LSD: Acid tests

[The Pair of Cats]

Yes, they are. That's because each drug is a different chemical. Each chemical acts on you differently. Most people lump them all together because it's the easiest thing to do and, as I've stated, they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Especially if they have not experienced the particular drug's effects. They generally use stupid analogies like 'I don't have to jump off a cliff to know what it feels like.' Yes, I claim that is a very stupid and pointless analogy and I hope somebody doesn't ask me why.
However, I think things are getting better re drug (the illegal kind) information and knowledge. At least people, in general, are no longer automatically swallowing the misinformation and hysterical thinking that passed for drug knowledge in previous generations. It has required those half-witted lunkheads to die out (maybe while coughing their lungs out from smoking); but it has changed for the better.
I am not a proponent for drug use, far from it. But mankind has clearly demonstrated his inability to stay away from intoxicants. You cannot just say no. It does not work that way and no amount of wishful thinking will make it. Most people that use intoxicants are self-medicating for some sort of pain or ailment; physical or psychological.
There is something innate, it seems, across higher mammals at least, to be attracted to intoxicants. Elephants love alcohol. Many will consume it from fermented fruits every chance they get; enough to get them drunk. Rats and just about any other mammal will voluntarily drink bitter morphine-water instead of regular water, just for the effects of morphine.
Remember the saying "A poison is too much of anything". This applies to water, air, salt, sand, heroin. Except maybe THC (from marijuana). They never were able to sucessfully kill any rats with an overdose of THC, at least not without administering over half the body weight of the animal. Nope, all the rats recovered from 'THC poisoning'.

The problems with Marijuana as i see it are that it does affect some people psychologically. Whether this causes these problems or somehow exposes pre existing conditions maybe debateable. I know friends who wont touch it because it freaks them out. Giving them an effect not unlike an LSD trip. I worked in a hospital Emergency department with a psych unit attached to it. The prevailing opinion of the staff there was that marijuana did have an adverse effect on some people, especially long term or chronic use. I occasionally had to help deal with some of them. Not a pleasant experience at times.
Secondly, although THC probably hasn't killed anybody, the smoke from bongs, pipes or joints inhaled into the lungs cannot be good for you. I know people who would smoke 15 to 20 cones a day if not more. You can't tell me that is good for you. Especially since the majority of them already smoke cigarettes.
Ingesting would be a far better way of taking the drug. Cookies, cakes etc.
I don't think i have ever met a "moderate" marijuana smoker. 99% of them smoke weed like one would smoke cigarettes.

Drugs are fine in moderation...

Totally agree.

 

[softbeard]

Secondly, although THC probably hasn't killed anybody, the smoke from bongs, pipes or joints inhaled into the lungs cannot be good for you. I know people who would smoke 15 to 20 cones a day if not more. You can't tell me that is good for you. Especially since the majority of them already smoke cigarettes.
Ingesting would be a far better way of taking the drug. Cookies, cakes etc.
I don't think i have ever met a "moderate" marijuana smoker. 99% of them smoke weed like one would smoke cigarettes.

You probably have never met a moderate marijuana smoker because you'd never recognise him/her as one. In general, marijuana users go through their 'in love with the drug stage'; that's when you can spot them. Then they become tired of it; either quit or become much more moderate in their consumption. Of course there are always exceptions.
And yes, I totally agree. THC may be harmless, but the smoke from marijuana is not. A much more preferable route would be oral ingestion, or at least vaporize pure THC and smoke it.

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

I'm not looking to get high. I have a child to take care of.

Cool. Not saying you should.
No wonder you haven't seen any UFOs. They stay away from squares.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You probably have never met a moderate marijuana smoker because you'd never recognise him/her as one. In general, marijuana users go through their 'in love with the drug stage'; that's when you can spot them. Then they become tired of it; either quit or become much more moderate in their consumption. Of course there are always exceptions.
And yes, I totally agree. THC may be harmless, but the smoke from marijuana is not. A much more preferable route would be oral ingestion, or at least vaporize pure THC and smoke it.

