While it makes rational sense (to you and me) to have these substances legalized, I feel it's going to take more than just compelling arguments and opinions based on subjective views, to change the minds of those who have been geared into a state of fear and uncertainty.

This is clearly going to take a joint effort of scientists and advocates willing to do the talking, but as I'm alluding to, as much as groups have advocated for legalizing cannabis in the past, it has only been with the ammunition of scientific evidence (provided by "them" ), that has given credence to peoples opinions in support of legalization, and confidence to politicians to engage in open discussions on drugs.


I'm not about, "just leave it to them". Believe me, I want legalization and regulation as swiftly as we can achieve... but we need to approach this in a extremely careful and sensitive manner.

I certainly don't presume that the 'bulk' of the work is to be delegated to scientists - it's going to take a great big bulk of effort and intention from the non-scientific community to carry on.... what I am suggesting is that we wait until science has done the preemptive groundwork before we take the front line...

At some point the movement will have to take on not just the people who are geared to view psychedelics with fear but those who are gearing people to view them with fear.

You know the story? The UK Government commission research into the most harmful drugs and put Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt, in charge of the research. In 2007 he publishes his groundbreaking work in Lancet, a peer reviewed medical journal. You'll see the problem that occurred when you see the list rating drugs by degrees of harm they cause:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210

Tobacco and stimulants, which help people stay awake and work, were right at the top of the list as was Alcohol (?!) but LSD, MDMA, Mushrooms were at the bottom of the list. wtf!

Well, thats the wrong way round you see. LSD and mushrooms need to be at the top of the list, particularly as they facilitate feelings of self worth in people. How are you ever going to sell consumerism to people who are happy?

So the UK Govt. sacked David Nutt.

dreamer, the usefulness of this is unbounded. As a little kid I used to think "only losers take drugs," but as I aged I realized that nothing was so black and white. Some people who use drugs are awesome people who are extremely creative, talented, loving, care-free, enlightened, happy, and a true benefit to the world. Others who do them are downright scummy people who rob and do bad things for more drugs.

But it seems like a case where the worst-of-the-worst make everyone else in the picture look bad. I am not a stereotypical drug user at all! I cannot describe all of my really personal details here of course, but when a select group of people I knew found out about my psychedelic experimentation their jaws dropped to the floor.

But the fact that I use them has changed the minds of all of my friends and acquaintances who have found out about it. Some had never thought about psychs, while others just assumed that only burnt out hippies did them. This is so far from the truth and I am happy that I changed some minds.

Being upstanding citizens, helping the community, and doing well for ourselves, our families, and our friends is extremely powerful. But the most amazing part, in my view, is not that we do these things "just so we can make drugs look better." We do them because we realize our priorities, what we want in life, what we want for the world. We are honest with ourselves and realize what is right, and what rigorously produces the best outcomes for the most people (boo war).

Psychs have made me much more empathetic and understanding. As a troubled youth I used to have visions of liberating the world from suffering with nuclear missiles. But then I realized that I cannot judge other people's happiness. It's not my place; they could be extremely happy even though they don't have what I would consider a "good life." With the right tools and education, I think everyone can be happy, or at least attain the state they desire (I do think some people legitimately do not want standard happiness).

I suppose my main point is that psychs have the ability to make good people even better, and through this, legalization will eventually be realized and employed. Once the young, understanding Generation Y ages and takes over everything, we will see a totally different, revolutionized world.

I'm excited for us to be a part.

I agree with Null and think that it will be sooner than 75-100 years. The links below don"t relate to psychedelics but the people that are having to enforce these laws are starting to openly express doubts. I think that in 75-100 years society will look back and see how immoral it was to marginalise people for choosing to take drugs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24320717

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...k_news/wales/7038552.stm

"In the report Mr Brunstrom wrote: "If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral...."

Brunstrom got a slating from MPs (which is hardly surprising as most MPs are out of touch with reality) and retired soon after but didn"t Galileo also get a slagging for saying the world wasn"t flat?

haha if only they were all we needed!

But unfortunately there is Naphtha and Lye! Im sure tons of people read the story about the woman who had lye put in her iced tea instead of sugar by mistake because some idiot put Lye right next to sugar at the restaurant that served this lady.

