we didn't ask to be born into this highly stressed modern day world based on consumerism madness, and politically charged spoilt brats? [/quote]

Alpha1,NO...sorry, but you have completely misinterpreted my last post, which was a statement of the world we live in , and not in any way connected with Nexus users who i don't even know much of as of yet to even be possibly suggesting what you are assuming to be a possability??

-Refering to the apology on the other thread, it's done and dusted, history...what makes you think i'd even consider trying to create any new hassle, after the last load of misunderstandings? The politically charged spoilt brats i refer to is meaning Politicians, and not the Nexus users of the other day in case that's what you are thinking.How can the world be based on a few Nexus users i ask, if this is what you thought?, and why would i even consider them to be spoilt brats when i know little of their background or real life nature??

-So in other words Alpha1, sorry, but you really got the wrong end of the stick there mate, and shouln't think that i'm like such a type of person to do such a thing!

Haha, all good then.

Just poor wording on the heels of that other thread. I hope all that negativity is behind us...

Alpha1, there's no negativity to you or anybody else after the other day, No, i posted my apology and just got on with things. I was shocked to see you thinking i might be trying to make something out of this closed matter. But can see your " side of the fence " perspective on how this post may have seemed like an extension of the last thread "issue."

-The main reason that the "last thread" got out of hand from me, was because i was bored and overposting about a subject that i wasn't passionate about / sufficiently interested in with backing up the facts, like the others were. But that is over, and i see no point in repeating such an error again. I've learnt that i won't get involved in issues that i'm not really passionate when other people are, politics not being my strong point.

i think medical legalization is a wonderful way to move forward , however total legalization for recreational , personal use should also happen as who really knows who needs psychadelics , we cant trust the psychatrists or doctors on this one , as i find them trying to push medicines in their own weird method

who knows , i think we need shamans and other experienced individuals in this field to take over this whole thing rather than the prescription pedalling foolish doctors of today , and moreover this whole battle is about individual freedom rather than medical freedom so the individual should be able to bear the responsiblity of his own prescription than someone else who knows nothing about this individual

this is defintely a right way to go , however i am still afraid for our younger generation as the ADHD medicine scenario today is really discomforting ,(i don't believe in ADHD as the childeren can really remember movies , songs and other exciting shit that happens outside the boring classroom , teachers should buck up and make education more exciting ) hopefully the doctors will not prescribe these medicines to children , this medicines should only be handeled by those experienced with these medicines

i hope even if total legalization happens no fool takes these substances thinkin it legal so lets do it as many youtube fools did with salvia , not knowing the consequences of embarking upon such a journey

Cheers! I feel the same way and will probably shy away from polarizing topics around here in the future. There are more appropriate venues for such things.

Back OT, I highly doubt the time will come when your MD will give you a script for LSD or MDMA - but I like that research is resuming and these tools are once again being used for legitimate psychiatric purposes.

Hopefully, there will come a time when the scheduling laws are re-examined and re-organized according to the drug's merit.

It's not that I disagree with you, because I don't at all, but the question is how do you make this a political reality? There is an avenue to get these substances legalized for medical reasons at least. I don't see an avenue for wholesale legalization. I'd love to hear your theory if you disagree. I don't think the politics will change until the public opinion changes and the public opinion won't change until... The question then becomes does medical use of psychedelics get us closer to that? I think it does.

Firstly I just want to state that I'm all for liberation and legalization of the vegetable kingdom, I believe plants are here for everyone and anyone to do with as they wish. Please enjoy freely the gifts of the garden.

My personal opinion is that these powerful psychedelic chemicals belong in the hands of qualified medical professionals who are trained how to use them properly. The field of health and medicine is pretty messed up these days, but there is a shift happening toward moar holistic methods and practices, and I think psychedelics will fit very nicely within these newly emerging approaches.

I think of psychedelics in general and DMT in particular as entheogens – substances that allow one to connect with the “immaterial realm” – the spiritual realm.

In the US we have separation of Church and State, and this (so far) has allowed União do Vegetal and Santo Daime members to use DMT in the form of ayahuasca. Also, The Temple of the True Inner Light legally uses DPT as their sacrament, and peyote is freely used by certain Native Americans.

I’m not a religious person, and I don’t feel I should have to join an established church in order to legally consume “sacraments” of my choice. It seems to me that all the attention is being given to medical uses of psychedelics as treatments for various pathologies, yet next to no attention is given to the use of psychedelics as “bridges” to the spiritual.

I would like to see more attention given to the denial of spiritual freedom resulting from prohibition of entheogens.

