Should all drugs be legalized?

[La Verdad]

I believe they should in any society that honestly insists it values freedom. Control over what you do with or to your consciousness is one of your highest rights, it is inalienable.
The government has no right (or real ability for that matter) to protect people from themselves.

Any thoughts on this?

[R. Steven Coyle]

I agree, in part, with your assertion. A society disposed of the underground blackmarket economy is advantageous to the promotion of higher ideals. However, full-on self-prescribed anarchy would, should, could, never last, even under the guise of consciousness raising. The government may have no right to protect an individual from themselves, but they do have a right to protect individuals from individuals. To see the day when a government is philosophically stable enough to freely research the benefits of peyote, salvia, and psliocybin, would be a marvel, but such a government must still be adherent to some portion of the Hippocratic oath, if it were to still be defined as a government. Hypothetically, a freer reign scenario could potentially produce a merger of the classes, unified through consciousness, which capitalism, and its apex/vortex dichotomy, could not allow in order to maintain its integrity. If the benefits of altering one's consciousness were legalized, the corruption of the system would be the first to feel the effects, for better or for worse.

[La Verdad]

I agree, in part, with your assertion. A society disposed of the underground blackmarket economy is advantageous to the promotion of higher ideals. However, full-on self-prescribed anarchy would, should, could, never last, even under the guise of consciousness raising.

I don't desire anarchy, or believe at all that legalizing all drugs would lead to such an extreme outcome.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries opium and cocaine were stocked in all pharmacies in Britain and America (and probably the rest of the Western world).
And I would argue these two countries were more civilized then than they are today.

The government may have no right to protect an individual from themselves, but they do have a right to protect individuals from individuals.

Protecting individuals is best done through legalization. The bulk of drug fueled crime (i.e. prostitution and stealing to fund addiction, gang violence commited deciding who will capture a bigger share of the market) is the result of the high profits to be made off being able to consitently supply such heavily restricted goods. Once they are legal, the value will plummet, and virtually all drug-fueled crime will come to a halt.
Society will be safer and the individual will too, since he will not have to fear legal punishment for seeking treatment.

To see the day when a government is philosophically stable enough to freely research the benefits of peyote, salvia, and psliocybin, would be a marvel,

In my opinion it's only philosophically dynamic lands that can endure the freedom of legalized drugs, the philosophically stable ones typically become enslaved and fight tooth and nail to oppose their import.
When they were introduced into the very stable country of China that country folded faster than Superman on laundry day, and quickly became slavishly addicted to the opiates of tiny Britain.

but such a government must still be adherent to some portion of the Hippocratic oath, if it were to still be defined as a government.

There's a reason doctors take this oath and sovereigns do not, because states do harm people, it's one of their main functions. Their ability to deliver harm to the foreign enemies of their citizenry, and back up laws with the implicit threat of violence are two of the strongest justifications for the state.

Look at the city-state of Sparta, only 10% of it's population were citizens, the rest were helots (slaves bound to the land), and annually teams of spartan warriors would kill helots at random to inspire fear in all the survivors.
Infirm babies were left to die of exposure and starvation, and boys were taken from their families and conscripted into brutal military training at the age of six.
It may have caused harm, though in what sense was the oligarchy that ruled Sparta not a government?

Hypothetically, a freer reign scenario could potentially produce a merger of the classes, unified through consciousness, which capitalism, and its apex/vortex dichotomy, could not allow in order to maintain its integrity.

You sort of lose me here, could you rephrase this?

If the benefits of altering one's consciousness were legalized, the corruption of the system would be the first to feel the effects, for better or for worse.

lol I agree, a lot of corruption and weakness that was in the glass the whole time would float to the top pretty darn quick.

[R. Steven Coyle]

I don't desire anarchy, or believe at all that legalizing all drugs would lead to such an extreme outcome.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries opium and cocaine were stocked in all pharmacies in Britain and America (and probably the rest of the Western world). And I would argue these two countries were more civilized then they are today.

I don't either [...anarchy], it was more of a loose mental image than anything. For that very reason [previous societal sophistication], the insertion of highly addictive, non-cerebral narcotics would only wreck further havoc on the already unstable 'market economy of modern culture'. An uprooting at the base of society, addressing the psychological/philosophical imbalances would have to be exerted before any radical shift in drug laws could take place.

