 01:53 PM

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.

roachboy · 02-12-2005, 02:54 PM

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.

ARTelevision · 02-12-2005, 03:13 PM

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...

raveneye · 02-12-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

I found that people who have philosophical minds have philosophical experiences - others just party their time away.

Those two groups are not mutually exclusive, to use a philosophical expression.

ObieX · 02-12-2005, 04:19 PM

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.

C4 Diesel · 02-12-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master_Shake

...Or if people recognized that the tireless pursuit of material goods to fill the empty hollow voids that are their souls was a line of bullshit.

Why the hatred towards materialism? I'm materialistic, but I'm self-aware and realize that it's part of the path I have chosen for myself and what I want in life. There's nothing wrong with materialism so long as you're not materialistic for the wrong reasons.

And ObieX... You're crackin' me up, man!!! Haha...

skinnymofo · 02-12-2005, 04:28 PM

i wouldnt recommend doing high amounts of it, theres no reason to not mention dextromethorphan because its all over the news anyway.

Master_Shake · 02-12-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C4Diesel

There's nothing wrong with materialism so long as you're not materialistic for the wrong reasons

The idea that buying shit will make you a whole person is what I take offense to. This is the idea pushed by the man to make sure we keep working for him.

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.

cyrnel · 02-14-2005, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C4 Diesel

Does this statment have a basis or is it just personal opinion?

C4, you don't believe economics is the major motivator for existing legal systems? I'm not speaking to the uniformity or validity of its influence, just that it exists. The old adage comes to mind about money being the answer to most questions.

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.

C4 Diesel · 02-14-2005, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

C4, you don't believe economics is the major motivator for existing legal systems? I'm not speaking to the uniformity or validity of its influence, just that it exists. The old adage comes to mind about money being the answer to most questions.

Thanks for clearing it up, although I only mildly agree with you. I really think the primary reasons the legislators will not (for the most part) entertain marijuana or drug reform are value-based. These values seem to be changing, slowly, as many do, but I don't see the possibility for widespread drug reform coming anytime soon (perhaps in the next century, save marijuana). Granted, some legislators may see things with the economic viewpoint you've described. Who knows?

Johnny Rotten · 02-14-2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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.

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.

Fourtyrulz · 02-15-2005, 08:17 AM

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:

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.

That's exactly what makes me so upset. Tobacco and booze are legal even if it is proven to kill you either by lung cancer or cirrhosis, yet the drugs that can cure mental disease and aleviate pain aren't even available to study.

Techno · 02-15-2005, 11:57 AM

Good points raised all round. I liked this quote:

Quote:

For example, Margeret Thatcher, in her entire career has prime minister of England, invoke the name of God once and was reprimanded.

I love my filthy pagan country.

Back to the legalisation discussion.

Quote:

That's exactly what makes me so upset. Tobacco and booze are legal even if it is proven to kill you either by lung cancer or cirrhosis, yet the drugs that can cure mental disease and aleviate pain aren't even available to study.

K. What drugs "cure mental disease"? I'm really puzzled about this one. As a fulltime druggie, it is my experience that hallucinogens do not cure mental problems. In fact quite the opposite. Is this possibly to do with LSD being used as a psychiatric tool for a short while?

Fourtyrulz · 02-15-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

K. What drugs "cure mental disease"? I'm really puzzled about this one. As a fulltime druggie, it is my experience that hallucinogens do not cure mental problems. In fact quite the opposite. Is this possibly to do with LSD being used as a psychiatric tool for a short while?

The medicinal use of hallucinogens goes far beyong psychiatric uses of LSD. They are found to facilitate mental processes in recovery programs for alcholics, drug addicts, and patients with sociopathic and psychological problems. Check out psycholytic therapy as well. Psilocybic mushrooms are also one of the safest drugs on the planet, with no documented serious long term effects and does not cause compulsive addiction. Do your research, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

And sure, "fulltime" abuse of hallucinogens coupled with the use of synthetic club drugs, coke, and booze will give you mental problems.

Fourtyrulz · 02-15-2005, 08:56 PM

Interesting news article I dug up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3528730.stm

Quote:

Medicine hope for psychedelic drugs

By Arran Frood

LSD was tested on cancer patients in the 1960s
Could illegal hallucinogenic drugs like LSD and psilocybin ever become credible prescription medicines?
It might sound far-fetched, but just a decade ago it seemed unlikely that the prohibited and mildly hallucinogenic drug cannabis would become a mainstream pain-killing medicine.

But it is happening: Cannabis pain-killing pills and sprays are being developed to help people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and Aids.

Now some scientists and psychotherapists think more powerful psychoactive drugs like psilocybin, found in 'magic mushrooms', could have a future as medicinal agents for a number of conditions.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved, but not funded, a pilot study aiming to see if the euphoria and insight of a mild psychedelic 'trip' can ease the physical and emotional pain experienced by thousands of terminal cancer patients each year.