It was my experience that all of the Marijuana smokers i met were all heavy users. They came from all walks of life and social structure. I agree that there are probably moderate users out there the same as there are moderate heroin or meth users but it seemed to me that at least where Marijuana was concerned the vast majority of users were habitual users, no different to cigarette smokers as indeed most were also.
The greatest danger from Marijuana comes from the smoke. The habit forming is also as difficult to get away from as harder drugs. I smoked marijuana for 23 years. I also took speed, LSD and mushrooms, although only a few times. I gave up all illicit drugs 6 years ago and i am down to one strong coffee per day now.
When i first came to Adelaide it had become the first city in Australia to de-criminalise Marijuana. Minor on the spot fines for growing up to 9 plants and for personal possession. In the 25 years i have been here i have observed some very sinister developments in the drug habits of people here.
Organised crime has cornered the market, leading to home invasions, drive by shootings, murders for drug debts. All these just for the sale and distribution of weed. The other harder, illicit drugs, predominately meth and to a lesser extent heroin, are also vulnerable to the former.
Probably the most sinister and frightening development is the age of the people starting out on weed. Kids as young as 10 years old are stealing from their parents stash and smoking it at school. Whereas in my day the kids were stealing from their parents liquor cabinet or their smokes.
Children's psych. wards are being populated by these same kids (10-16 y.o) at an increasingly high rate.
As i have said before it's the irresponsible Humans, especially some human adults who are to blame for the abuse of drugs. And now they are passing on the same habits to their children. I don't know about you or anyone else but i find that frightening.
For every 1 responsible and moderate user there are 8 or 9 irresponsible and addicted Marijuana smokers. Most of these users don't even know they are addicted until you say to them "if your not addicted to it, then give it up for a week!" . I have done that several times to smokers i know and not one of them, even the more "moderate" of them will do it and have all of the excuses in the world as to why.
Don't get me wrong, Adelaide is one of the safest and best cities in the world to live in, but as with most cities there is an undercurrent of evil attached to its drug culture.. I hope that the city you live in has a better track record and a more informed and intelligent community of drug users and experimenters.

 

[Randall]

I'll just repeat this again by posting the link to it.
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/8852-LSD-Acid-tests?p=118604#post118604

j.r.

 

[softbeard]

It was my experience that all of the Marijuana smokers i met were all heavy users. They came from all walks of life and social structure. I agree that there are probably moderate users out there the same as there are moderate heroin or meth users but it seemed to me that at least where Marijuana was concerned the vast majority of users were habitual users, no different to cigarette smokers as indeed most were also.
The greatest danger from Marijuana comes from the smoke. The habit forming is also as difficult to get away from as harder drugs. I smoked marijuana for 23 years. I also took speed, LSD and mushrooms, although only a few times. I gave up all illicit drugs 6 years ago and i am down to one strong coffee per day now.

It sounds to me like you live in quite a neighbourhood! I am very glad to see you only taking coffee as your drug of choice!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It sounds to me like you live in quite a neighbourhood! I am very glad to see you only taking coffee as your drug of choice!

Lol It may your neighborhood next. But you have to understand, what i have described happens in good upperclass areas as well as bad neighborhoods. We had cases here of students from elite private colleges getting expelled for distribution of marijuana to the other students. Hell the policeman responsible for Operation NOAH (a dob in a drug dealer hotline in the late 80s and early 90s) got busted for possession of Marijuana plants found in the boot of his car. He got 20 years jail and died shortly after release.

I'll just repeat this again by posting the link to it.
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/thr...604#post118604

If you are that determined to see more LSD related posting then i suggest you post something yourself, maybe even enlighten us with one of your LSD induced stories if you have any. Otherwise possibly return to your post deletion to pass the time away instead of trying to control the course of this thread.

 

[softbeard]

Hell the policeman responsible for Operation NOAH (a dob in a drug dealer hotline in the late 80s and early 90s) got busted for possession of Marijuana plants found in the boot of his car. He got 20 years jail and died shortly after release.

