Should all drugs be legalized?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

MDMA seems to most mature psycho-active substance. If you're looking for deep but therapeutic experiences that are quite controllable, I wouldn't know of any other relatively easy to get substance that can be helpful. Side-effects are almost non-existing compared to THC (marijuana) and the experiment is more usable for the observant and strong mind than LSD which generally 'takes over'.

Start with a very low dose though because you might not realize yet how fucked up you are LOL. And don't buy it at parties nor use it there.

Personally I'd say: forget all the other stuff on the market and of course ultimately the hard philosophical work still has to be done later on; it's not really a short-cut, it's more of anti-dote.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Diebert,

Thank you for your, relatively easy, and helpful, advice.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven wrote:

May I ask, what is your masculinity?

Sure. Another way of expressing is: I don't need drug therapy; and I think women are a dime a dozen.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Glad we understand eachother then.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven,

Very good. Now, before you go around giving people advice next time, bear in mind these quotes and make a genuine effort not to spread confusion and call it philosophical insight for the sake of your own ego:

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.

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.

And then you said this:

Try and step outside of your own experience. Not everyone uses drugs to escape pain.

I don’t think you made a very good case for your argument, at all.

Here’s my original and clearly stated position:

The impulses [to experiment with the mind and to experiment with drugs] 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.

Steven wrote:

Your previous argument was loaded with undertones of sarcasm, making it difficult to distinguish your true intention.

My intention is very clear, to me. Your problem on the subject stems from your own, or the lack of it. Intention and focus are traits than can only be accurately discerned through proper reasoning.

There is not a single argument -- rational or otherwise -- in which a discerning individual has difficulty discerning the nature of intention and those who might question it.

If you can think, you can discern/distinguish--by definition.

[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.

I don’t think you made a very good case for your argument, at all.

I agree that I need to work on the structure and clarity of my arguments, but you cut and pasted these sections out of context. You tend to overly-scutinize our discussions to meet your own standards, instead of working (thinking) with what is presented.

Example

The above argument could have been clarified with grammatical restructuring: would to could.

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

That's what I was saying.

Your previous argument was loaded with undertones of sarcasm, making it difficult to distinguish your true intention.

My intention is very clear, to me. Your problem on the subject stems from your own, or the lack of it. Intention and focus are traits than can only be accurately discerned through proper reasoning.

Yes, I know. I finally understand where you're coming from, at least your style of thinking. I enjoy flow, you enjoy systems.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven,

You’re right about one thing: you enjoy flow. I can assure you, however, that my dedication to “systems” has nothing to do with enjoyment.

You tend to overly-scutinize our discussions to meet your own standards, instead of working (thinking) with what is presented.

Example

The above argument could have been clarified with grammatical restructuring: would to could.

You're asking me to change your words (and, therefore, meaning: what you call "thinking") and if I don't it's "over-scrutiny."? I think you should have found your own mistakes. I am not in the business of thinking for you. You will have to do that yourself. I am quite happy to argue with you, however.

Yet another request for clarity from you, which you will ascribe -- no doubt -- to my lack of thinking more than anything you might be held responsible for.

Are you saying this:

Steven: 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.

Equals this:

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

If not, where is this cherished “flow” of yours -- in the poetic construction of sentences, and your own mind?

If so, I disagree.

The two statements have different meanings and I still haven’t seen you back that statement up with any reasoning: that is, aside from the absurdity of the proposition, in what way do you think that the widespread use impacts on the mind of long-term users of the drug?

Or would you like me to "rephrase" for you?

[R. Steven Coyle]

You’re right about one thing: you enjoy flow.

Yes, I'm a weak-minded woman.

A man, too.

I can assure you, however, that my dedication to “systems” has nothing to do with enjoyment.

You don't like being told things. A=B.

I am not in the business of thinking for you. You will have to do that yourself. I am quite happy to argue with you, however.

True. But, I was using that as an example of the importance of clarity, for both parties.

1+1=3.

Yet another request for clarity from you, which you will ascribe -- no doubt -- to my lack of thinking more than anything you might be held responsible for.

No doubt, you, two, have an inferiority complex.

Are you saying this:

Steven: 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.

Equals this:

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

I was refering to those ol' psychologically sound (adept/...) persons -- or wise -- who would be more prone to realize the interconnectedness of man and nature.

I still haven’t seen you back that statement up with any reasoning: that is, aside from the absurdity of the proposition?, in what way do you think that the widespread use impacts on the mind of long-term users of the drug?

