Perhaps Snozz, but I think a kind of - even unofficial - license is a good intermediate step and has some advantages if the people organizing this kind of license are not government agents. And that's the whole point. I don't want it to become an institution run by the state, but rather an organization run by people like us for people like us. I kind of base my idea on the way cannabis clubs are run in spain. Cannabis is a kind of gray zone there and certain amounts are not illegal to have for each individual. The clubs collect these possible amounts and use these numbers in order to grow their own and distribute this to their members, all within the limits of what is not forbidden, with respect to the amount of members the club has. This is a great system that allows people to support local growing and not sponsor drug cartels. Sadly it's not completely legal (no one really knows what is illegal and what's legal) nor is it illegal either... It continues to confuse me...

If psychedelics became as decriminalized as this - not as therapeutic goods, but as mind altering substances - clubs with a set up that requires certain education in order to partake would IMO help move the psychedelic community into a much better light and give participants a basis for discussing them outside of the club in an informed fashion. In addition building this kind of a framework has the advantage that you automatically have a real world forum of people with similar interests which can act as a support base, a place to seek advice and a place to learn/share/expand.

Fully support the educated use of entheogens by anyone inclined to experiment. This to me (and most of us here, I suppose) is obvious. The state has no business meddling in our personal choice to alter our own consciousness as we see fit.

That said; I cannot imagine see how this would fit in our model of society.


Based mostly on freedom of information and cognitive liberty, I support the use of psychedelics by anyone. However, anedoctal reports hint that a tremendous amount of people would have traumatic experiences. Especially after the "Pop your DMT tonight!" commercials start appearing on TV and it becomes the next coolest thing to do.

I wish I had a more optimistic view, but based on countless stories (last week was the guy who, after 3 *bottles* of wine, decided to take some MDA, having no idea what it was, just because someone offered it, took way too much, picked up some fights, lost his mind and ended up being restrained.. the week before was the guy who went to amsterdam back in the day and had a prodigious amount of truffles, for his first time, in a club.. because tripping on 40gr of atlantis truffles in a loud club as a first experience is extremely wise), online and offline, I just can't see how the vast majority of people would use these wonderful substances in a safe way.

At the same time there is the impossible to solve conflict; Some people (the majority, in the minority of people that is those who take psychedelics) do not need an authoritarian daddy telling them what they can and cannot take. In fact, they would (and mostly do, it appears to me) resent that.

How to reconcile the two? It works now, because psychonauts seem to be mostly self-selected. The information is out here on the internet, and a happy marriage of curiosity and self education results in a healthy baby.

Would it be the same if suddenly tomorrow anyone could get his/hers 500 mics of LSD at the nearest shop? How many people would inform themselves before ingesting it? How many would have horrible experiences with possible permanent trauma due to not observing set and setting ?


To me these are deeply troublesome questions. There is no doubt in my mind of the power of these tools for self-transformation and insight (or even just a really nice summer afternoon). But they are very powerful tools. In the hands of naive users, the harm would be great.

I have no doubt of their importance and power, and I fully support the right of every individual to choose to incorporate these substances into their lives.


But often I wonder if it is not better that they stay relatively obscure; Those who want to find the psychedelics, will; many already have.


It is beyond doubt that all the creativity we need to employ in order to not get in trouble for exploring these substances stems from wrongful laws; The punishment is not proportional. There is no harm being done to anyone. That needs to change, and with the recent advances in the marijuana field, I do believe we are seeing some progress there.



We also lack as a society the mindset/'infrastructure' to make these explorations a part of the fabric of society. I suspect that for all presently alive generations, this will continue to be the case (except for some communities here and there).


And I think it is from such communities that change will slowly percolate from. We live in a chicken-and-egg situation, in that for the majority of the population psychedelics are seen in a negative light (the stuff of mad people and dirty hippies); they would never touch psyhedelics.

And we need a majority to change the laws.
So, this is unlikely to change, I believe, due to confirmation bias.