Protecting individuals is best done through legalization. The bulk of drug fueled crime (i.e. prostitution and stealing to fund addiction, gang violence commited deciding who will capture a bigger share of the market) is the result of the high profits to be made off being able to consitently supply such heavily restricted goods. Once they are legal, the value will plummet, and virtually all drug-fueled crime will come to a halt.
Society will be safer and the individual will too, since he will not have to fear legal punishment for seeking treatment.

Very true, but the fact still remains that free usage of psychoactives is by no means a securer realm, internally and/or externally. Human psychology will forever remain unstable until philosophy has run rampant.

In my opinion it's only philosophically dynamic lands that can endure the responsibility of freedom, the philosophically stable ones typically become enslaved and fight tooth and nail to oppose their import.

Music.

There's a reason doctors take this oath and sovereigns do not, because states do harm people, it's one of their main functions. Their ability to deliver harm to the foreign enemies of their citizenry, and back up laws with the implicit threat of violence are two of the strongest justifications for the state.

Look at the city-state of Sparta, only 10% of it's population were citizens, the rest were helots (slaves bound to the land), and annually teams of spartan warriors would kill helots at random to inspire fear in all the survivors.
Infirm babies were left to die of exposure and starvation, and boys were taken from their families and conscripted into brutal military training at the age of six.
It may have caused harm, though in what sense was the oligarchy that ruled Sparta not a government?

My mindset was geared more towards modern democracy and beyond, with the FDA in mind, specifically.

Hypothetically, a freer reign scenario could potentially produce a merger of the classes, unified through consciousness, which capitalism, and its apex/vortex dichotomy, could not allow in order to maintain its integrity.

You sort of lose me here, could you rephrase this?

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would undoubtedly sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

[La Verdad]

I don't either [anarchy], it was more of a lose mental image than anything.

And for that reason [previous societal sophistication], the insertion of highly addictive, non-cerebral narcotics would only reek further havoc on the already instable market economy of modern culture.

Economically it would create more stability, if anything. Instead of having an army of drug dealers and traffickers monitored with ever-varying degrees of success, drugs would be produced by large companies with open and accurate data about their operations, the product would be standardized so you would actually be getting what you think you are, and estimates of drug addiction and it's effects would be more accurate since there's no longer a legal impetus for secrecy.

Protecting individuals is best done through legalization. The bulk of drug fueled crime (i.e. prostitution and stealing to fund addiction, gang violence commited deciding who will capture a bigger share of the market) is the result of the high profits to be made off being able to consitently supply such heavily restricted goods. Once they are legal, the value will plummet, and virtually all drug-fueled crime will come to a halt.
Society will be safer and the individual will too, since he will not have to fear legal punishment for seeking treatment.

Very true, but the fact still remains that free usage of psychoactives is by no means a securer realm, internally and/or externally. Human psychology will forever remain unstable until philosophy has run rampant.

Who's asking for security? I'm asking for freedom.
And as for philosophy running rampant - I wouldn't hold my breath.
Fichte vs. MTV is a pretty hard sell :(

In my opinion it's only philosophically dynamic lands that can endure the responsibility of freedom [of legalized drugs], the philosophically stable ones typically become enslaved and fight tooth and nail to oppose their import.

Music.

?

There's a reason doctors take this oath and sovereigns do not, because states do harm people, it's one of their main functions. Their ability to deliver harm to the foreign enemies of their citizenry, and back up laws with the implicit threat of violence are two of the strongest justifications for the state.

Look at the city-state of Sparta, only 10% of it's population were citizens, the rest were helots (slaves bound to the land), and annually teams of spartan warriors would kill helots at random to inspire fear in all the survivors.
Infirm babies were left to die of exposure and starvation, and boys were taken from their families and conscripted into brutal military training at the age of six.
It may have caused harm, though in what sense was the oligarchy that ruled Sparta not a government?

My mindset was geared more towards modern democracy and beyond, with the FDA in mind, specifically.

Well I'm still gonna have to say that a system which doesn't legally punish people who seek treatment, and which doesn't throw non-violent drug users in prison with violent criminals is truer to the principle of "first, do no harm" than our current form of government.

Hypothetically, a freer reign scenario could potentially produce a merger of the classes, unified through consciousness, which capitalism, and its apex/vortex dichotomy, could not allow in order to maintain its integrity.