Well, hypothetically, there would most likely (I know ambiguity scares you), be a widespread convergence of knowledge concerning the drugs - establishing a community of like-minded individuals devoted to consciousness exploration. Not escapism, per se, but tapping the potential of the yet uncharted regions of the mind.

Or would you like me to "rephrase" for you?

As you would say, "Cute."

[Leyla Shen]

Madame wrote:

Yes, I'm a weak-minded woman.

A man, too.

No. You’re a weak-minded woman with a dick between her legs.

You don't like being told things. A=B.

If you mean I won’t swallow your weak sprog, you’re right.

Why does everything come down to feelings, with you? (Rhetorical.)

1+1=3.

Wow. The wisdom and philosophical insight in that is blinding. I think the world should all instantly embrace your hypothesis and legalise drugs.

No doubt, you, two, have an inferiority complex.

Not at all. And not so unexpected is your self-association with what I said to Ryan. What, with his ideas on telepathy and what I know of you, I reckon you, Ryan and bert are, in fact, the same “individual.”

I wrote, quoting Steven and one of my earlier statements:

Are you saying this:

Steven: 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.

Equals this:

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

To which Steven responded:

I was refering to those ol' psychologically sound (adept/...) persons -- or wise -- who would be more prone to realize the interconnectedness of man and nature.

Not being one of them, how do you know? Personally, I’ve never had a problem realising the interconnectedness of man and nature. More like basic arithmetic, isn’t it? Still, if your logic amounts to things like A=B and 1+1=3, then I guess there is always a profound revelation to be discovered. Ah, the joy of the ineffable! Aphrodite would indeed be smiling upon you.

Hence, that’s just another A=B comment pulled out of your arse which has no connection -- save in your own ego -- to the quotes preceding it. Flow, indeed.

Well, hypothetically, there would most likely (I know ambiguity scares you), be a widespread convergence of knowledge concerning the drugs - establishing a community of like-minded individuals devoted to consciousness exploration. Not escapism, per se, but tapping the potential of the yet uncharted regions of the mind.

If you are so into your hypothesis, why do you frequent a forum whose moderators/owners -- whose wise men -- do not “explore consciousness” with drugs, but with reason. Do you think they are afraid of the law?

However, if you are now prepared to throw it out the window as an idiotic argument, then this discussion has come to a decent conclusion. Notwithstanding this potential outcome, I shall continue to address the rest of your post for completion.

Ego and fear are your realm--they comprise the making and the mystery of the “unchartered regions” of which you speak through a lack of consciousness. The “me” you think you know so well is just another product of that.

Ambiguity doesn’t scare me. It’s just what it is, ambiguous, and, on a forum dedicated to reason and clarity--well, do I really need to say more?

Wake up.

L: Or would you like me to "rephrase" for you?

S: As you would say, "Cute."

Since you like to use my thoughts so much, I’ll give you a retort you might like to try for the next time I say it: it wasn’t cute, it was a direct challenge of the ridiculous nature of your ever-shallow “arguments.”

You have never been saying the same thing as me, no matter how hard you try to make it look that way with your A=Bs and 1+1=3s.

Careful, though, in thinking about this, you might just mistakenly remember something.

Seriously, Steven. If you're genuinely interested in your own progress, focus more on yourself than on me.

[R. Steven Coyle]

No. You’re a weak-minded woman with a dick between her legs.

Leyla "Shen" - your glass house is a treasure. If you want to argue (your all-too typical womanish nature, "bleeding" through) -- hey, that's fine. More info for me.

You don't like being told things. A=B.

If you mean I won’t swallow your weak sprog, you’re right.

Cold.

1+1=3.

Wow. The wisdom and philosophical insight in that is blinding. I think the world should all instantly embrace your hypothesis and legalise drugs.

Envy becomes you. If you could only harness that self-hatred.

No doubt, you, two, have an inferiority complex.

Not at all.

Really? You sure? Something tells me that you should never get into an arguement with a woman.

Leyla. You are always correct, and false to the bone.

And not so unexpected is your self-association with what I said to Ryan.

Need I go into my reasoning for that? I might, but you have no heart. Well, a through and through selfish one.

What, with his ideas on telepathy and what I know of you, I reckon you, Ryan and bert are, in fact, the same “individual.”

Women have no appreciation for genius. Not my idea.

I wrote, quoting Steven and one of my earlier statements:

Is this bad form?

Not being one of them [psychologically adept], how do you know?

Really? Would you respond to my Freud post?

Personally, I’ve never had a problem realising the interconnectedness of man and nature. More like basic arithmetic, isn’t it? Still, if your logic amounts to things like A=B and 1+1=3, then I guess there is always a profound revelation to be discovered.