Whether or not there are food safe teks and ingredients or not, word will spread that these chemicals are involved in the process and the light will be immediately directed to negatives like this, because people simply do not know that lye is not ingested, they will automatically assume it is.

In my humble opinion, it is still to early.

Look how much there's difficulty with cannabis legalization and decriminalization. It will take time for substance with profound effects on human consciousness to be legalized.

And...uhm...who's going to fight wars for politicians if DMT becomes legal?

oversoul I just got this crazy vision of super secret CIA spies going into hyperspace trying to recruit the elves and obtain their powers to fight in the Middle East and the military using it to get soldiers used to the intense warlike conditions.

Damn! I knew it!

Decriminalization > legalization, imo.

^^^^

That was so epic!!!

It really made my day

Thanks for that

And then trying to get the elves to realize the govt can help them be "free" in a "democratic society" complete with a bank controlled monetary system of unavoidable debt and labor! yayyyyyy!

I think the language we use will be very important.

I actually don't like using the word "legalize" or even "decriminalize" in the argument for ending the war on drugs.... It sounds too synonymous with "Condone" and "allow", which I don't think are good words talking to people who have an uneducated emotional (fearful) response

I prefer using terminology like "control and regulate"... with the argument supporting safety above all else

I have a keyword for you

Repeal

The last thing we need is more silly arbitrary rules telling us what we can and cannot do with the gifts of nature, imo.

This is why they will never legalise dmt.

They don't want people to wake up, It's ok for them to die from drink and cigs, that's population reduction.

You are talking about fighting the illuminati , people who run this planet.

Best way is not not legalise but educate and get more people using psychedelics, thet is the way to do it.

I don't mean semantically, I mean conceptually.

I'm not interested in substances being "controlled and regulated" (legalized). I'm interested in people being able to stay out of jail and avoiding the further commodification of psychedelics.

I don't think we should be fined, ticketed, etc. for using substances (what occurs when one cannot pay).
I think legalization is the way to go, but beginning with Cannabis, then by eliminating the drug war in general.

This is a pretty stilted definition. There's no reason that fines or tickets have to remain a part of a decriminalized world. This is just what decriminalization has looked like under prohibition.



Legalization will put more money and control into the hands of businessmen, entrepreneurs, governments, and corporations. I'm not interested in creating centralized, hierarchical frameworks for the increased trade of psychoactive compounds, where capital mainly flows uphill to the few businessmen who got in on the ground floor (and their friends). I don't want a world where the DEA issues psychedelic manufacturing licenses in some absurd parody of liquor licenses and pursues non-sanctioned producers.

I'm much more interested in the possibilities that might emerge if this entire realm was simply removed from government intervention and not conveniently capitalized on by would-be profit-seekers.


And let's remember that legalization does not mean no penalties or criminal action. Alcohol is legal (and regulated). There are plenty of alcohol-related crimes that you can be convicted of that don't include endangering others.

So am i but, due to the current nature of society, anything that gets consumed gets commodified and regulated. I think that you would have to change society"s views on businessmen, governments and corporations.
Psychedlic experiences can can give people a different perspective on this. Wouldn"t changing the current model to that of not being locked up for consuming drugs to being legally allowed to partake (allbeit in a regulated fashion) give more people the opportunity to try these substances and therefore help contribute to the changing attitudes on current social and political paradigms?
You can commodify the product but i am not sure that you can commodify the experience. The would-be profit seekers could be used as a Trojan horse.



Yes but you are far less likely to be locked up for simply posessing alcohol.

Or change what a practice of consumption and regulation look like. State-regulation is not necessarily effective to begin with. There's no reason why, if people felt a desire for regulation, that groups of people couldn't form regulatory bodies in one form or another. I think there are a number of different ways such endeavors could manifest, but one current example would be the Ethnobotanical Stewardship Council.

Consumption doesn't necessarily have to be commodified, especially as more people start growing their own plants. Under the current model, perhaps there will always be an element of that, and yes, I agree that it should serve as an impetus to change societal views/values.


I guess my point is that what you say is entirely possible within the realm of decriminalization. It simply depends on how the decrim laws are structured. It has the added benefit, imo, of failing to create a coherent framework for business/profit.


The same can be said for decriminalization...