You sort of lose me here, could you rephrase this?

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

lol what you call humanism, I call apathy. Most of the people I know who enjoy marijuana, psilocybin, and LSD, just seem to have a lot less drive (materialistic or otherwise) than they did before going down that road.

[La Verdad]

Their thinking - philosophically, politically, morally is also a lot fuzzier and less coherent in my opinion, their newfound passivity extends to.. pretty much everything.

[R. Steven Coyle]

I don't either [anarchy], it was more of a lose mental image than anything.

And for that reason [previous societal sophistication], the insertion of highly addictive, non-cerebral narcotics would only reek further havoc on the already instable market economy of modern culture.

Economically it would create more stability, if anything. Instead of having an army of drug dealers and traffickers monitored with ever-varying degrees of success, drugs would be produced by large companies with open and accurate data about their operations, the product would be standardized so you would actually be getting what you think you are, and estimates of drug addiction and it's effects would be more accurate since there's no longer a legal impetus for secrecy.

Good point. My diffused use of language has misrepresented my intention. What I meant to imply, simply, was a widespread return to a more primitive mind, a mind that replaces one set of damaged goods for another.

Very true, but the fact still remains that free usage of psychoactives is by no means a securer realm, internally and/or externally. Human psychology will forever remain unstable until philosophy has run rampant.

Who's asking for security? I'm asking for freedom.
And as for philosophy running rampant - I wouldn't hold my breath.
Fichte vs. MTV is a pretty hard sell :(

Freedom vs. Security. Gotta say, freedom should house security, invite it and demand it.

(Yeah. Breathing.)

In my opinion it's only philosophically dynamic lands that can endure the responsibility of freedom [of legalized drugs], the philosophically stable ones typically become enslaved and fight tooth and nail to oppose their import.

Music.

?

Music sounds good to the ears. :)

There's a reason doctors take this oath and sovereigns do not, because states do harm people, it's one of their main functions. Their ability to deliver harm to the foreign enemies of their citizenry, and back up laws with the implicit threat of violence are two of the strongest justifications for the state.

Look at the city-state of Sparta, only 10% of it's population were citizens, the rest were helots (slaves bound to the land), and annually teams of spartan warriors would kill helots at random to inspire fear in all the survivors.
Infirm babies were left to die of exposure and starvation, and boys were taken from their families and conscripted into brutal military training at the age of six.
It may have caused harm, though in what sense was the oligarchy that ruled Sparta not a government?

My mindset was geared more towards modern democracy and beyond, with the FDA in mind, specifically.

Well I'm still gonna have to say that a system which doesn't legally punish people who seek treatment, and which doesn't throw non-violent drug users in prison with violent criminals is truer to the principle of "first, do no harm" than our current form of government.

Agreed. Though methadone rehab clinics come to mind.

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

lol what you call humanism, I call apathy. Most of the people I know who enjoy marijuana, psilocybin, and LSD, just seem to have a lot less drive (materialistic or otherwise) than they did before going down that road.

I guess it affects its users in degrees. :) Their general malaise could also have to do with the self-image which partaking in these types of illegal and counter-culture activities engenders. If legalized, perhaps no longer would a fuzzy sense of exclusive elitism fill the smoke-filled, apathetic rooms.

[Leyla Shen]

[bangs her head on the desk repetitively]

Steven wrote:

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

Oh, really? Where is your evidence for this, logically or otherwise.

I want to see it.

I guess it affects its users in degrees. :) Their general malaise could also have to do with the self-image which partaking in these types of illegal and counter-culture activities engenders. If legalized, perhaps no longer would a fuzzy sense of exclusive elitism fill the smoke-filled, apathetic rooms.

Bullshit.

[R. Steven Coyle]

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

Oh, really? Where is your evidence for this, logically or otherwise.

I want to see it.

http://www.erowid.org | http://www.deoxy.org | http://www.leary.com

I guess it affects its users in degrees. :) Their general malaise could also have to do with the self-image which partaking in these types of illegal and counter-culture activities engenders. If legalized, perhaps no longer would a fuzzy sense of exclusive elitism fill the smoke-filled, apathetic rooms.

Bullshit.

Bulling from personal experience, or no?