Sorry to keep bringing this up but please....don't forget that peyote use is legal for all people in Arizona and Oregon who partake with "sincere religous intent". In Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Nevada it is legal for all persons in the context of a bonafide religous orginazition. peyote law summary

Other states will follow. Peyote use is becomming accepted by a broader spectrum of people in America. I believe peyote use is good for the participant, their family, friends and neighbors. If you think you could be capable of a powerful, teaching, religous experience (you don't need to limit your thinking only to Jesus, angels, hellfire and brimstone, etc.), then please consider exercising your right to use peyote in this context. Many have fought very long and hard to achieve this freedom.

However, I don't think that makes it entirely legal. Mescaline is still a Scheduled substance and while the state might not recognize Federal Law, it's still there.

For lack of time, here's the Wiki passage:

There are many groups who openly practice. The situation is similar to the Cannibis laws in California that don't specifically agree with the Federal laws. In the case of peyote there are specific freedoms for Native Americans on the Federal books but it appears these laws don't follow the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Anyway, those are the state laws. If you find yourself in a federal court having to utilize the state laws to defend yourself, you have made a mistake. Meanwhile, there are resources in those 'liberated' states where all races may partake in peyote. I sense it is very unlikely you will be dragged out of a peyote ceremony by LEOs. If you chose to flamboyantly open a peyote sales business, I could imagine you would get into some trouble. Anyone using psychedelics needs to be smart about it for lots of reasons, including the law.

My sense is that this type of state vs federal conflict is typical during a time when the laws are changing. It's great to witness any change at all.

I think most of the attention you're referring to is essentially due to the fact that most of the media is willing to report about a medical study on the use of DMT to break addiction but less likely to report someone took DMT and then felt connected to some notion of god. I think your own references to Native American traditions, Santo Daime, and even this very forum that we're posting on (among many other examples) are proof that many people seek some type of spiritual enlightenment and see psychedelics as useful for that. I just don't see CBS Nightly News reporting on it for reasons that fall far outside of any hyper attention on medical uses for these substances. I guess my point is simply that attention to the medical benefits of psychedelics is a good thing. Attention to the spiritual benefits is a good thing as well. An all around notion of social freedom is a good thing. I think all of these things are happening to varying degrees. What I don't think is occurring is that somehow medical research is stealing attention from people that would otherwise be chanting spiritual growth and personal liberty.

This will be an uncharacteristically shallow response from me, but... Social issues aside...

Anyone consider that their use in medicine would make them easier to obtain? I mean, yes, they'd still be illegal for someone without a prescription, but...

Hypothetically, if it were as easy for me to find some clean, lab grade LSD or psilocybin mushrooms as perhaps a xanax or lortab for example, well, I can't say I'd much mind that... Everyone knows that most of the LSD floating around there is just not quite like what they had back in the 60's.

In terms of this as a social issue, yeah, treating these substances only as medicine for certain situations or conditions, rather than allotting them the freedom of use they should have wouldn't necessarily be a step in the right direction as there seems to be no indication that their use as a medicine would bring them any closer to legalization across the board. It would also narrow the view of what these drugs can do and are largely there for.

But, again... If this meant that clean LSD or quality mushrooms were easier to obtain, oh, man... I'd have a hard time not being in support.

DMT in a clinical environment would disappoint me I think. I think that most doctors or therapists would be rubbish at administering it as well. It's not quite the same as paying off a scared toddler with a lollipop.
The fact of the matter is these drugs aren't just going to go away, even if the politicians close their eyes and wish really really hard, so it's only a matter of time before they are institutionalized. However, I don't think the analyst/analysand model of therapy is any use what so ever for psychedelics in an institutional setting.
Imagine that you fall on hard times, having lived a life oblivious to the fallibility of our unique construction of external reality, and that a single person administers you psychedelics and provides therapy from a textbook. The relationship would create a unique bond and a master/slave dialectic that is beyond a sustainable professional relationship. This would be acceptable were it not for the sole fact that institutions are merely structures for the distribution of centralized power.
No good would come of that if you ask me.

I agree that attention should be placed on medical uses in addition to spiritual/religious uses. But where has real progress been made so far? It has been made in the religious use arena. Cases involving the religious use of Schedule 1 drugs have made it to the Supreme Court, after all.

So it’s true that at some point in the future (when?) medical use of some psychedelics may be approved (and if it follows what’s happening with cannabis, medical use for particular substances will be approved at the State level while those particular substances will remain Schedule 1 at the Federal level), but religious use has already been approved in a few instances – at the Federal level no less.

It seems to me that pressing the religious freedom issue will yield better results than looking for medical applications.