Organizations like MAPS are doing wonders to change this perception, but I think only a minority of the general public will be swayed by the data. Which is better than none, but still not enough. The more people in the know (and who learned to use as safely as possible), the better - they will teach others, who will teach others (another evil aspect of the present laws, for instance in my country it is a crime to even discuss taking illegal substances with someone else..which is patently ridiculous, of course)



Trying to bring all these considerations into a coherent whole:
- The current drug laws are wrong (even evil) and need to be abolished.
- Advertisement/publicity (on TV, etc) of psychedelics would probably spell disaster.
- Many people must indeed be "protected from themselves" (this one I have real trouble with because I would never accept it for myself, and it seems irreconcilable to demand it for other people).


I have thought of alternatives like allowing growing of psychedelics for personal use (consumption included), but this still leaves us with burdening law enforcement - if sales are prohibited, then this needs to be enforced, and we are back to the same situation (do not underestimate how many of our rights have been eroded away due to this alone).

Regulation vs non regulation, I think the situation might work itself out.. it would mostly be the good stuff reaching the market, in theory.

If there was a way of quietly dropping the psychedelics from schedule I, no fuss about it, that would be ideal.. but impossible, with mass media.


I don't know. If these thoughts sound a bit confused it is because they are.

I see what you mean, I just have a semantic disagreement over the word regulation. The first definition I came upon for regulation was "a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority"; In this context the regulation of the possesion of DMT takes place in the form of criminal laws prohibiting its use/possesion/etc. I understand why you would disagree with what I'm saying if you strictly define the word regulation as "aimed at ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of the therapeutic goods which are covered under the scope of the regulation", however I am operating under a broader interpretation of the word.

You are free to use language as you wish , but I would point out that these words, in the present context, have generally-understood and accepted meanings. For example, there are reasons why groups like NORML emphasize the distinction between legalization and decriminalization.

And even if we go with a broader definition...

Legalization is not the absence of laws, it's the introduction of significantly more laws than exist under criminalization. If we wanted to call criminalization "regulation," then our scale of regulation (where 1 is the fewest regulations and 10 is the most regulations) would look something like this:

I don't like the idea of mandatory courses, licenses and so on...
Psychedelics are personal experiences. I don't think anyone should stand between Man and psychedelics just like I don't think anyone should stand between Man and spirituality, or you will get all the abuses that men can come up with (Christianity probably holds a record on this...).

Allow free use to +18 and that's all. The model of Netherlands works very well. Only tourists get trouble with mushrooms in Amsterdam... and I'm sure even more tourists get trouble in Amsterdam due to alcohol.

Clean products, pre-dosed, sold with some Info & Tips leaflet and a hotline number. Let the people experiment the way they want to, without cultural bias, without religious bias. Don't set expectations. That's how creation and innovation come. That's also how abuse comes... but these days, people sniff glue, drink cough syrup, antifreeze or whatnot to get high...How I wish these people were able to obtain healthy tryptamines instead.

Anyway, tryptamines could never do more harm than alcohol does!
That would be a very cool wish in fact, if I ever meet a genie...replace alcohol worldwide with tryptamines

I don't understand what the problem with licenses and courses are. It's a form to get organized and really push responsibility in the psychedelic community, thus polishing up its image in public opinion.

I for one, when I started using psychedelics, felt very left alone with all the questions I had, the flood of misinformation and the lack of people to talk to about how to use. From the start I *wanted* to use psychedelics in the sense of expanding my horizons and learning about the mysteries of this world. But at the same time I had no idea about what and how, I didn't know how to distinguish between positive use and detrimental use. I didn't know about addiction potential, health risks or anything. I thought taking LSD made my brain bleed and it was going to stay in my spine forever. I thought, hell, it's worth it anyway.

I tried talking to people I respected about the potentials of psychedelics and was offered anything from blank stares to terror in the eyes of my counter parts. There was no way I could counter this, nor could I find likeminded people that could guide me through my initial steps.

I might have come out alright and I might have learned a thing or two on my way to where I'm now, but I think a lot of painful experiences both under the influence and while trying to integrate the use into my every day life, could have been avoided or reduced by there being some kind of structure to follow and from which to build.