[Leyla Shen]

OK, let me rephrase that: it's your argument, so put the evidence in your own words with a very strong focus on the humanitarian aspect as you see it, particularly--which means, you are going to have to explain why and how drug-induced altered states of consciousness are humanitarian and wise.

[Leyla Shen]

Bulling from personal experience, or no?

I have taken a relatively small amount of drugs and have known many who have taken them more regularly and in larger doses: both prescribed and non-prescribed.

What would you like to ask me beyond that?

[R. Steven Coyle]

OK, let me rephrase that: it's your argument, so put the evidence in your own words with a very strong focus on the humanitarian aspect as you see it, particularly--which means, you are going to have to explain why and how drug-induced altered states of consciousness are humanitarian and wise.

Altered states of consciousness, in the majority of psychologically sound individuals, produce a reverence for man and his relation to Nature, the interconnectedness of the temporal Universe. These types of threshold events, by no means, propagate wisdom in and of themselves. They are more in-line with the feeling of a lucid, cosmic bottle of wine.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Leyla writes:

I have taken a relatively small amount of drugs and have known many who have taken them more regularly and in larger doses: both prescribed and non-prescribed.

What would you like to ask me beyond that?

Well, I wasn't attempting any universal truth concerning this particular segment of the topic. Hence the perhaps.

Other than that, how's the weather in Oz?

[Leyla Shen]

Steven, superfluously defining nothing more than a drug-induced high, pontificated:

Altered states of consciousness, in the majority of psychologically sound individuals, produce a reverence for man and his relation to Nature, the interconnectedness of the temporal Universe. These types of threshold events, by no means, propagate wisdom in and of themselves. They are more in-line with the feeling of a lucid, cosmic bottle of wine.

So, the feeling of a lucid, cosmic bottle of wine in the majority of (a relatively small number, apparently) psychologically sound individuals equals this uncertain certainty as humanitarianism without wisdom:

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

I think your hypothesis is logically floored.

Is the extent of your definition of humanism the absence of pain?

To see the day when a government is philosophically stable enough to freely research the benefits of peyote, salvia, and psliocybin, would be a marvel,…

What the hell is a philosophically stable government?

Other than that, how's the weather in Oz?

Fucking freezing.

[oborden]

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would undoubtedly sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

I believe, as a long-time marijuana user, that though some people would become more humanist, most would become addicted to the high and become very selfish and lapse into the ways of dependency.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Leyla writes:

So, the feeling of a lucid, cosmic bottle of wine in the majority of (a relatively small number, apparently) psychologically sound individuals equals this uncertain certainty as humanitarianism without wisdom:

The widespread usage of certain psychoactives (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD) would sway the mindset of its long-term users away from materialism, towards a more humanist agenda.

I think your hypothesis is logically floored.

Is the extent of your definition of humanism the absence of pain?

I would catagorize humanism as a newfound outreaching of interests, specificially concerning the plight of humans -- their relationship with Nature, and with each other.

Most likely, if these types of cerebral stimulants were ever legalized, pharmaceutical and communal research would be highly conducive to higher level cognition -- via advanced consciousness exploration -- in reaction to the longtime regime-repression of human curiosity. The stability and potency of logic beats assisted-consciousness-raising, hands down. But, to my mind, it is still a tool, to be wielded, with other avenues open to exploration.

Reality-maps, brilliantly pioneered by Leary, chart the inner-regions of the mind, mapping the source of perception via neurological space. His Eight Circuit Consciousness Model is truly revolutionary.

To see the day when a government is philosophically stable enough to freely research the benefits of peyote, salvia, and psliocybin, would be a marvel,…

What the hell is a philosophically stable government?

A government which openly promotes the love of wisdom, its cultivation, with no bounderies. Only then, could a state be accurately relegated as stable.

[R. Steven Coyle]

So, the feeling of a lucid, cosmic bottle of wine in the majority of (a relatively small number, apparently) psychologically sound individuals equals this uncertain certainty as humanitarianism without wisdom:

Edit: There are certain truths which altered states can impart: The interconnectedness of the Universe, for example -- which can lead to a profound affinity for humanity.

Ah, pompous shompous. You have to keep in mind that you already have a built-up resistance to the topic, before you begin to throw judgement around.

[Pye]

.