Agree. If the supreme court accepts the use entheogens as legitimate spiritual practice for members of a certain church, what is stopping the larger population from taking another look at the potential spiritual use of entheogens for anyone interested? How ridiculous is it that a court would say, "ok, if you're a part of a certain church, you can freely practice your spirituality with entheogens. Otherwise, if you use entheogens, you're a criminal and could face years in prison." It doesn't make sense. Who is the court to decide who uses entheogens for spiritual purposes? It's not like everyone has access to the Santo Daime. Courts have already agreed that entheogens do hold a spiritual element, so who are they to prohibit anyone from exploring that spirituality? These are questions I want the public to ask.

Medical distribution can be a hell of a nightmare bureaucracy. Technically, in Canada, all the tryptamine entheogens are schedule III, which means that they are available by prescription. I have never heard of anyone getting a prescription for these things. I was however, considering pressing the issue myself. If they outlaw ayahuasca plants, I'll have to press that issue.

I would like to see it go at least the way iboga has gone in canada so far. Iboga is legal here, as far as I know there are no restrictions other than you might need ID for someone to sell it to you. We have iboga clinics where people can go for treatments and it is also legal to order iboga online. I am not sure about the legal issues of ingesting it outside of a clinic but I dont think ibogaine is schedeuled at all becasue one can also buy pure ibogaine here. I think ingesting it on your own would be legal as well.

Canadian policy on peyote is also quite relaxed as well. It is legal here. You can walk into shops and buy live peyote cacti without any trouble. The NAC here is allowed to operate anyone of any race can legally participate. I think in the US they had problems with non native americans participating in NAC ceremonies becasue certain laws were in place that only made it legal for natives. I think it is illegal here to actaully ingest the peyote one grows outside of the NAC but I am not 100% sure..but if so that should changa as it is a pointless law they cannot possibly properly enforce. They cannot choose to outlaw peyote here either as far as I know for it is protected under religious freedom laws.

Ayahuasca is somewhat of a grey area because they schedulec harmaline, and for the life of me I dont know why. They must have read that Naranjo work on harmaline and assumed that was the main active in ayahuasca. Either way you can buy caapi, rue and admixtures in shops here..the daime has works here and there are other groups that run ceremonies here..

Concidering all of that, prohibition is just a waste of time. It looks good on paper to naive soccer moms but that is about it. They have outlawed psychedelic mushrooms that grow all over the place here yet have powerful psychedelics from mexico and africa completely legal here and available in stores. Go figure..

It is a mess and the governments and FDA know this. I dont see any hope at all in prohibition. It will all fall away sooner or later.

I think you are probably right that a psychoanalytical approach to using psychedelics comes with its own set of baggage in terms of the restraints it creates and dynamics it engenders. I think it could still help a certain set of people, but I think for the most part it would end up somewhere in the realm of ink blot tests. That being said, even though many in the Western world approaches therapy from this perspective, it has been a growing trend for decades now that other approaches are gaining acceptance. This includes Humanist and Cognitive Psychology that understand growth comes from within instead of from the outside. There is also a growing acceptance of Eastern and native philosophy that again emphasizes change from within as opposed to guided direction from above. That being said, I'll sabotage my point a bit and say that Behaviorism is still huge in psychology and I could see very bad things happening with a someone that uses psychedelics to elicit certain types of behavior. I suppose the short version of my point is that many dynamics exist within the field of therapy.



Again don't get me wrong, I do think we should be pursuing all paths available that make psychedelics more acceptable to the public at large. I just think that medical science is going to do its thing regardless of what else is going on.

The problem, as I see it at least, with pressing the religious freedom issue has to do with the point you made earlier: if you aren't religious you should still be able to partake in the sacrament if you will. There is interesting precedent for religious protection as a Humanist that I think could make for a solid legal challenge. Of course, even then you would have to define yourself as a Humanist and partake in Humanist rituals, what ever those may be, to get protection under the law. So this avenue still doesn't necessarily lead to an equitable state of affairs wherein every adult that wants to can use psychedelics.

I think the only argument that can be made for total legalization is the founding notion of personal liberty. This has Libertarian support politically, but we are a fan of legislating morality in this country so it is still quite an uphill battle.

Medical studies help people understand psychedelics are safe and serve some function; religious outlets help people understand psychedelics are useful for spiritual growth and awareness; social libertarians help people understand it shouldn't be any of their personal business in the first place. Places like the Nexus and Erowid give access and information to a generation while a few more old people leave politics and the law catches up. I think all of these help move the issue along. Is drug law here and elsewhere in a sorry state of affairs? Absolutely. Are we making progress anyway? I think so. And the strength comes from the fact that prohibition is being challenged on multiple fronts.

Absolutely. It's simply unsustainable.

Just say yes to "multiple fronts"