Good for Leyla.

Ah, the joy of the ineffable! Aphrodite would indeed be smiling upon you.

You think you can't teach me anything, and this bothers you.

Hence, that’s just another A=B comment pulled out of your arse which has no connection -- save in your own ego -- to the quotes preceding it. Flow, indeed.

Your memory is selective.

If you are so into your hypothesis...

Projection.

Why do you frequent a forum whose moderators/owners -- whose wise men -- do not “explore consciousness” with drugs, but with reason. Do you think they are afraid of the law?

Maybe they did when they were my age. You still have no grasp of what exploring consciousness is, because your mind is not mine.

However, if you are now prepared to throw it out the window as an idiotic argument, then this discussion has come to a decent conclusion.

You would like that, wouldn't you? Comfortably numb?

Notwithstanding this potential outcome, I shall continue to address the rest of your post for completion.

Good for you.

Ego and fear are your realm--they comprise the making and the mystery of the “unchartered regions” of which you speak through a lack of consciousness.

Lots of bullshit.

The “me” you think you know so well is just another product of that.

Does it scare you?

Ambiguity doesn’t scare me. It’s just what it is, ambiguous, and, on a forum dedicated to reason and clarity--well, do I really need to say more?

Don't twist it, please.

Wake up.

To reality?

Since you like to use my thoughts so much, I’ll give you a retort you might like to try for the next time I say it: it wasn’t cute, it was a direct challenge of the ridiculous nature of your ever-shallow “arguments.”

Now, let's see. Drug use conflicts with Leyla. Why? Well, she sees herself as above them, so naturally, they are utterly worthless. And, she associates them with her not-so-pleasant past, part of the reason she's on the forum, so I must be an idiot.

You have never been saying the same thing as me, no matter how hard you try to make it look that way with your A=Bs and 1+1=3s.

Does it pain you to know that I'm a genius?

Careful, though, in thinking about this, you might just mistakenly remember something.

Hmm? What was that?

Seriously, Steven. If you're genuinely interested in your own progress, focus more on yourself than on me.

Deal.

[Leyla Shen]

How typical of a woman, when asked to demonstrate reasoning, to resort instead with single-word and trite questioning replies, as well as outright lies.

Yes, it is pointless to argue with a woman, for that woman‘s benefit.

Steven wrote:

Does it pain you to know that I'm a genius?

You are not a genius. How could I possibly be in pain over something that isn’t true. Since A=A is the very basis of identification, why would I recognise your insistence on A=B as representative of genius? I mean on that basis, your genius really does amount to an idiot -- among a myriad of other things.

Women have no appreciation for genius. Not my idea.

Yes, I know it's not your idea. That’s why it makes sense; particularly with the context in which it was written.

You’re starting to sound like a fundy priest quoting sentences from the Babble.

L: Careful, though, in thinking about this, you might just mistakenly remember something.

S: Hmm? What was that?

Oh, nothing really, just one of your ideas.

Really? Would you respond to my Freud post?

Yes, really.

And, yes, I will respond to it, along with a few others, as soon as I can.

Deal.

Good. Then I expect some better arguments from now on -- particularly on this highly-charged (for you) topic.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Does it pain you to know that I'm a genius?

You are not a genius. How could I possibly be in pain over something that isn’t true. Since A=A is the very basis of identification, why would I recognise your insistence on A=B as representative of genius?

You may know A=A. But, my A=A is memory, pattern recognition.

So there.

I mean on that basis, your genius really does amount to an idiot -- among a myriad of other things.

I love you. Just when I hated you.

Women have no appreciation for genius. Not my idea.

Yes, I know it's not your idea. That’s why it makes sense; particularly with the context in which it was written.

Bah.

You’re starting to sound like a fundy priest quoting sentences from the Babble.

Weeeeeeee!

L: Careful, though, in thinking about this, you might just mistakenly remember something.

S: Hmm? What was that?

Oh, nothing really, just one of your ideas.

All I see is your arrogance.

Deal.

Good. Then I expect some better arguments from now on -- particularly on this highly-charged (for you) topic.

Yes, master.

You should understand something: When you insult someone, and resort to belittling their intelligence, they tend to get upset [a very healthy upset, by the Way] And, well, it tends to say more about you, than me. But, who really cares about morality, anyway.

What ever happened to the rub of enlightenment? Two mothers? Am I not enlightened anymore...

[Cory Duchesne]

Prince wrote:

All drugs are the same in effect, they target the lizard section of the brain to release endorphines. Any apparrent difference between them is due to the individual mental patterns of the person using the drug.

and:

Cocaine is for people who desire to feel intelligent and socially on-to-it, etc etc.