I'd say that philosophically minded persons are inclined to experiment with the mind in roughly the same spirit with which they examine it. Not all but many. I think the impulses are related. I also think that conclusions to the limitations of intoxicants is commonly arrived-to by these same-minded people. If the substance digs a deep path in the organism, then it becomes pathological, addicted - as we say. Yet there are among philosophers the purely dionysian, too.

I've found the greatest range of awareness to be available in the least ingestion of any thing. But this is also after years and my own intoxicant experiences, which surely stand in the web of events.


.

[Leyla Shen]

Pye wrote:

I'd say that philosophically minded persons are inclined to experiment with the mind in roughly the same spirit with which they examine it. Not all but many. I think the impulses are related.

The impulses are not related. There is only one impulse--in this instance: philosophy. .

Then there are those who use drugs to escape from the mind--pain, emotional or otherwise--driven by the one impulse: escapism.

And the qualitative difference between these two impulses? Wisdom. That’s how you tell a fantasising junkie from a philosopher worth his salt.

On that basis, legalisation of drugs comes to naught and the oh-so-prized freedom that is the object of this discussion becomes nothing but a red-herring.

[Leyla Shen]

Pompous shompous. You have to keep in mind that you already have a built-up resistance to the topic, before you begin to throw judgement around.

Never mind my mind. What about yours? I am well aware this hits a nerve with you.

Shall we speak of your bias? I am happy to discuss mine, in that light. But, to be honest, I don't think you would cope very well, Steven.

[R. Steven Coyle]

I think we should.

Tea?

[Leyla Shen]

It will have to be on this forum. I have uninstalled AIM after having a very annoying pop-up problem, which I thought AIM might have had something to do with.

We have been down this road before, though, and it doesn't appear much has changed.

[R. Steven Coyle]

What are you alluding to, my bipolar disorder?

[La Verdad]

And the qualitative difference between these two impulses? Wisdom. That’s how you tell a fantasising junkie from a philosopher worth his salt.

On that basis, legalisation of drugs comes to naught and the oh-so-prized freedom that is the object of this discussion becomes nothing but a red-herring.

I'm aware most people who use drugs aren't going to philosophize under their influence (just as most people don't philosophize in general), that still doesn't mean that the freedom to use them is somehow a 'red-herring' - it was a freedom that used to be common throughout the West.

"The attitude of society at that time is expressed by the eminent British pharmacologist, Edward Morell Holmes, who, around 1910, discussed the use of opium in the Orient and concluded that the government of China had good reason to try to restrict the use of opium by the Chinese. He did not even think of a possible restriction of the sale of the narcotics in Anglo-Saxon nations. It was true that some persons did become addicted to and dependent on such drugs, but other persons became alcoholics. Addiction to alcohol and drugs was simply proof of the weak will-power of "moral imbeciles," who were commonly "addicted to other forms of depravity" also, and he implies that such individuals are no loss to society. It is taken for granted that the sooner such individuals rid society of themselves, the better.

There was no "drug problem," no hysterical running about the world to inhibit the production of narcotics and make them expensive and highly lucrative, because society before 1914 took the common sense view that it is foolish and futile to try to save individuals from themselves. There was no "drug problem" because our world was governed by a force far more powerful and effective than frantic legislation and hordes of policemen: the ethos of Western civilization.

It was world dominated by a species now virtually extinct: ladies and gentlemen. A gentleman drank in moderation and might even become inebriated on special occasions, but his inner moral force and his self-respect kept him from addiction and enslavement to physical or psychic drugs, whether alcohol, opium, or hallucinatory superstitions."



This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine, published monthly by George P. Dietz from September 1973 to February 1999.

The government has no right decide whether a person decides to use drugs (unless they're in public, or pregnant of course), they should be subject to the same scrutiny as every other commodity: the buyer's personal opinion about whether he can afford a purchase and the drawbacks of using said item.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Pompous shompous. You have to keep in mind that you already have a built-up resistance to the topic, before you begin to throw judgement around.

Never mind my mind. What about yours? I am well aware this hits a nerve with you.

Shall we speak of your bias? I am happy to discuss mine, in that light. But, to be honest, I don't think you would cope very well, Steven.

I believe that for psychologically adept individuals, consciousness exploration, via medicinal plants, can promote psychological healing, as well as philosophical insight. Again, I am speaking from personal experience.