There, you are providing a good example of the ludicrous nature of the 'war on drugs'. You are ruining peoples lives. People are rotting away in jail, jails are overfilling, and for what? Some ridiculous, made up, 'drug' offences? The hypocracy of it is outrageous.
Cop gets 20 years in jail for some stupid plants!?? If he'd freelanced as a mafia hitman he wouldn't get that much. And all this nonsense has been going on for what, ~70 years. Yet, in all that time nobody has had the ability to change things significantly.
Some in law enforcement have a vested interest in the drug war. They get funding and their cushy jobs due to it. In my book, they are far more insiduous and corrupt than any drug dealer.
Nothing I have stated is particularly new or even that contreversial. And I think that is part of the tragedy here. It's all old stuff, yet people keep getting destroyed.
You know what the definition of stupidity is? It's when you make a mistake, realize you've made a mistake, then keep making the same mistake over and over.
With this situation we have a perfect example of 'criminal stupidity'.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You know what the definition of stupidity is? It's when you make a mistake, realize you've made a mistake, then keep making the same mistake over and over.

A bit like when you took your first hit. People make the mistake of taking the drug then realise it but it's too late.
I could care less about the war on drugs. It's as phony as the belief that drugs and people are a good mix. If people want to believe that there is or should be a war on drugs then go ahead.
If you need to have drugs of any sort in your life be they illicit, prescribed or over the counter then knock yourselves out.
People get put in jail for drug related crimes mainly because they are stupid. They get careless and get caught.
If you are into buying illicit drugs, even if you grow or manufacture them, you are buying into the very scenario you have described.
If you buy then you are aiding organised crime. If you deal, the same. If you do either you can expect to come into contact with the law, who are in league with the criminal element. So either way you are paying the price. If you grow your own you open yourself up to home invasions or visits from the law. If you drive a car and smoke dope, take meth you will be tested by a roadside drug/alcohol testing station and face losing your licence.
Unless you can come up with a way to beat this system you will have to suffer the consequences of your so called right to take drugs. I don't know many who have been able to do it.
I preferred giving them up altogether rather than try to beat the system. The best thing though is the realisation that you don't really need recreational drugs. If you can't live your life without having to go out and get a high artificially, then suffer the consequences of all of the above.

 

[Golemfrost]

Do people even make/take LSD anymore ?
I can remember it being rather rare 20 years ago, but nowdays i think the closest i´ve heard making the rounds are psilocybin mushrooms "shrooms".
(although i must admit i´m not "in the game" so i don´t really have a clue what people take these days)

/pours in a glass of Johnny Walkers green label,...
yeah because that´s how i roll

 

[softbeard]

A bit like when you took your first hit. People make the mistake of taking the drug then realise it but it's too late.

And here is the point. You are making the assumption stringent law enforcement actually prevents drug use. But it does not. I am quite confident marijuana use would not significantly change in 'your neighbourhood' if you had pot shops on every corner. Use might spike for a while; until the novelty wore off.
Your 'people taking their 1st hit' argument misses the point. Those people will take (and already have) taken their first hit whether you have laws in place or not. The arguement for strict drug laws would be a lot more compelling if those laws actually worked and kept drugs off the streets and away from vulnerable people. But they don't!
Instead, they make the drug rings rich, provide 'employment' for lots of law enforcement personnel that could be put to far better use, and keep the jails full.
I find the whole 'drug war' arguement like a bad nightmare you can't wake up from. You keep screaming, "don't you see what's going on!" to people and they just keep walking by, stuck in their zombie-trance.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

And here is the point. You are making the assumption stringent law enforcement actually prevents drug use. But it does not. I am quite confident marijuana use would not significantly change in 'your neighbourhood' if you had pot shops on every corner. Use might spike for a while; until the novelty wore off.
Your 'people taking their 1st hit' argument misses the point. Those people will take (and already have) taken their first hit whether you have laws in place or not. The arguement for strict drug laws would be a lot more compelling if those laws actually worked and kept drugs off the streets and away from vulnerable people. But they don't!
Instead, they make the drug rings rich, provide 'employment' for lots of law enforcement personnel that could be put to far better use, and keep the jails full.
I find the whole 'drug war' arguement like a bad nightmare you can't wake up from. You keep screaming, "don't you see what's going on!" to people and they just keep walking by, stuck in their zombie-trance.

