Natural does not mean safer. This is ridiculous it all depends on the specific chemical of interest.

Natural does NOT mean safer you are correct. What it does mean is that humans have had a much longer time to interact with these naturally occurring compounds, and thus a longer time for us to view the effects (including long term effects).

If you read my posts you would know that I have a number of criteria I use before declaring a botanical "safe".



See here!

How is DMT a research chemical? If DMT is a research chemical, then so is mescaline and psilocin and just about anything else that one could isolate from a natural source. I don't buy the argument that a shell of plant matter necessarily protects a compound from legal implications. Most courts will convict someone for possession of an entheogenic plant if they can sufficiently prove that they intend to use it illegally, which generally wouldn't be difficult if you catch their attention at all.

Depending on one's mode of operation (the legitimacy of the vendor and the source and nature of the supplies used), it's just as likely that they'll get busted for illegal intent with growing plants as they would ordering from botanical vendors and extracting. Though certainly the sentencing may differ, I hardly think that's so much the concern as getting caught and convicted in general. The supreme court may rule differently, but good luck bringing your case to the supreme court.

People are not blind to the fact that plants can manufacture and carry drugs to facilitate the drug's consumption, that's why many are illegal in the first place. The only connection between the "naturalness" of the methods of administration and the gradual legalization of traditional entheogenic rites, is the cultural and historical fact that those traditions do not employ advanced extraction techniques; this is purely a cultural issue and has no basis in reason or rationality. Certainly a religious tradition that implements toxic chemicals in its traditions is a little far-fetched, but how non-toxic food-safe extractions? Are those so far removed from brewing or making snuffs or smoking agents? Also, it's important to note that not all entheogenic plants are suitable for ingestion, as some are actually quite toxic or otherwise unhealthy, especially in the quantities they are generally taken.

The issue is the nature of the substance and the context of its use. Any substance can be used sincerely and spiritually, but some are more prone to such use; a good chunk of those happen to be plant based, but there are plenty abusable plant based substances, and plenty of spiritual RC's. Dosage and manner of intake are individual prerogatives and perhaps should be regulated to a point, but SWIM, for instance, is a product of the information age: There's nothing that can stop him from taking a plant-based substance in any way he pleases if the plant is legal. However, the very fact that he has felt so driven in developing this ability has had an enormous effect on his relationship to those substances and he can no longer treat them so casually as the average user. This is an inevitability that will be recognized, for better or for worse, and perhaps should be confronted sooner than later.

The argument of naturalness is arcane and laced with the seeds (excuse the pun) of its own inadequacy, just as most traditional religious, moral, and otherwise cultural traditions. It requires a self-induced ignorance to sustain and lacks universality except in the convenience of its implementation. Rule of law would be utterly meaningless were naturalness accepted as the sole reason to revise the nature of prohibition.

I don't think anyone's so much offended by your ideas, 'Coatl, just frustrated with your tendency to polarize the issue and not take your own ideas into critical consideration. It doesn't make for good constructive discussion or debate.



A very good point, and one that is often of great consideration to the scientific community. However, using this as the end-all of ethical consideration will greatly hinder any progress in the field. How do you think ancient cultures establish these histories of use? By taking the leap themselves (or getting a slave to do it). Our culture is far too concerned with comfort and safety. Knowing the things that we know should empower us toward greater feats, not make us retract in fear.

Aren't extracting and smoking DMT illegal activities? It seems to me that this entire website thoroughly codones this substance and it's extraction and use. But most of this site is fiction anyways so i guess it doesn't matter.

Second, all entheogens and drugs should be monitored, controlled, taxed, and legalized. Absolutly all of them. We have got to take drugs off of the street where crackheads steal lawnmowers for a rock. If its taxed, then maybe we could get out of this slump!

Don't get me wrong though, I recognize the importance of growing. In SWIM's case, he grows a few things now, but he can't limit himself to using only what he grows and accrue a satisfactory amount of experience in entheogens. He also has a strong appreciation for synthetics, though he tends to be quite discerning in both synthetic and naturally-sourced substances.

