And what do you think is more important - the 'means' to the goal - -- - or the goal? Is the means divided from the goal? Or is the means and the end one whole?
A serious, sensible person concerns themselves only with understanding the means. Understand the means and the goal will take care of itself. Most people focus on the goal, while mindlessly continuing to do what is contrary to the means.
But I still believe, for certain individuals, intelligent drug use can be used to rapidly open mental blocks, and even enhance creativity.
Yes, but the sort of creativity that results from using drugs to accelerate the brain, comes only at the expense of 'consistently' clear thinking individuals. If you look at histories 'creative' individuals - -the ones that advocate drugs, were often abnormally miserable and self-destructive individuals with monstrous egos, producing what 'was/is' an ultimately trendy, superflous, pretentious, shallow means to experience mere exciting sensations. Timothy leary smoked cigarrettes and wanted to be frozen so he could be thawed in the future. He then changed his mind and decided he wanted to go to heaven, claiming he seen William Burroughs beckoning him to come to heaven. Need I go into the wretched, miserable, superstitious life of William Burroughs? Alister Crowley? Arthur Rimbauld? Jim Morrison? Syd Barret? Leonard Cohen? Bob Dylan? John Lennon? Jimi Hendrix? Kurt Cobain? Some might be shocked that I am dismissing so many 'great' people who have given so much to culture. But all of those peoples lives were just a plea for attention, functioning to blind the future from the greatness of nature, tao, of true philosophy. So yes, drugs can foster a superficial, myopic sort of creativity that is blinding. It is the sort of creativity that stimulate sensations and gives pleasure. It is Rubish. William Blake and Terrence Mckenna are perhaps the only exceptions I am aware of, but that is not to say they are especially helpful. They are good to absorb and then move on to greater things.
People who think highly of the people I listed above (or anyone in particular) are like moths around a light. It is the whole of hummanities contribution that has to be beheld. To emphasize anyone too strongly, no matter how great of an individual they are, is the sign of idolotry and self-aggrandization.
I think you are on prescription drugs as a result of trying to 'rapidly open mental blocks' with other drugs. You say Marijuana can heal. But I say it can only appease the pain of those who are already sick. What are the root causes of your sickness? Would Marijuana be one of them? Probably.
C: And what do you think is more important - the 'means' to the goal - -- - or the goal? Is the means divided from the goal? Or is the means and the end one whole?
To my mind, the means and the end should be one -- one definition of high consciousness.
C: A serious, sensible person [...] concerns themselves only with understanding the means. Understand the means and the goal will take care of itself. Most people focus on the goal, while mindlessly continuing to do what is contrary to the means.
S: But I still believe, for certain individuals, intelligent drug use can be used to rapidly open mental blocks, and even enhance creativity.
C: Yes, but the sort of creativity that results from using drugs to accelerate the brain, comes only at the expense of 'consistently' clear thinking individuals.
Not through self-education, and study of literature. For instance, understanding yoga leads to a stable mindset, under the mind-altering drugs discussed.
C: If you look at histories 'creative' individuals - -the ones that advocate drugs, were often abnormally miserable and self-destructive individuals with monstrous egos, producing what 'was/is' an ultimately trendy, superflous, pretentious, shallow means to experience mere exciting sensations. Timothy leary smoked cigarrettes and wanted to be frozen so he could be thawed in the future. He then changed his mind and decided he wanted to go to heaven, claiming he seen William Burroughs beckoning him to come to heaven. Need I go into the wretched, miserable, superstitious life of William Burroughs? Alister Crowley? Arthur Rimbauld? Jim Morrison? Syd Barret? Leonard Cohen? Bob Dylan? John Lennon? Jimi Hendrix? Kurt Cobain?
Yes, but does an individual model themselves after the shortcomings of another? Wouldn't that be focusing solely on the means?
C: Some might be shocked that I am dismissing so many 'great' people who have given so much to culture. But all of those peoples lives were just a plea for attention, functioning to blind the future from the greatness of nature, tao, of true philosophy. So yes, drugs can foster a superficial, myopic sort of creativity that is blinding.
Really?
C: It is the sort of creativity that stimulate sensations and gives pleasure. It is Rubish. William Blake and Terrence Mckenna are perhaps the only exceptions I am aware of, but that is not to say they are especially helpful. They are good to absorb and then move on to greater things.
Isn't the greatest within the smallest?