I make no such assumption. Law enforcement or the lack of, is irrelevant. And yes whether there is stringent law enforcement on the issue or not will not prevent humans from getting or taking drugs if they want to. My point is that drug taking is foolish. And the quote of mine that you highlighted, albeit misunderstood, illustrates my point. the reason "my neighborhood" is so rife with drugs is because they CAN get drugs freely and without fear of being caught by the law. The laws here are designed to keep people OUT of jail. Not put them in there. You would have to be a commercial sized producer or have criminal links or a past to go to jail here. If you get caught with a dime bag, caught smoking in public or possessing a smoking implement you will get an on the spot fine worth less than a parking ticket. In fact most cops are content to confiscate your stuff and send you on your way without any penalty.
NO-ONE HERE GOES TO JAIL FOR PERSONAL MARIJUANA POSSESSION OR USE. (the same with meth use, or the use of heroin.)
Stringent law enforcement doesn't work but NO law enforcement doesn't work either. The biggest problem is organised crime. Even though though there are extremely harsh penalties for criminal involvement ie: gangs etc. It does not deter them in any way. There is far too much money involved. Hence the corrupt cops and politicians.
Just by having a society that allows free access to drugs without significant or indeed any penalty does not ensure a safe and drug free society. It makes it worse.

 

[softbeard]

Just by having a society that allows free access to drugs without significant or indeed any penalty does not ensure a safe and drug free society. It makes it worse.

Of course it does not. You are stating the obvious. So what?
Then, you contradict yourself:

I make no such assumption. Law enforcement or the lack of, is irrelevant.

If the above is true, what is the point?
The problem with this discussion is complexity and scale.
First, you need to isolate the chemical you are talking about. Drugs are not just drugs. Each one is, as I've stated before, a different chemical. Each one has different characteristics and properties. More complex still; each one acts differently on different people. This is only part of the reason these discussions get bogged down.

Second, we need to isolate the scales we are discussing. You are talking about a neighbourhood. I was trying to discuss a much broader picture.
I don't think we are talking apples to apples here.

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

The laws here are designed to keep people OUT of jail. Not put them in there. You would have to be a commercial sized producer or have criminal links or a past to go to jail here. If you get caught with a dime bag, caught smoking in public or possessing a smoking implement you will get an on the spot fine worth less than a parking ticket. In fact most cops are content to confiscate your stuff and send you on your way without any penalty.
NO-ONE HERE GOES TO JAIL FOR PERSONAL MARIJUANA POSSESSION OR USE. (the same with meth use, or the use of heroin.)

Again, my quote highlights my 2 arguements:
1. What is the point?
2. You have to have a sense of scale if you are to argue this intelligently.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

As you said locking people up for drug related crimes solves nothing. Being lenient and allowing people almost unbridled or free access to any and all drugs also solves nothing.

My point throughout this discussion has been that the drugs, as such, are irrelevant. Law enforcement, as such, is also irrelevant (especially in its current form). People with drug habits go to jail and their habits get worse not better.

The problem is people. If you and i can take drugs in an informed and moderate manner without causing harm to others, then that is the ideal. Unfortunately a majority of people in a free drug society abuse the privilege. It's no different to alcohol or cigarettes. It is always the ones who go overboard who muck it up for others. Despite the information available to the potential or current users the abuse continues. Even if you scale it down to peer groups or family there is always someone there who abuses whatever their drug of choice is. I realise that this is inevitable and unstoppable.
Yes you are correct, drugs affect different people in different ways. And the chemical properties and characteristics are different with each. I have no argument with that.
All i am saying is that freedom to take any drug you wish at any time is no different than living in a totalitarian, police state where you are forbidden any drug taking whatsoever.
Humans will always find a way to get what they want and abuse it. You may have less people in jail in one version, but you end up with more people in Mental Health instituions via the same method.

I am quite confident marijuana use would not significantly change in 'your neighbourhood' if you had pot shops on every corner. Use might spike for a while; until the novelty wore off.

There doesn't need to be "pot shops" on every corner. One just has to ask their neighbor over the back fence and you will get what you want. It's that simple.