Isnt that the case with all drugs? Isnt that the reason (generally) why people do drugs to begin with? In order to enhance their social life - to feel cool, hip, (aka - smart)?

Except for drugs used for physical pain of course.

I think cocaine can make a person who is not intelligent and socially on-to-it - feel intelligent and socially onto it.

Alcohol generally doesnt do that. People often drink alchol to fit in socially, and feel smarter, but the drug doesnt actually make them feel smarter or more intelligent. To take note of this is to have your argument undermined.

Your argument being: "All drugs are the same in effect"

No, drug are different to various degrees in regards to how they cause and therefore to how they effect the brain. That is not to say that they are not without their similarities.

Why don't you see LSD addicts (have your ever witness one?) behaving the same way you see alcoholics or cocaine addicts?

Why is cafeine ok in the work place and not alcohol?

The reason is because each drug operates on the brain in a different way and thus produce different effects.

I once knew a guy who was a 'beer and hockey' sort of guy.

He would alway go on spontaneous adventures where he would just drift from party to party drinking beer and smoking pot. he was and still is a very conventional sort of fellow - likes wrestling, hockey, sports in general, mainstream music, etc.....

During one of his 'benders' he met up with a group of people who were doing shrooms. This was before he even drank much beer. He took just as many shrooms as the rest of them....but the shrooms had a much different effect on him compared to everyone else. He became very paranoid and started throwing plastic chairs at eveyone and muttering these strange perveted combinations of words. He seemed to have drifted in a semi conscious state although his eyes were as wide as saucers. Soon all that was coming out of his mouth were groans and moans, with the word 'ass' - 'dick' -- 'fucker' muttered - sometimes he would suddenly giggle to himself for no apparent reason, but then he would just as quickly fly back into a state of anger and frusteration. It was quite creepy. He didnt recognize anyone and just stared blankly at our faces, occasionly he walked up to someone and investigate them like he had never seen a human before, even though the person he was staring blankly at was a close friend.

Mushrooms effect the brain much differently than beer.

I agree that a person wouldnt experience a profound state of being simply by taking a psychadelic drug - - they would have to have an inquisitive, wondering mind to begin with. Without a more intellectual disposition, the user of lsd or mushrooms probably wouldnt have a great time. Sometimes this is not so. People who had no inclination to be intellectual - suddenly had profound feelings and thoughts on psychadelic drugs, which they only ingested for confused compulsive reasons.

Drug use is rooted in confusion to different degrees.

I like this quote from Terrence Mckenna:

"Really only the wild man or the wild human can fully respond to psychedelics, everyone else has a lot on the line, a lot to lose. In the Third World people are trying to make it into the middle class. They value focus and responsibility. Extravagant imaginings and philosophical flights of fancy belong to the true primitive and the true sophisticate. Nobody else gets it."

here's another one:

The internet is tremendously empowering of all forces previously at the margins of the cultural dialogue. This cuts two ways, Fascists, Gay Culture and our own psychedelic community have all gained coherence from the use of the net. Ultimately, because I believe the net dissolves boundaries in much the same way that psychedelics do, I believe that the most important effect will be an emerging of stronger communities with healthier attitudes toward drugs, the earth, woman and children.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven:

You may know A=A. But, my A=A is memory, pattern recognition.
So there.

I love you. Just when I hated you.

Weeeeeeee!

Yes, master.
You should understand something: When you insult someone, and resort to belittling their intelligence, they tend to get upset [a very healthy upset, by the Way] And, well, it tends to say more about you, than me. But, who really cares about morality, anyway.

What ever happened to the rub of enlightenment? Two mothers? Am I not enlightened anymore...

All I see is your arrogance.

That’s because you’re just one massive, seething ego. If you were wise -- genius -- you would have responded accordingly.

Outside of a hypothesis you could not properly argue, I don’t think anyone has seen anything on the order of wisdom through the merit of your (self-proclaimed) genius.

[Tomas]

Hey now.

Until (til) I win the lottery... just give me the good stuff

Couple joints here and there.

In passing ... a doob now and then

dope changes everything

Tomas The tank)
VietNam veteran _ 1971

Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite

[DHodges]

I agree that a person wouldnt experience a profound state of being simply by taking a psychadelic drug - - they would have to have an inquisitive, wondering mind to begin with. Without a more intellectual disposition, the user of lsd or mushrooms probably wouldnt have a great time. Sometimes this is not so. People who had no inclination to be intellectual - suddenly had profound feelings and thoughts on psychadelic drugs, which they only ingested for confused compulsive reasons.