C: People who think highly of the people I listed above (or anyone in particular) are like moths around a light. It is the whole of hummanities contribution that has to be beheld. To emphasize anyone too strongly, no matter how great of an individual they are, is the sign of idolotry and self-aggrandization.
True.
C: I think you are on prescription drugs as a result of trying to 'rapidly open mental blocks' with other drugs. You say Marijuana can heal. But I say it can only appease the pain of those who are already sick. (Aren't you being a bit narrow-minded, old chap?) What are the root causes of your sickness? Would Marijuana be one of them? Probably.
I say marijuana can heal with intelligent use. The onslaught of bi-polar occured after my girlfriend passed away in an automobile crash. With no viable support from an unconscious/wholly feminine family, I lost my mind. Through enlightenment, I'm slowly regaining it.
I wouldn’t call that narrow-minded at all--he did say “probably.†In fact, I think your complete recognition of it as the sickness it is would be quite healthy. But, you already know that part, as well as the fact that you'll have to get over your two mothers first, too. Ain’t that the very rub of enlightenment?
So, I think Cory’s spot on with this idea:
But I say it can only appease the pain of those who are already sick.
Which is why I object to your “psychologically adept individuals†tripe.
If either of my sons or daughter ever vest even an inch of themselves in a female or male that way, I‘ll break their fucking necks myself--failing that, I’ll disown them. (Little bit of hyperbole, but you get the general idea.)
I say marijuana can heal with intelligent use.
I say you're tripping. It doesn’t heal--it numbs; like an anaesthetic. People smoke the shit all their lives without healing a thing. What you mean by “intelligent use†actually comes down to the understanding that it is nothing more than a pain killer, a crutch--then, you really start to go places, if you’re “psychologically adept,†that is.
But, you already know that part, as well as the fact that you'll have to get over your two mothers first, too. Ain’t that the very rub of enlightenment?
Just got back from a walk. As I'm walking, headphones on, this kid, probably 30 or so, says, "You're gay -- Now, take a walk." Most likely thinking, "Eh, he won't hear me. Maybe it'll register subliminally." As he says it, I stop. Silence breaks over the crowd. I stride to the right, kick a stone, proceed.
As I'm climbing back up the hill, I look him square in the eye -- he attempts to mimic my subtleties, baseball in hand. I continue the approach. He cowers, slowly, into a garage filled with relatives. I laugh with a weeping willow.
:)
So, I think Cory’s spot on with this idea:
But I say it can only appease the pain of those who are already sick.
Which is why I object to your “psychologically adept individuals†tripe.
If either of my sons or daughter ever vest even an inch of themselves in a female or male that way, I‘ll break their fucking necks myself--failing that, I’ll disown them. (Little bit of hyperbole, but you get the general idea.)
Good.
S: I say marijuana can heal with intelligent use.
L: I say you're tripping. It doesn’t heal--it numbs; like an anaesthetic. People smoke the shit all their lives without healing a thing. What you mean by “intelligent use†actually comes down to the understanding that it is nothing more than a pain killer, a crutch--then, you really start to go places, if you’re “psychologically adept,†that is.
Still gotta disagree. From my own "Psychologically Adept Experience!" moderate marijuana use behaves like a good therapist.
From my own "Psychologically Adept Experience!" moderate marijuana use behaves like a good therapist.
Pain management is often a part of most therapies--I know this from my own psychologically adept experience--particularly when the pain is intense, or chronic.
I still see much wounded ego in your narratives, such as the one preceding your last reply. I do not see enlightenment or wisdom, yet, Steven.
Jesus and Nietzsche had flaws preventing them from perfect wisdom.
And?
How do you know, anyway? You ever spoken to them--had a direct, meaningful conversation wherein they might’ve been able to directly impart some wisdom to you on a personal level straight off the top of their heads? How much do you expect them to achieve for you in a few books, and ages of interpretations?
Where is wisdom?
L: What degree of wisdom do you propose classifies one as wise?
S: I would classify someone as a sage when they've fully comprehended the nature of Reality.
God damn fucking politician, you are. Nothing wise in that, despite the fact that it may make you feel clever.
Circular.
S: A wounded ego, okay. But, a wounded argument?
L: Was that an argument against the last thing I said on the subject of drug therapy and psychological adeptness?
S: It was.
Oh, I get it--this is another one of your (A=A)=(A=B) propositions. You know, man=woman, argument=question.
You have definitely come up with a formula for guaranteed psychosis with this, I reckon.