It's keeping the drugs out of the hands of those who really should not be taking them like 10-15 year old kids who steal from their parents stash. People who have negative and violent reactions to them. Mothers who put hash into their spaghetti bolognaise and somehow their 2 year old gets hold of some and spends 2 or three days in hospital as a result. These are the results of a free drug
society.
I don't know, softbeard, i don't have the solutions. Nor am i advocating that you should change your mind or indeed am i trying to change your mind. I have looked at my society at the micro and the macro and i see nothing but trouble caused by drugs. I realise that you may be one of the more informed and responsible advocates for the rights of the individual to take and experiment with drugs without fear of censorship or incarceration. I am realistic enough to understand that nothing i say will affect society on any level. i can only affect my own portion of the world and maybe inspire others who think similarly.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

..............Second, we need to isolate the scales we are discussing. You are talking about a neighbourhood. I was trying to discuss a much broader picture.
I don't think we are talking apples to apples here.
Again, my quote highlights my 2 arguements:
1. What is the point?
2. You have to have a sense of scale if you are to argue this intelligently.

]

1.What is the point?............ What's your point?

It costs money. It is dangerous to one's health. Prolonged use exacerbates this effect and also affects the Mental Health of the individual. Apart from this I think drug taking by anyone is foolish. If you are saying that everybody should be free to take any drug they desire anytime without the fear of prosecution or arrest, then i am saying, that opinion is misguided.
You or your mates may be moderate, responsible drug takers and that's great. it's the rest of the community who lets you down.
I am basing my opinions on over 20 years of personal and professional observations involving various social strata. In the 25 years since the state of South Australia has de-criminalised marijuana use and possession, far bigger problems have emerged than first envisioned. I have already mentioned some of those things. The law makers here had to have a rethink of some of those laws to stem some of these problems. In fact when the laws were originally changed, in 1986, an individual was allowed to grow up to 9 marijuana plants before a jail term was considered. Over the 25 years this has been gradually whittled down to 1 plant. The reason being that homeowners who were growing for personal use were being targeted by street gangs and the rate of home invasions went through the roof. The government reacted by slashing the plant quantity.

2. You have to have a sense of scale if you are to argue this intelligently. .......... What does scale have to do with it?

Please somewhere along the line feel free to make your point about the subject.
What are your observations?
What are your opinions?
What are the drug laws where you live?
Has some drug use been de-criminalised there, or are your laws somewhat draconian?
Do you think society would be a better place if the laws were changed or adjusted to suit your way of thinking?

 

[softbeard]

]

1.What is the point?............ What's your point?

It costs money. It is dangerous to one's health. Prolonged use exacerbates this effect and also affects the Mental Health of the individual. Apart from this I think drug taking by anyone is foolish. If you are saying that everybody should be free to take any drug they desire anytime without the fear of prosecution or arrest, then i am saying, that opinion is misguided.

2. You have to have a sense of scale if you are to argue this intelligently. .......... What does scale have to do with it?

Please somewhere along the line feel free to make your point about the subject.
What are your observations?
What are your opinions?

I thought I explained my point quite clearly previously. I'll reiterate. My point is prohibitive drug laws are basically useless at stopping intake of intoxicants. Furthermore, they are a huge waste of resources and have been the direct cause of a lot of people being killed or in jail. They serve the basic purposes of politically appeasing certain voters and special-interest groups, keeping tobacco and distilleries profitable, and making drug mafias rich.
Excessive intoxicant use should be handled as a medical problem.

You're seriously asking what scale has to do in a discussion such as this? You seem to focus on neighbourhood-size scales and are selective in pointing out examples. I don't think the subject can be discussed this way without requiring a textbook-worth of posts.

By the way, there never have been direct laws against a human administering a chemical to him/herself. In many cases, such laws would be unconstitutional, or in contravention of human rights. All drug laws are indirect; laws against posession, etc.

And, of course standard laws of personal responsibility apply. If I go out driving and decide to shoot up enough heroin so I black out, and hit a bunch of schoolkids, then yes I'm just as guilty as if I'd downed several liters of vodka. So what; this is obvious.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I thought I explained my point quite clearly previously. I'll reiterate. My point is prohibitive drug laws are basically useless at stopping intake of intoxicants. Furthermore, they are a huge waste of resources and have been the direct cause of a lot of people being killed or in jail. They serve the basic purposes of politically appeasing certain voters and special-interest groups, keeping tobacco and distilleries profitable, and making drug mafias rich.
Excessive intoxicant use should be handled as a medical problem.