Growing's not always as easy as it seems either or as adaptable to people's circumstances. SWIM has had a helluva time with psilocybe (good and bad) and requires some very nonconventional methods to do it sustainably and not go broke. His experience with guerilla gardening has been subpar, and ended wasting a lot of gas and time for him. He's only now getting started with cactus and phalaris and has no idea how that will turn out, and it's been a bit pricey just to get it going.

All I'm saying is that currently in history pushing for the legalization of ONLY botanicals AT THE CURRENT MOMENT is our best bet!

Also, I cannot stress how much the preservation and cultivation of botanicals means to the future of a humanity.

I would say that more than anything else in the world, more than our technology, more than our governments, botanicals- plants, cacti and fungi are our best bet for the salvation of humanity.

Yet brews are not botanicals, but man-made extracts of botanicals. It's just not as simple as botanical vs. refined substances; the boundaries are already quite blurred, and there's something else going on besides this.

Well I don't like the plan of legalize everything and 99% of Americans don't like the idea either, so offer an alternative?

I'm not saying that I'm completely in disagreement with you, but here's how I see it:
-Legalize the sale of all botanicals, but regulate when sold for the specific purpose of administration.
-Legalize possession of all substances.
-Legalize but regulate the licensed sale of all refined substances without potential for physical addiction.
-Regulate and limit the licensed sale of all refined substances with a potential for physical addiction.
-Legalize the household refinement and production of all substances, when not performed in a hazardous manner.

The goal would be to nearly eliminate the black market and the violent crime unethical business practice associated with it, significantly cut down the prison population of violent and nonviolent drug offenders, expand the scope of civil liberty, open up new fields of research and development, and cut down the abuse of all addictive substances, to include alcohol and tobacco. Unfortunately, legalizing botanicals alone will not have as large of a positive impact on society, because most of the detrimental drug trafficking that occurs doesn't revolve around botanicals. If it doesn't have a significant impact, it's not likely that lawmakers will even bother with it. People are looking for quick solutions to large problems, and this is one of them. Once people realize that there are easy solutions to most of the problems around drugs, they'll quickly embrace the end of prohibition.

The religious angle has its appeal, but discriminatory policy has its own problematic implications.

It is possible that simply legalizing botanicals would eventually have a strong positive impact, but would lawmakers be able to recognize that? Apart from marijuana in particular, there's not a strong movement for this.

sorry i just read the last couple posts but arnt botanicals pretty much legal. cept for coca leaves and pot maybe. i mean anyone really have a tough time getting mimosa or supplies to grow mush etc. sure its illegal and the mental hangups it brings could be done without but its not like we cant get our stuff!

sorry if im outa context!

Amor_fati that sounds fairly good to me. I think we agree a lot more than we both realize.



I disagree.... check out the Ayahuasca and Peyote cases. I think MANY people all over the world could get behind the "legal botanicals" idea... we could ride the cannabis-legalization wave... NOW is the time to push for botanical legalization! Perhaps 10 years down the road will be the time to push further... but NOT now!!!



No they are not. It is not legal to cultivate Lophophora or to grow Psilocybin mushrooms. Iboga is illegal. All DMT botanicals are illegal "if prepared for drug use". Sadly botanicals are NOT legal.

You can view a list of the botanicals illegal in the U.S. on the 1st page of this thread.

Let's all be frank, Americans are just too stupid to have drugs be legalized. The fact that in Portugal (earlier thread) it works out is no surprise. We cannot compare ourselves to Asian or EU countries in the area of responsibility. In fact the thinking is the opposite. "Hey everyone, if there are less alcohol related accidents with the drinking age at 21 than 18, why don't we just raise it to 25. That would be even better." Give me a break

Again, I just have to say that this is actually a point that we disagree on. If I'm not mistaken, these cases are more about religious freedom than botanicals. Ayahuasca brew is not botanicals but botanicals refined and prepared for use by aqueous extraction. One of the points I make about this is that brewing is not so far removed from more purified extractions; the cultural context is what makes all the difference. The issue with cannabis is not that it's a plant, it is cultural and medical in some cases. I'm sorry 'Coatl, but most people don't care about plants, they care about crime and human welfare and civil rights.

What about Peyote?

Have you checked out these cases?

What I'm saying is that people (and possibly the courts) are in the right mind state for the legalization of botanicals.