Well done!
Can’t touch that.
However, on the off-chance that you may suddenly discover what a rational argument is, this is where we left off last:
S: From my own "Psychologically Adept Experience!" moderate marijuana use behaves like a good therapist.
L: Pain management is often a part of most therapies--I know this from my own psychologically adept experience--particularly when the pain is intense, or chronic.
Jesus and Nietzsche had flaws preventing them from perfect wisdom.
And?
Where is wisdom?
Their writings are their mind.
L: What degree of wisdom do you propose classifies one as wise?
S: I would classify someone as a sage when they've fully comprehended the nature of Reality.
God damn fucking politician, you are. Nothing wise in that, despite the fact that it may make you feel clever.
Circular.
What kind of answer were you looking for, really?
Wisdom is understanding.
However, on the off-chance that you may suddenly discover what a rational argument is, this is where we left off last:
S: From my own "Psychologically Adept Experience!" moderate marijuana use behaves like a good therapist.
L: Pain management is often a part of most therapies--I know this from my own psychologically adept experience--particularly when the pain is intense, or chronic.
Try and step outside of your own experience. Not everyone uses drugs to escape pain.
It's kind of silly to throw all drugs in one bucket, as if the same reasoning applies to stimulants, depressants, pain killers, hallucinogens, and so on.
Marijuana seems to be the real point of contention. Why is that illegal, when alcohol and tobacco are not?
Even if you favor total legalization (hopefully with a program of education about the dangers of each substance), starting with marijuana seems like a logical first step. It would certainly be a less radical step, and so less disturbing to the economy and society in general. It's also a relatively realistic idea. Legalizing coke, heroin, etc., is just not going to fly.
I personally don't smoke pot, because I don't like it. But it strikes me as irrational that it is illegal. The cost of it being illegal (e.g., additional police, prisons, and lost tax revenue) is huge.
I have so much to say, I'm almost prepared to quit working!
No wonder Weininger shot himself and Socrates' integrity had to take the form of self-sacrifice.
Steven wrote:
Wisdom is understanding.
Yes, yes -- A=B.
I understand how to bake a cake. Makes me wise, indeed.
Try and step outside of your own experience.
Please name one person who has managed to pull that off.
Your "arguments" are so...well, stupid.
Not everyone uses drugs to escape pain.
You are suggesting that some use it to gain philosophical insight, wisdom and enlightenment; how many such persons actually achieved it and stopped taking drugs for that reason, then?
DHodges wrote:
It's kind of silly to throw all drugs in one bucket, as if the same reasoning applies to stimulants, depressants, pain killers, hallucinogens, and so on.
Right. But, hey, we can glean philosophical insight from all of them but not because any of them are taken to manage any type of pain.
Marijuana seems to be the real point of contention.
Wrong. Marijuana was specifically brought into the "discussion" much later on.
I'm looking forward to addressing your last two paragraphs later.
Steven: Try and step outside of your own experience.
Leyla: Please name one person who has managed to pull that off.
Your "arguments" are so...well, stupid.
Oh.
Projection, not always the root of all evil. Learned that with ego it can be.
Steven: Not everyone uses drugs to escape pain.
Leyla: You are suggesting that some use it to gain philosophical insight, wisdom and enlightenment; how many such persons actually achieved it and stopped taking drugs for that reason, then?
You're still living with the stigma that drugs are bad. If you would think beyond labels, ya might realize that not everything is so black and white.
Some may say that it is stupid to legalize some drugs while leaving other drugs illegal, however, to me, I think it is as logical as a decision a modern culture can make considering what the values of your typical culture are.
A culture needs predicatablity, socializing, organization, dependability.
Therefore, when a culture authorizes drugs like alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, and prescription drugs, all of which limit consciousness while prohibiting the other more taboo drugs, it is acting in the most logical way it possibly can considering the values of the people in power, as well as the tendencies of the masses the power guides.
Most people don't want to do the drugs that are illegal anyway. The drugs most people want to do are the ones that shrink awareness, and preserve the conditioning that the culture demands you accept. Most people want to do the drugs that are legal and fear the drugs that are illegal.
If you legalized all the drugs that are now illegal, while illegalizing all the drugs are now legal - the whole culture would fall apart. The drugs that are now legal are legal for a practical, utilitarian reason.
