The lines between legality, illegality and our own moral decisions is an area that commonly, as psychonauts we are prompted to recognise and deliberate on. I don't respect the law, at all. I identify it's failings as far outweighing it's protections and benefitsI've been thinking about legal medications, primarily legal psych medications recently, their use or misuse and the relationship this has with the use of illegal drugs. Antidepressants for one, have personally always left me feeling flat and cardboard-y. Anecdotally, I've only heard of people having satisfactory results in treating depression with these drugs when the individual is not particularly creative – or in the least, very connected with their potential creativity, (this is not to imply unintelligence). People who are creative, seem to be as tormented by this phenomena as their depressed state of mind originally. I can understand why, legislatively there appears to be a preference towards 'safe' and 'predictable' (subtext here is 'profitable' solutions. But if it doesn't really work, and merely acts as a blanket suppression – why adopt a benighted attitude towards alternatives? Sure, one option may not be for everyone. Antidepressants aren't for everyone either. It is reduced to a socially advantageous ploy to categorise drugs in a manner that is politically correct and maximises economic gain.

In a world where alcohol faces such little regulation it is commonly glorified in sport and pop culture, it is little more than conservative dogma that provide the ethical frame work for decision making towards drug policy. Furthermore, categorising psychedelics alongside methamphetamine and heroin reinforces social stigma that is based in nothing more than ignorance and misinformation.

It feels frustrating, that there is such a low moral expectation for industry, big pharmaceutical – the food manufacture industry, agriculture, business and their impact on us as a societies health and welfare... but a totally unwarranted fear of any beneficial experience that doesn't originate in a government / company funded study, come with a prescription and a marketable new carry case. No, LSD won't harm you... Fast food, chemical pesticides, SSRI's, cigarettes, vodka... those can kill you.

So I personally resolve that it is right and fair to continue to make decisions based on ethical and most importantly, logical analysis of evidence rather than pander to a legal notion that is antiquated, draconian and focused on public opinion and protection of business interests rather than facts. I am comfortable to live with myself, wherever that self is positioned with respect to the law.

Namaste <3

piacat,

Thank you so much for this post. If you had not already been promoted I would have voted you right away after reading this.

I think it's important to understand the history. Here in USA we go from Anslinger to Nixon to Reagan and beyond. It's important to understand how the classifications of entheogenic drugs was based not on real medical concerns but more on things like racism, hate, ignorance and fear.

And also to understand just how profitable in terms of both $$$ and jobs the maintenance of the status quo drug war is. Originally motivated by hate and racism and today maintained by concerns for profit. Judge this morally as you will but in my Morality Book it scores rather low indeed.

Things are so crazy that I must correct you when you say psychedelics are regulated the same as meth and heroin. At least in USA in terms of meth that is not correct. While psychedelics remain Schedule I - grossly illegal with zero perceived medical uses,and perception of high potential for abuse, meth remains Schedule II with perceived high potential for abuse but some perceived medical benefits.


Needless to say, however we feel, morally, medically or spiritually, if the law catches up with us, none of those excuses will float. Given the reality we must embrace our personal morality and rejection of social norms in a very discrete and contained manner. At least in my opinion.

I certainly hope someday this will all change, but the progress I've seen to date has been slow. At least some work is being made forward on marijuana.

I completely agree with you.

The fact that they have to come up with these laws to begin with is an admittance that they have absolutely no control over what we do. They can only punish us after the fact, once we have actually done the deed. They have no way to keep us from abstaining if we should so feel the desire to pursue and explore these lovely exotic molecules aside from banning their import or destroying/seizing existing crops and supplies.

It's a sad thing because it's based on the same intolerance, ignorance and greed that is causing so many other problems in our society.

I try to remain hopeful of the future and just think of this current era as the darkness before the dawn.

Thanks for sharing and Welcome to the Nexus.

I agree.

I like to use the example of Jim Crow laws to illustrate that legality and morality are unrelated.

Do you think that once marijuana itself becomes more acceptable, then this will help people realize that other psychedelics should be acceptable, too? In other words, mj might not be a gateway drug for individuals (I rolled long before I got stoned) but for society?

Psychedelic´s are more and more becoming acceptable. Psychedelic drugs are increasingly becoming a study object for researchers and the therapeutic potential of these drugs is being recognised more and more by the scientific community. That these drugs are pretty harmles is also something that´s gradually becoming common knowledge.

