Well for me this is the only reason for taking it and the physical and emotional healings have simply been an unasked for (but very welcome) side effect. However I know a lot of people on a "spiritual path" who are just as happy to reject psychedelics as dangerous playing with mind as your average guy on the street.

What amazes me - and it's so evident on this forum - is that many who take dmt or similar for any mixture of reasons to start with come to an understanding which you could broadly call spiritual. (I hate that word btw!) I mean how many times do you have to go through ego death before it begins to dawn [on you] that the whole concept of self, being a person, is just that, a concept and can be dropped? If you have 5-meo in your bottom drawer then union with the Absolute and the understanding of the source of everything is never more than one puff away.

A court decision.

And what sort of factors do you think would induce a court to make that decision

Well said. This reminds me of something Terrence Mckenna once said;




And yeah the word spiritual doesn't begin to cover the type of interest these substances spark.

I agree. And a truly awakened person, even if they reject this stuff for themselves won't judge others for using it. That seems to a major part of the process, giving up judgement of self and others.

Time and money.

If a lot of money is involved, time is irrelevant.

Psilocybin will be a legal prescription medicine in the quite near future. MDMA already has the green light and psilocybin is right on it's heels. Stay tuned folques things are just getting started.

As a kid in the “just say no” 1980s, it was difficult to imagine that in my lifetime, Americans would be able to walk into a store and buy marijuana over the counter. But we overgrew the government.

People can see for themselves that in states where it's legal, the streets are not filling up with blood and pot needles. There could be an increased rate of black men seducing white women with their unconventional music, but that's hard to measure.

DMT has never been specifically targeted for demonization and Americans are weary of the failed drug war. At the height of the Salvia hype, lawmakers in my state couldn't even pass a law prohibiting the sale of Salvia divinorum to minors.

take a good look all around.

no LEO?
good, ignite your propane torch, and load the GG bong.

other than that, good luck.


my motto has always been,
" if you dont see a federal judge and a platoon of marines, go for it"

I wish I could agree with this, I really do. HOWEVER,


The chance of a Democrat being elected to a third term, i.e. Clinton (Sanders can not win the Super Delegates at this stage), is slim; this leaves us a Republican in the White House. As popular as Trump is, he will not receive the Republican nomination without imploding the party. Therefore, we are left with the most likely candidate for president: Ted Cruz.

Cruz is an evangelical former Solicitor General from Texas. He publicly criticised Obama for not enforcing Federal Law on medical marijuana. Though, thankfully, he's shown recent movement towards allowing states to decide. This is of course tricky because of federal/international scheduling. The likelihood of Cruz allowing a drug policy battle beyond the state level is highly unlikely given any sort a rescheduling would of course need to be signed by the president.

Bottom line: Don't be too optimistic just yet -- 2016/2017 could see a major shift in attitude towards drug policy given a vacancy in the Supreme Court (with 4/4 leanings) and a possible conservative president. So, to you DMT-Nexus Americans: VOTE!

Not very likely, it's Hillary vs. The Dolan:

http://www.oddschecker.c...ial-election-2016/winner
https://electionbettingodds.com/

Except the numbers show he won't have enough delegates, therefor leading to an open convention where he sure as hell won't get the nomination. The RNC wants Cruz and getting the machinery in place to run Independent is too big a hill to climb this late in the game.

If the GOP has a contented convention, I doubt they'd prop of Cruz - the primary has been so terrible that he's damaged goods. My bet would be they fall behind either Kasich or some bland, easy-to-swallow conservative who hasn't even run. I imagine most of the establishment just want to pretend the last year never happened.

Of course, The Donald will run as an independent if he's not nominated, which could split the books enough to give Clinton the edge. Unless Sanders also runs, in which case we'd see a 4-way election with no obvious winner.

Blessings
~ND

That's why Hillary is the most likely candidate, not Cruz. She's also fully backed by Wallstreet. If you are right, you can make a 1100% win. That's $1000 out of $100. Easy money. A little bit too easy for my taste.

Historically speaking, favor leans towards the opposition party. I used this as a starting point to show the possibility of a Republican winning the White House -- A Republican who also happens to be the anti-drug former solicitor general of Texas. I was not making the claim that Cruz will in fact (or is actually likely) to win the seat. You misread Ufo.

This is getting off point from my initial cautionary tale of how important it is to vote if US drug policy is important to you.

There are those who think that the plan all along has been for Trump to split the votes and allow Hillary to beat the odds.

That seems unlikely. I don't know Trump, but it's a lot to ask that he publicly excoriate himself, and quite possible ruin his place in history, just to give Clinton a leg up.

Blessings
~ND

I'd suggest that wutever figure head gets pasted to the tv screens, that the pentagon still has some clout in how this plays out.

Call me a dreamer, but I think we have a chance.

Yeah, I agree, it seems unlikely, but it's an interesting theory, imo.