Like I said before, it's not about restricting people, but rather giving them the proper building blocks for them to create from there, instead of destroying or abusing. In cultures where ayahuasca use is common they have the shaman as a figure who can guide people trhough their experiences. This is not seen as restrictive and people still have creative experiences, experiences worth having. Now I don't think we need to create modern day shamans, since this is something that is very culturally specific and IMO too narrow even. All I wish to see is psychedelic users organize themselves to promote intelligent use and offer all new users the palette of tools they know of for each and every one to journey into the unknown. This plus the support of one another to speak to, to ask for advice - very much like we have on this forum. And very much like in this forum we go from seedling to full member, in real life there should also be some kind of initiation process in which people are introduced to a new aspect of this world in a way they can handle it and are not thrown into the obscure without any assistance or guidance.

One big problem for example I had when I first discovered the potential of psychedelics is that I realized that propaganda wasn't true. But if it wasn't true about psychedelics, perhaps it wasn't true about other things either - like heroine or coke. I was lucky enough not to get involved with this kind of thing, but the danger was there, since suddenly I had no reference anymore and no one whom I could trust about the matter to give me proper information. This is the great problem I see with these substances and I think if we offered proper education with mandatory courses we could at least separate the psychedelic users from the people that just want to sniff glue aside from helping people understand these substances. If we don't we'll have everyone mixed and public opinion will remain the same - that drugs are bad - look at how all these people are destroying their lives and health with drugs... How else do you expect to counter this?

great replies everyone
but we know the truth don't we ?

when DMT becomes legal ..........

i'll be named the new drug czar and i'll regulate it , i'll issue licenses and whatever is required

i'll take care of it all , no worries people , i've got this covered

i am here

Great news. Just before i read your post i was thinking to myself that if DMT is to be made legal i hope that Jin will be the person be in charge of regulation and licensing.

synchronicity my man.

I side with that. The background checks, the mandatory courses...it breathes an air of
"guilty untill proven innocent" while I really think it should be the polar opposite.

I think we should get a sort of "Innocent untill proven guilty"-policy going.
Make Psychedelics available for any adult human being over 18 years old.
Maybe some of the heavier ones(DMT, Salvia, Ayahuasca) can have a 20 year age limit.

If anyone abuses them and/or becomes dangerously insane repeatedly after use of psychedelics they could be denied access to psychedelic compounds. It would require ID-registration of customers to be able to put abusers of psychedelics & those that respons with dangerous insanity on a sort of blacklist telling shops who not to sell psychedelic compounds.

That customer-ist and that blacklist could be accessible through an online network by all shops that sell psychedeics. They'll instantly know who not to sell psychedelics.


Furthermore spiritual guidance in the use of Psychedelics should be encouraged and
freely available, but not mandatory. Religious Psychedeic communities having rituals
should be possible, but not a requirement for Psychedelics use.

Being a responsible, harmless & adult human being should be the only requirement for
the use of psychedelics. We are big boys and girls now and we don't need an overbearing
papa government to decide for us what we may and may not consume & experience.

I agree, but a good portion of the population are not harmless and responsible adults. For instance are people who wouldn't know for that their prescribed medication could be dangerous when combined when ayahuasca, or simply throw caution to the wind and take their chances because they want to try it. Even among those who go to Peru and drink with shamans there is an occasional although uncommon death.

How does one decide who is a responsible and harmless adult? If a patient with schizophrenia or another serious mental illness wanted to try psychedelics should that be allowed? Even if you think that it should, don't you think it would be better for such people to required to dose with some kind of trip-sitter around in the name of public safety?

Should people be allowed to drink and trip at the same time? There are always going to be people who don't know their boundaries and do irresponsible things that the whole psychedelic using community is collectively punished for. I don't think mandatory classes before giving someone access to an theoretically unlimited supply drugs like DMT, mushrooms, or LSD is to much to ask. I don't like seeing instances like when that one guy ate a bunch of mushrooms and ran at a cop holding a knife. If these drugs were made completely available to anyone over 18 with no requirements in place I think tragic instances like that one would become more common place.