A long time ago I decided I would follow the laws of the spirit not the laws of morally reprehensible men.

I try my best never to 'cause others pain.
I treat others the same way I want them to treat me.

If I follow these ideas I have no worry's about those law's of men which I brake every day.

Not pointing a finger perse....
In the 1960's the lsd/mj drug thing was slightly out of control. The people using them really tried to make a stand and fight the system. Although noble, this is against the teachings of psychedelics themselves. The go with the flow, and find a middle path apparently blew over their heads.
As such, the gov/social norm type made a stand against them by demonizing it and strong legislation.

The advice I would give now is to be patient. In my short life, we went from "pot is illegal, the end." to "someday pot should be legalized for medical usage." to "Pot is legal in many states for medical usages" to "Pot is legal for recreational usage in some places."

This is an astounding thing that's happened just in the last 15 years. Be patient, and go with the flow.... things are changing, it is often that society's outlook is so much slower than your own evolution. But fear not, things ARE changing.

If you wish to keep them changing in such a good way, just be sure to teach responsibility, and care of these things. 100 "atta boy's" is cancelled out by one "I smoked dmt and crashed my car into a daycare."

be cool.

These are wise words.

It´s also good to realise that many psychedelic´s are more or less semi-legal at this moment. Ayahuasca, cacti and some research chemicals fall legally into a sort of 'don´t ask, don´t tell' category: you can posses these plants and chemicals, or order them online even, as long as you don´t tell everybody that you ingest them for their psychedelic effects.

Amazing post piacat! I live my life following what I know to be right in my heart. The laws of the land are not here for our benefit, nor are they spiritually sound. I mean obviously in the case of rape, murder, and other similar crimes they are. However the ones limiting personal freedom such as the use of mind-altering substances, gay marriage, etc....those laws are unjust. AlbertKLloyd's example of the Jim Crow laws is another good example. My life nowadays is a struggle in some regards, as I attempt to merge my beliefs and lifestyle with a mainstream career path. I hold very strong beliefs about psychedelics, and dedicated a few years of my life to furthering the cause. To me it was imperative that it be done. The use of entheogenic substances is one of the most ancient spiritual tradtions of mankind, and while they can be used to get a kick, there is so much more to them. Having personally witnessed the transformative power that they hold, I fully believe that they are here for a reason, and that their lessons are necessary for our species. That was many years ago, and while I still hold those beliefs I'm no longer active. So I try to see how I can continue to be of service while on the path that I'm on now. That's tough. This Nick Sand interview exemplifies how I feel; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1U5NqITalo

When the law is wrong we have a choice; we can walk the safer path and follow it blindly, or we can walk the dangerous path and work against it. Many will fall, many will not.........but eventually we will be victorious. Every empire falls, it's only a matter of time.

Really interesting topic!

I totally agree with the sentiment that the tide is changing, really rather rapidly considering were we were just 15-20 years ago.

But it seems that psychedelics pose a particular threat to some powerful forces that extend beyond the economic machine of the war on other drugs, ie DEA, cops to chase drug offenders, private (for-profit) prisons. Churches are significant land owners and it stands to reason that conceding that people can experience divinity directly would be a threat. Same with something that causes people to question social construct and political mechanisms to those forces. It's a huge step that states have passed common sense laws in the last decade, but the primary economic lobby is at the federal level, and those guys can still bust your ass, if that's what they want.

In the meantime, education to bolster public opinion and juror nullification seem like steps in the right direction. If public opinion really turns the tide, we can say hell no to convicting on possession for psychedelics even if the laws stand.

All legal constitutions are man-made and must be inherently flawed. There is no difference between me and Barack Obama, we are both human beings. Spiritual entities attempting to achieve a safe and sustainable environment, but how we do this can be infinitely different. Given each of our histories since birth all of our schemas of right and wrong are influenced by others every second of our lives. Unless we elect a congress of newborn babies with adult intelligence I fear we will never achieve moral and legal parallel perfection.

For example, if Jesus Christ never existed our laws would be very different. If MLK would've kept his mouth shut and just accepted reality then thousands would have been oppressed for much longer.

Man cannot, and should not be able to control man.