Most people arent interested in doing cocaine and heroin because such drugs produce drastic and extreme states of mind and thus are anti-social and have much more debilitating consequences. Only when there emerges a sub-culture where people share the experience that these extreme drugs offer, do they do them. Drugs like cocaine and heroin are for a small minority consisting of very wealthy, charismatic, talented, bored, confused, abhorently ambitious, self-absorbed, depressed people - - usually musicians, actors, artists, or worse: people who idolize and want to identify themselves with such people. Alot of times young teenagers throw their life away by doing drugs that they did only because they looked up to the famous, wealthy, powerful people who are the exemplars. Society couldnt hold itself together if these sorts of drugs were commonplace. Most humans arent strong and conscious enough to handle those drugs anyway. If we legalized them, I'm not even sure if the rate of use would go up much. Things would probably continue close to the way they are going.
If you have ever done them, it should be obvious to you why LSD and mushrooms are illegal. They are totally contrary to a drug like alcohol. Rather than strenghten your conditioning and dim your alertness (which alcohol does), mushrooms and LSD break down your conditioning and you become overwhelmingly alert, and if your brain is inquisitive enough and you have a decent conscience, you will have the sort of insights and flashes that will give you an appreciation of Zen, budhist and taoist writings, all of which you will probably become enthusiastic about after suffering from your drug expriences sufficiently. If you have a bad conscience, are fearful, uninquistive, and are basically paranoid - then these sorts of mind expanding drugs will take you to a bad place.
So, LSD and mushrooms are for the more haphazardly intellectual, artistic people, or for people who idolize and/or are trying to imitate cliched fallen hero's such as Rimbaud, Jim Morrison, or rabble rousers like Tim Leary, Aleister Crowley, or visionaries like terrence mckenna. They are also for people who admire the ways of primitive cultures. Psychadelic Mushrooms used in a ritualistic way hold such a culture together rather than rip it apart. This is because a primitive cultures surival depends on great sensitivity to nature, and so, having members ingest these psychoactive mushrooms really doesnt harm their culture the way it would threaten a more modern one, but actually benifits it. Since a modern culture thrives off the exploitation and destruction of nature via a very systematic and organized mundane routine, psychadelic drugs would endanger and confuse the culture.
As for weed, well, again, weed actually broadens the mind, hinders the more utilitarian aspect of our logic, and anestheticizes fears - not good for our culture.
So Steven, I do know where your coming from, but at the same time, I encourage you to work on broadening your mind and working on dealing with your fears without drugs. A wise person does not depend on sensation derived from a drug to be well. Only confused, suffering people do that.
I'll admit, I find primitive indigeneous cultures, with their shamanism and reverence for the mushroom, very interesting and significant.
But as for the legalization issue - opinions are stupid.
When you understand why things are the way they are, your opinions die away and you are left with the 'what is'.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Tue May 16, 2006 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
So Steven, I do know where your coming from, but at the same time, I encourage you to work on broadening your mind and working on dealing with your fears without drugs. A wise person does depend on sensation derived from a drug to be well. Only confused, suffering people do that.
Cory,
I'm now fully emersed in the realization of Mind. With the reality hacking tools of Zen, and the great wisdom of the Infinite, I am consciously attacking my fears, and making good progress.
I'll admit, I find primitive indigeneous cultures, with their shamanism and reverence for the mushroom, very interesting and significant.
As do I. There are great parallels between the awakened state of a Buddha and the art of shamanistic flight. The shaman, as well as a Buddha, can commune with the spirits [all appearances], to gain esoteric knowledge and power.
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. One who lacks imagination will find Cannabis and LSD works, Cocaine for people who desire to feel intelligent and socially on-to-it, etc etc.
The management of suffering can bring forth philosophic insight.
Your previous argument was loaded with undertones of sarcasm, making it difficult to distinguish your true intention.
Also, in your previous argument, you seemed to be insisting that drug use was only for the weak-minded, those who were only seeking an escape from a painful reality. But, now you seem to agree that it is possible to gain philosophical insight...
Last edited by R. Steven Coyle on Tue May 16, 2006 3:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Here's a paper I wrote for medical ethics on whether or not it is ethical to outlaw any drug. It was written for an easy teacher, so I didn't aim for a perfect paper, let alone perfect logic...but I certainly bring at least a few valid points to the table.