A significant patient population may gain benefits from these treatments

Professor Charles Grob
Charles Grob, Professor of Psychiatry and Paediatrics at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Centre, California, and lead scientist on the cancer-psilocybin trial, said: "There is great potential.

"A significant patient population may gain benefits from these treatments."

Professor Grob will be one of the first scientists in 25 years to administer psilocybin to a person in a therapeutic setting.

He wants to see if people's lives can be improved if psychoactive drugs are used under carefully controlled conditions.

Past success

In the past it seemed to work: in the 60s, cancer sufferers reported less anxiety, a reduced fear of death, better moods, and surprisingly, even less pain in the weeks after treatment with LSD, which is similar in structure and effect to psilocybin.

It is right that we look at these chemicals with the same stringent standards as we do for other drugs

Dr Kate Law
So, what will happen during a 21st century psychedelic therapeutic session?

The subjects will lie down wearing an eye mask to screen out distractions and headphones pumping in gentle music to fully immerse them in their journey.

"We are going to let the patients guide their own experience by reacting only to their needs," said Professor Grob.

"We are there to hold their hands and talk if they feel the need, but we will not overtly attempt to take it in any spiritual or religious direction. It is up to them."

The rationale says it is better to let the drug gently lift the veil, divorce the association between mind and body and let the patient enjoy the full-on experience as they wish, than interfere in a way that may be incompatible with the patient's psyche.

UK perspective

Could this ever cross the water? In the 50s, 60s and 70s, Britain and many European countries were active centres of psychoactive drug research.

Dr Kate Law, of the charity Cancer Research UK, said: "With full, informed consent, we have no problem with it in principle.

"These patients are adults and people make their own choices. It is right that we look at these chemicals with the same stringent standards as we do for other drugs.

"People shy away from the fact that other powerful drugs like heroin are used when caring for cancer patients, many of which have side-effects of their own."

However, Dr Law said Cancer Research UK will only support this type of research if there was an analgesic effect - and the preliminary results suggest the overall procedure did not confuse or harm the patient.

Could the drug experience provide the patient with a greater delusion and a more fantastical escape?

Would it allow patients, perhaps already in denial, to become even more withdrawn, hidden, aloof even?

Dr Ken Checinski is a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and senior lecturer at St Georges Medical School, London.

Balance

Although he does not represent the RCP, he says his opinions may be typical of many psychiatrists. He says it is a question of balancing the benefits and the risks.

"In terminal care the patient has a right to be pain free, but also has a right to go about their business in the usual way during the final weeks of their lives.

"It's unacceptable to be made psychologically unwell during this period.

"But most drugs also have a medical use - amphetamine and cocaine derivatives, opiates, tranquillisers and now the cannabinols - so there is no reason why we shouldn't consider using the serotonin agonists (hallucinogens).

"However, governments should provide funding for this type of research, not vested interest groups."

The scientific use of mind-altering drugs has often been controversial. But Professor Grob and his scientific allies have fought long and hard for a reconsideration of the hallucinogens as serious medicines.

A not-for-profit collective of like-minded scientists, groups like MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) believe outlawed drugs like MDMA (ecstasy) and psilocybin have a better chance than conventional treatments of successfully managing many conditions.

Credibility established

A similar study involving psilocybin and the treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is nearing completion at the University of Arizona.

And an MDMA (ecstasy) trial for the counselling of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) victims is finally underway after a bureaucratic bad-trip with red tape.

"We are re-opening an area that has been shut down for 25 years," said Professor Grob.

"A couple of groups have established credibility through the formal channels. It may take time but it's possible."

Nevertheless, more state-tolerated than state-sponsored, MAPS and their academic friends know that the eyes of the authorities and a wider scientific community are upon them.

The study is funded by the Heffter Research Institute.

ARTelevision · 02-17-2005, 10:00 AM

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.

raveneye · 02-17-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

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.

There are at least a couple areas of disagreement that I might have with this, although it is somewhat difficult to know for sure because your comment here is so cursory.

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.

02-11-2005, 07:00 AM	#5 (permalink)
Fourtyrulz 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, 11:01 AM	#8 (permalink)
MageB420666 <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, 02:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
skinnymofo 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, 05:03 PM	#13 (permalink)
C4 Diesel 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, 07:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
shesus 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

02-10-2005, 10:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
go-bots Upright	salvia is legal

02-11-2005, 05:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
zen_tom 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, 10:28 AM	#7 (permalink)
zen_tom 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, 05:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
skinnymofo 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, 09:16 PM	#16 (permalink)
skinnymofo 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, 11:36 AM	#20 (permalink)
ObieX 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)
flstf 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, 01:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
raveneye 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)
roachboy 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)
ARTelevision 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)
ObieX 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, 04:28 PM	#30 (permalink)
skinnymofo Addict ed to smack Location: Seattle	i wouldnt recommend doing high amounts of it, theres no reason to not mention dextromethorphan because its all over the news anyway.

02-17-2005, 10:00 AM	#39 (permalink)
ARTelevision 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