Back in college days, I did some mushrooms with two people one night, and the one said something that the other one thought was so profound, that he wrote it on my dorm room wall with a magic marker, so it wouldn't be forgotten.

I haven't forgotten it, because I had to see it there for the rest of the semester. It said, "Iguanas with washed hands are the best kind."

[Cory Duchesne]

Dhodges wrote:

Back in college days, I did some mushrooms with two people one night, and the one said something that the other one thought was so profound, that he wrote it on my dorm room wall with a magic marker, so it wouldn't be forgotten.

I haven't forgotten it, because I had to see it there for the rest of the semester. It said, "Iguanas with washed hands are the best kind."

LoL. Yes I experienced and witnessed people get profoundly silly on these sorts of drugs. A sort of malice free-sheer-nonsensical humour starts to emerge. A giggle fest errupts based on weirdness, intelligibility, ambiguity. So your saying that people who feel they have had profound realizations on psychadeleic drugs, did not neccesarily have any profound realizations - but rather, there is simply an emotion or feeling that is generated by the drug - a feeling that says: "whoa man, these thoughts are deep" ?

Perhaps in some cases or in most cases the is so, however, the main point I was trying to make was that varying drugs operate differently on the brain.

Psychadelics tend to make people feel that reality is unusual and mysterious and there is something deep - or else they have a real bad trip, get real paranoid, etc, etc. With alcohol, this is not so much the case - It just strengthens ones conditioning, as well as exagerates ones feminine animal implulses perhaps.

[Tomas]

I fell in love with you real fast
Held your hand in the summer grass
Please don't make me let you go
I don't want to be alone
Dope changes everything
It even changed the King
And victory is pain
And superstars drink formula
'Cause they don't want those feelings at all
Dope changes everything
Everything Everything

A narcotic digital paradise

[R. Steven Coyle]

Outside of a hypothesis you could not properly argue, I don’t think anyone has seen anything on the order of wisdom through the merit of your (self-proclaimed) genius.

I never claimed to be the genius of drug use.

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs] I see. Well, if you like, tell me what you are the "genius" of and we'll have a look at it together.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Ok, I'll play along.

My mind can recognize the movements of Nature, enabling me to delve into nearly any talent and make it my own. I've been known to be a prophet of sorts, a seer -- even a wizard. With a telepathic mind, I'm able to utilize cybernetics, to receive information from "the matrix." With my Buddha-nature, I can communicate with animate and inanimate objects. I've also realized that "I am."

Half of these are logical.

[Tomas]

.

Are Cigarettes More of a Drag on Teens than Marijuana?

New study shows that adolescents who toke up function better than those who also use tobacco

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... =sciammind

.

[brokenhead]

Wow, Tomas, you went way back for this thread.

Are Cigarettes More of a Drag on Teens than Marijuana?

Absolutely, more of a drag on everyone than pot. Cigarettes are addictive, pot is not.
The physical trauma of smoking is similar in both cases, with cigarettes winning out because of all the additives the Tobacco Companies use.
Cigarettes are by far the deadliest, most abused drug in this country if not the world.

[daybrown]

Its not upta us. Almost all legislators have partners back home who make damn good money defending drug dealers. No lawyer is going to pass law that diminishes the income of other lawyers.

First stop electing lawyers. Then we can see about legalizing drugs. We could still make drug dealing a civil offense, so that the families of the addicts could bring the dealer into court and sue for the cost of drug rehab. As it is, the lawyers get all the assets of the dealers for keeping them out of jail.

2ndly, the perjorative attitude about what other cultures regard as sacred enthoegens is the result of Christian socialization. If you can achieve enlightenment with mediation go for it. As for the rest, give them a sacred potion if they need it. The important point is spiritual illumination, not how you lit the lamp.

[Tomas]

Wow, Tomas, you went way back for this thread.


Better than to start a new thread... this one I reseached (read all posts in their entirety) before decided to "borrow" it for this study.

Are Cigarettes More of a Drag on Teens than Marijuana?

Absolutely, more of a drag on everyone than pot. Cigarettes are addictive, pot is not.


At least the "white man's" variety with added chemicals and yucky other stuff.




The physical trauma of smoking is similar in both cases, with cigarettes winning out because of all the additives the Tobacco Companies use.

Smoked for 20 years, the dumbest (most stupid) thing I've ever done.



Cigarettes are by far the deadliest, most abused drug in this country if not the world.

Sure, but meth is up and coming...



Tomas


7

.