Please check out some of the cases... almost every time the court ruled in favor of the Peyote/Ayahuasca user.

How many cases have you seen where somebody was caught with DMT (or LSD, MDMA or whatever) and they argued that it was part of their religion and actually won the case? Um.... NEVER!

Hell they raided this one guy's Peyote farm and after the court ruling they gave him all his Peyote back that they confiscated and payed him for damages!!!

Ayahuasca and peyote both have a history of TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS USE. The botanical nature of peyote is purely circumstantial and secondary to the context of its use within the Native American Church. Extracted DMT does not have a history of traditional use, but you better believe that if someone were caught using it in ayahuasca outside of a well-establish religious pretext, the law will bring down the hammer; I doubt that in such a case, the use of a schedule I substance within a brew made from botanicals is going to be overlooked.

That last case you mentioned sounds interesting. I'll have to look into the details of these cases before discussing this any further.

This is because of religious use. Governments are afraid of oppressing peoples peyote and ayahuasca religions because of the backlash's it could cause. I would imagine that this is the situation in most of these cases but I don't know for sure thats just what I've heard.

My problem is this whole debate should not become centered around religion or traditional use of plant medicines. But it should be about the right to choose whether or not you want to grow, purify, smoke, inject, or stick up your ass anything you want.

Otherwise its just beating around the bush. Coatl I see your point that society in general is more keen on traditional plant botanicals. Your probably right. I just think instead of making it a debate about religious freedom it should be a debate about personal freedom. Unfortantely people have more sympathy for religious freedom rather then personal freedom.

I think I have decided that a single proclamation could make the drug laws much more reasonable (at least in my mind).

~ The cultivation, propagation and possession of botanicals in their unadulterated form may not be restricted by law. The use of traditionally prepared botanicals for religious, spiritual, cultural or medicinal purposes is a universal human right that may NOT be restricted by law. ~

This means that all botanicals are legal to cultivate and own, as well as use in traditional or cultural preparations.

Constitutes, derivatives, extracts and concentrations of botanicals as well as all synthetic drugs may be restricted by law, but NOT the botanicals themselves.

Botanicals which are Illegal in the U.S.-
"'Shrooms" ~ Psilocybe Mushrooms- spores, mycelia as well as fresh and dried mushrooms are legal but any non-cultural or non-traditional preparation, extraction or concentration is considered illegal.
"Peyote" ~ Lophophora williamsii- live plants/seeds , fresh and dried cacti are legal but any non-cultural or non-traditional preparation, extraction or concentration is considered illegal.
"Iboga" ~ Tabernanthe iboga- live plants/seeds as well as fresh and dried roots are legal but any non-cultural or non-traditional preparation, extraction or concentration is considered illegal.
"Khat" ~ Catha edulis- live plants/seeds as well as fresh and dried are consider legal but any non-cultural or non-traditional preparation, extraction or concentration is considered illegal as well as any cultivation of this botanical on a scale exceeding the need for personal use.
"Opium Poppy" ~ Papaver somniferum- live plants/seeds are considered legal but ANY preparation extraction or concentration is considered illegal as well as any cultivation of this botanical on a scale exceeding the need for personal use.
"Coca" ~ Erythroxylum coca- live plants/seeds as well as fresh and dried leafs are considered legal but ANY preparation extraction or concentration is considered illegal as well as any cultivation of this botanical on a scale exceeding the need for personal use.
"Marijuana" ~ Cannabis- live plants/seeds as well as fresh and dried plant material is legal but ANY preparation extraction or concentration is considered illegal as well as any cultivation of this botanical on a scale exceeding the need for personal use.




Religious freedom is part of personal freedom. Baby steps my friend... baby steps. We will get there.

i'm with you 'Coatl
Grow, grow grow!!!! (all inside.... all for personal use, if any)

Doesn't have to be indoors... Iboga, Khat and Coca could all be grown outdoors or in the open with no problem.

They look like Coffea or Cacao trees.

Here is just one example of the relative acceptance of botanicals for religious use.

The time to push for the legalization of botanicals is NOW!

That article mentions nothing about botanicals. RFRA is central to this case, not botanicals.