Whether or not something is ethical depends firmly upon its inclination to be found debatable. It is unfortunate that the only objectivity in ethical issues is that the subjective can never be discounted. Each man holds the irrevocable bias of being an individual; it is not within that man’s grasp to decide how another shall live his own life so long as it does not interfere with another man’s right to the same. Up until very recently in the history of reasonable consciousness, this immutable truth has remained unaltered. Murder has always been defined as wrong, because it violates the truth that everyone has the right to respective existence. Stealing has always been thought of as immoral, because of its interference with a second party’s right to what is his. The moral fabric of society has been founded on the idea that until one man can truly walk in another’s shoes, man’s power over one another is limited to what directly alters the illusion of free will. Therefore, the outlawing of anything which does no harm to anyone except those who choose to personally and exclusively accept its outcome is in clear violation of the basic ethical principles through which chaos is avoided.
This past century has seen a revolution of hypocrisy as separate nations’ governments outlaw certain substances deemed unacceptable to possess, and then resort to absurd means to maintain these laws. In order to grasp the unfortunate repercussions the illicit state of some drugs has created, it must be understood why some felt it necessary to make them illegal in the first place. In the early twentieth century, any teenager could walk into a corner drugstore and purchase heroin or cocaine. Despite this arguably frightening fact, they didn’t. Drugs were certainly recognized for their potent mind-altering abilities, but because there was no strong legal taboo attached to them, there was very little abuse. Soon, the government got wind of the rising problems associated with drug addiction and through stretches of the truth got each problematic drug outlawed.
Narcotics were made illegal not because of health issues, which today is the drug czars’ main defense for their illicitness, but because of various implied social issues surrounding their use. Mental illness and promiscuity were blamed on drugs. Little or poor research was done on the topic and was then presented to the public in a false and exaggerated fashion. The popular, now cult-like propaganda film Reefer Madness (1938) was heavily influential in pitting the common man against drugs, especially the demon weed of marijuana. In the film, young impressionable high-school aged youths are duped by suave drug peddlers into smoking marijuana resulting in uncontrollable laughter, insanity, jazz music and “a murder most foulâ€. This type of one-sided bias is what allowed the public to be swayed into believing that recreational drugs ware a burden on society. Of course, extensive modern research has proven that drugs by themselves do not cause insanity, promiscuity, or the urge to kill.
It is true that with lowered inhibitions a man may have altered decision making ability, but this is the case with any prescription drug and even alcohol. Before taking any drug, the person doing so is soberly making that conscious decision, and it is his/her responsibility to understand and respect the outcome of that decision. A man can wear sunglasses while driving at night and then kill himself and a pedestrian; the media does not blame the sunglasses for this tragedy, and sunglasses remain legal. Repeated abuse of anything can trigger the emergence of latent psychological crises, so it is not the drug to be feared, but man’s tendency to abuse. For most men (though most men live as if they themselves are the 16th century earth juxtaposed to the sun), indulgence and casual abuse of fortunate gain are unavoidable, even for the most honest and well-intentioned thinkers among us. This leads to the question of whether or not this impulse is unavoidable innately. It could be argued that intrinsic selfishness dictates a required amount of even restrained abuse of whatever resources (of any composition...material, spiritual, etc.) we have an abundance of. That having been said, it is clear that drugs themselves are not part of any moral decline in this nation, but rather the men who choose to allow abuse to control their inhibitions.
A much larger justification for outlawing drugs is the claim that they, simply put, are unhealthy. In the vein of abuse being an unavoidable vice of mankind, it is obvious that the abuse of drugs is what is detrimental to one’s health, rather than the implications of the drug alone. Studies have shown that occasional use (once a week - once a month) of a safe amount of any illegal drug is no more harmful to a person’s health than overeating, alcohol intake, or (heaven forbid) cigarette smoking. Instead of being taught to fear drugs as an uncontrollable menace, people should have been conditioned on the dangers of abuse and how misuse of any substance, drugs especially, is unwise.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)
In clear print, the foremost doctrine of this nation states that the government may not prohibit free exercise of religion. Now, it would be foolish to not consider the fact that particular wording in this amendment is controversially vague. It is most people’s belief that “establishment of religion†refers to any widespread religion, but a quick glance at a dictionary will define religion as “a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practicesâ€. This shows that religion is not limited to an institution or a popular system, but that personal beliefs and attitudes also fall under the category of freedom of religion.