So what is the answer? Excessive intoxicant use is being treated as a medical problem here. So much so it is choking our medical sysytem and mental health system. Why should i have to miss out on any treatment because drug fucked retards don't know when enough is enough? Is that your informed answer to excessive drug use? Have you ever been to an Emergency Department when cops bring in some dickhead on a 7 day meth binge? Or a 13 year old who has freaked out on LSD? I used to work in one.

You're seriously asking what scale has to do in a discussion such as this? You seem to focus on neighbourhood-size scales and are selective in pointing out examples. I don't think the subject can be discussed this way without requiring a textbook-worth of posts.

I was talking about it at a state level and or larger. What scale would you prefer?

And, of course standard laws of personal responsibility apply. If I go out driving and decide to shoot up enough heroin so I black out, and hit a bunch of schoolkids, then yes I'm just as guilty as if I'd downed several liters of vodka. So what; this is obvious.

For some reason you seem to think that i advocate stringent law enforcement. I do not. People should not be jailed for minor possession etc. I have lived under repressive drug laws as well as lenient drug laws. The only differences were that under the repressive laws, supply was diminished making the price higher across the board for all drugs. And the jails had more people in them. Under the lenient laws, the supply was greater, the prices lower and the psych wards are full of the drug fucked.
The more that any type of drugs are available, and the supply increases exponentially when the laws are more lenient, the more richer the drug mafias get. I don't really care about prohibition. It doesn't work. My society is no better for it. My society is no better for having lenient laws either, as i have been trying to explain for a number of posts now.
I would prefer to get society off drugs. People are bad for drugs. People give drugs a bad name. People are the problem, not the drugs or laws or lack of laws.


My point is that i think that the intake of intoxicants, any intoxicant, is foolish.That's just my opinion. You think otherwise, cool. Let's just agree to disagree then. If it can be done in moderation, then by all means do it. And to all you who can imbibe responsibly, bravo! Look around, my friend, all is not what it seems in the land of drugs.

 

[Ron Collins]

I have never understood the use of drugs to research anything but the effects of drugs on psychology and physiology. Especially in realm some have started taking DMT to look at the high strangeness angle of the paranormal. If the phenomenon is real then how does trying to artificially recreate it help in any way?

Isn't it like deciding to recreate a Bigfoot sighting by painting my office like a forrest and scattering dirt and wood chips on the floor. Then playing woodsy sounds and making "Squatch Shrieks" every 30 minutes? Sure, I create some of the same sensory aspects but do I have any chance of gaining a better understanding the phenomenon? Isn't the circumstance that surrounds the event just as important?

On a broader note, illicit drug are illegal for a reason. It isn't money. The U.S. alone would make a killing off the taxes if it were about that. The cold hard fact is that they are dangerous and affect people in unpredictable ways. We are universally a society whose rules are based in sobriety. Altering the perception of the world though chemicals also alters our ability to live according to those rules. The rules exist to protect us and our neighbors. The use of drugs really hinders our ability to follow those rules. Thus, they are illegal and on the whole I believe should stay that way.

I would also add that if drugs can be used responsibly to aid in the alleviation of suffering of an individual that is Ok with me. It is the "recreational" use that needs to stay illegal.

 

[softbeard]

Just where did I state I thought intake of intoxicants was good? You are jumping to conclusions. Of course it's foolish to get stoned all the time. No kidding. I thought that was self-evident enough that it did not need to be debated. People do stupid things all of the time. Ideally no one would drink, no one would take drugs, no would commit crimes. So?
What's my answer to all this? Who said I had one? But what has become evident to me is that current law enforcement and 'just say no' mentalities are not the answer.

If you get sick, you can say that shooting yourself in the head will cure your ailment. Does that make it a good cure?
If you want specific examples, I remember in high school I knew nothing about drugs; I didn't care. Then some stupid cops show up to do their 'drug talk'. Even at that early age I found their attempt at scaring people so ridiculous that it made me go out and buy some weed. I just had to try something that people seemed desperate you shouldn't do.
Besides, my chemistry teacher kept telling us stories about how he used to smuggle hash across the border (US/Canada) with his friends...