It is then evident that religion, in the personal sense, is easily synonymous to an individual’s own interpretation and treatment of reality. If a person feels experimentation with different types of foods, sexual partners, or mind-altering substances should be part of his/her own reality, then it is the government’s duty to not only respect that individual’s right, but also to protect it from those who would see fit to imperil its establishment. It is bitterly ironic that these inalienable truths have indeed been reversed on the public as the government chose to do quite the opposite of respecting and protecting the right to religion by outlawing certain drugs.
The current illicit condition of drugs is not only unwarranted and unethical, but it is arguable that the prohibition thereof is perhaps more riddled with detriments than the few ills of the substances the laws were designed to abolish. Hastily manufactured substitutes for particular drugs are far more harmful to produce and ingest than their safer pure counterparts which are too expensive on the street for the poorer market to afford. Such substitutes are crack in place of cocaine or crystal meth instead of pure amphetamines. These dangerous imitation drugs would not have come into existence if drugs were not made illegal in the first place. Efforts to protect society only worsened the situation because outlawing drugs does not eliminate the public’s compulsion to use them. Each year, more and more people are senselessly killed as a direct result of illegal drug sales and smuggling efforts. In fact, the murder rate has peaked both in 1930’s and the 1970’s, when the two most aggressive drug prohibition policies emerged. Prohibition of anything, proven by the 18th amendment regarding alcohol in the 1920’s, allows organized crime to flourish. The bottom line is that prohibition of drugs is certainly not putting an end to drug use, and ultimately it does more harm to the country than good.
Instead of using unjust means to gain public support to outlaw drugs, the government could have performed extensive unbiased research on the effects of casual, safe drug use. They could have propagated the public with the dangers of abuse, rather than lying about the terrors of miniscule amounts of drugs which now are recognized as virtually harmless in comparison to their prior demeanor. Now, this country is well into its own War On Drugs and it seems a futile end is in sight. It is an unwinnable war because its prisoners are its own citizens, and its enemy is the laws on which its gears run. It is an even direr situation when realized that it would not be easy to legalize all illegal drugs, and the only way this scourge upon this nation could have been prevented would be never to have began doubting man’s right to his own view of reality.
The past century represents a mere fraction of the time mankind has occupied this earth. But it was only this past century that has seen an uprise in public concern for the use of drugs. Suddenly, resources which have been placed so abundantly on this planet have been fingered as forbidden - punishable by imprisonment. Are these the correct means to reach the idealistic ends of a socially moral and well-minded society? Not if those ends see half the prison population comprised of peaceful drug-users whose only crime was being unlucky in concealing their right to experiment with their own mind. The toll the illegality of drugs have taken on this nation far outweighs any possible negative effects drugs may have on the user. The abuse of drugs is what is must be tackled if the War On Drugs is to be won, not the drugs themselves. The impact drugs may have on mankind is not to be taken lightly, but it is consequently within no man’s power to undermine individual responsibility in the matter of choosing one’s own path in life. It has always been thought of as wise to end any thesis with an apt and powerful quote from a man who had said it better, and more concisely:
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." – Abraham Lincoln
You know ... what I'd like to try some time in the future? Some LSD!!
Heard so much about the stuff that it can't be all bad. Believing the government and it's Just Say It Ain't So Nancy just ain't cutting it.
The CIA did (maybe still does) experiments with it some decades back -- so if it's good enough for Uncle Sam it can't be all bad news.
Perhaps I'll score some by the time I'm age-75.
Live a couple hundred from San Francisco, think I'll drive up the Pac-Coast highway ... hole up for a couple few days 'n fly away with some Grateful Dead Heads. We're off- to NeverNeverLand...
Later,
Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971
Prince of Jerusalem
16th Degree
Scottish Rite Mason
Marijuana seems to be the real point of contention.
Wrong. Marijuana was specifically brought into the "discussion" much later on.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I meant in the real world (as opposed to in this thread), the legalization of marijuana is something that is actually possible and politically debatable, whereas other (Schedule 1) drugs have no chance of being legalized in the foreseeable future, at least in the US.
Tomas wrote:You know ... what I'd like to try some time in the future? Some LSD!!
Do you honestly think you can handle it? It can be pretty intense.
The CIA did (maybe still does) experiments with it some decades back -- so if it's good enough for Uncle Sam it can't be all bad news.
Well, what the CIA did with it was some pretty nasty business. Giving people acid without telling them, to see how much they will freak out - seriously unethical. The LSD experience is sensitive to "set and setting," and is something like temporary schizophrenia. You really need to be ready for it, or you may just think you are going insane.