Your 'full hospitals' argument, I don't quite buy. The hospitals are just as clogged with drunks suffering from alcohol poisoning and maybe lung cancer patients from smoking cigarettes. So what? If the hospitals got just 10% of the resources now directed to law enforcement for narcotics intervention they'd wouldn't be clogged. With your argument, I claim you are creating most of the problem by fixating on the issue.

Relax the screws, stop the hysterical ideology of evil drug pushers, let the states become the drug dealers in a legitimate enterprise, as they do with alcohol and give it some time. I think you'll be surprised how much of this problem becomes self-correcting. Reacting with hysterics and shooting yourself in the head is never a good approach to problem-solving.

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

I have never understood the use of drugs to research anything but the effects of drugs on psychology and physiology. Especially in realm some have started taking DMT to look at the high strangeness angle of the paranormal. If the phenomenon is real then how does trying to artificially recreate it help in any way?.

Using DMT to gain insight is like hitting yourself hard in the head with a hammer and hoping you'll turn into a genius-savant. It's nonsense.
Again, the problem with this type of discussion is the topic is so broad, most people come with pre-conceptions and jump to conclusions about each others viewpoints. It's why I generally stay away from drug-discussions, but of course, sometimes I do get drawn in...

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Just where did I state I thought intake of intoxicants was good? You are jumping to conclusions.

What? Where did i say you did? Have you even read anything i have said? For fucks sake i don't think you even live in the real world.

What's my answer to all this? Who said I had one? But what has become evident to me is that current law enforcement and 'just say no' mentalities are not the answer.

So your answer is we just change law enforcement some how do we? To what? Oh i see, you don't know.

If you get sick, you can say that shooting yourself in the head will cure your ailment. Does that make it a good cure?

What's this? Another informed answer?

Your 'full hospitals' argument, I don't quite buy. The hospitals are just as clogged with drunks suffering from alcohol poisoning and maybe lung cancer patients from smoking cigarettes. So what? If the hospitals got just 10% of the resources now directed to law enforcement for narcotics intervention they'd wouldn't be clogged. With your argument, I claim you are creating most of the problem by fixating on the issue.

I don't know what your hospital system is like in Ontario, Canada but here in Australia it's clogged with drug fucked idealogical retards who should have been put in jail. Trying to stab, assault and strangle the emergency room staff because they weren't getting what they wanted.I spent 3 years as a bodyguard for the nurses and doctors who had to attend these fucks and i lost count of the amount of times i had to help restrain meth freaks, dope heads and heroin junkies who lost their shit at the people who were trying to help and treat them. And every year it gets worse and the number increase. So you can stick your uninformed " i don't buy your full hospitals" argument up your arse. Every day beds would be taken up by these retards when they could have gone to someone who was really sick instead of some self inflicted moron.
I live in the real world. I've been there with your idealogical argument. It sounds good in theory......but that's all it is, theory. In fact that's all any of your argument is, idealogical crap. Things aren't gonna change anytime soon for the better. Politicians aren't going to wake up tomorrow and change the rules. And do you honestly think that organised crime is going to give up it's share of the billions it makes every year just because of somebodies wet dream of changing the status quo? Grow up dude. Politicians get shot for even daring to think such things.

Relax the screws, stop the hysterical ideology of evil drug pushers, let the states become the drug dealers in a legitimate enterprise, as they do with alcohol and give it some time. I think you'll be surprised how much of this problem becomes self-correcting. Reacting with hysterics and shooting yourself in the head is never a good approach to problem-solving.

So overnight organised crime is just going to say " sure, here have our billion dollar a year enterprise, we don't want it any more" are they? And what politician or political party is gonna align themselves with the organised/legalised sale of drugs? Are you fucking serious?
You should change your name to Walt Disney because what you are describing sounds like Fantasy Land. Except that in your world Mickey Mouse will develop a crack habit.

 

[softbeard]

Hmm.. See this is why I don't like drug debates.