I shouldn't post in this thread anymore. I'm not even sure what the posts above even mean....mine included.

many apologies.

A desert is made of many grains of sand. Not participating in the political system is akin to letting others choose the path of this country for you. The only way to change the current system is to vote. Nothing else will work in the current system.

Fair enough, though I personally am finding it harder to care the direction my country is going in...I refuse to let it control my personal path.
I would like things to change, but honestly think it is delusional to believe voting is the vehicle of such change.
I prefer to share my beliefs and dreams with people directly involved in my life rather than a system I have absolutely no trust in.

So, this:

nobody said that. people on this thread express the importance of politics. No one believes voting is the only way.
For example, CEL was created with the intention to be part of the solution, not with the intention of influence voting statistics.

Everyone actively participates in the political system. Not everyone actively participates in the electoral process.

We are consumers.

Politics is the quickest way to change it. How likely is a mass awakening via psychedelics? Close to nil. How likely is a government to recognize psychedelics as an excellent teacher because people voted for it? One step above the former.

I didn't say anything about psychedelics. It doesn't necessarily require the use of psychedelics.

People are waking up whether or not they take psychedelics. However, it does seem that more awake people, are prone to taking psychedelics, for healing or exploration or...whatever. Waking up can occur with or without psychedelics. Psychedelics just boost it to the 1000th level (< that doesn't make much sense, but I'm just trying to convey the exponential increase in awareness, or awakening, that psychedelics can produce in a body that's ready for it).

I'm not talking about politics though, so I should probably not participate in this thread.

I sincerely apologize for causing any disruption.

Quite unlikely, to be sure. Psychedelics are only part of the picture.

Thing is, the minds of the populous are not changed by the voting habits of a faction. I don't believe this is what you are claiming, but the government is not even close to recognizing the potential of psychedelics.

The opinions of the general population are far more important. The most effective and substantial changes occur on the human level. Voting for the laws which accompany these ideals is simply a formality...it is are okay now because the government says it's okay.

I personally see voting (in party politics) as nearly a betrayal of my own sense of freedom. The only power I admit the government over me is brute force. No other person has any say over what is right in my life and what path I should pursue. The only power they have is the ability to physically overpower and detain me if my views don't fit their definition of "good".
I do not vote because the feeling of contribution through democratic voice is a slippery slope. The more faith I put in the system, the quicker I lose my own sense of responsibility.
The system has power only because we give it power. As it stands, that power supports the people who put it in power only to temporarily appease them instead of actually worked for them.
Politics is a game, through and through.

Amen!

Okay, I said I'm not going to participate in this thread, but there you go. Last post. (*mouth shut*)

Well there is one argument in favor of voting and that is that maybe 99% of all politicians are pathological liars, but they're not all equally bad for the future of the planet. If by voting, you can prevent a serious maniak to become president or PM of a country, it does make sense to vote for a party that you normally wouldn't vote for.

An example: in france many people once voted for mr chirac to prevent mr le pen to become president of france. I would have done the same thing because le pen as president would have been a catastrophy of unprecedented scale since WW2.

Last elections i have voted for a simmilar reason: to keep the biggest egotistic maniac on the planet out of power. Unfortunately i underestimated the unequivaled stupidity of the dutch people, so this time i might as well have stayed home.

But there may be places where common sense has not evaporated yet, and there it may still be usefull to vote.

Google Ron paul ! Seriously you guys, Ron Paul is not a liar, He's the only chance america has. Join the Ron Paul Revolution ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

Ron Paul is a joke...he talks about doing things well outside of the presidential ken. Why do you say he's not a liar? He's certainly an interesting fellow and a markedly different voice amongs tthe usual politicos, but let's not lose our heads here. The man hasn't explained how he'd actually make any of his radical changes and presenting him as "not a liar" is a bit of a stretch...especially in light of the fact he's made promises and claims that he couldn't possibly hope to execute because the actual American system of government (corruption and scandal aside) doesn't allow any president to make those changes.

Ron Paul is a hero among the tea party folks. That should tell you something.

The premise that psychedelic substances directly transform an individual's mindset is a faulty one. As others mentioned, these substances merely act as catalysts. Any radical change in thought pattern after the experience is of an individual's own accord. Given with this fact, I believe it would be a case-by-case basis if republicans were to partake in psychedelic experiences. Some might change their attitudes, some might not; the same applies to any adherents of a particular political ideology.

Doesn't ron paul want to completely isolate america from the rest of the world? From what i've read about the guy, i always get that impression.

It may seem that way, but he is actually a non-interventionist. He often uses Thomas Jefferson's quote: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

My answer to the original question of this topic;
Not just like that. Only if the pot-smoking republican in question wants to become a liberal/radical.
I gotta admit I do not really understand what you mean by "liberal" as you seem to have associated it with radical.
In this country, in political terms, a liberal is a politician that protects the interrests of the extremely rich business-elite,
seeking to do away regislations and make the way for profiteering as free as possible.(Think: Freedom to kill native tribes-people, more freedom to deforrest the earth, more freedom
to pollute the earth, more freedom for real-estate owners to throw people out of houses..etc)

In another, less political terminology "liberal" means to fight for civil liberties. Which is QUITE different from the policital term "liberal".

I am a libertarian for the most part. I smoke a pretty decent amount of dmt. I continue to be a Libertarian. I'm pretty "liberal" about social issues, and pretty conservative fiscally. But my point of view ultimately rests in the fact that politics are a game of theatrics, we are run by bankers, and an agenda has been laid out and it is out of the hands of the American people.

That said, I will never be a liberal.

No offense to those that are.

Same here.

Haven't read the whole thread, but expecting DMT
to cause a political shift in the status quo is a ridiculous pipedream;
Very unrealistic expectation.

Money and power are the politician's drugs of choice; don't expect
A hallucinogen to change that.

I'm not a liberal in the current sense of "give everything to anyone who doesn't work". I don't know how that image came to be, but I do believe in a strong safety net for those who aren't able to earn a living wage.

I'm a conservative in the sense of 'conserve' but that isn't the policy of those who currently call themselves conservatives.

These labels have become meaningless and I feel that is intentional on the part of the hucksters who want to rule us.

True Libertarianism says we should all be self sufficient as individuals. To me that is so unrealistic. It works well when we join together to build roads for all to drive on. It works well when we jointly fund the information hiway called the internet. I see nothing wrong with spreading risk of health problems around so those that get sick can have the benefit of a collective set of resources to care for the sick.

Do I want to pay for someone who doesn't want to work? Of course not. Unfortunately, there is a certain percent of the population that will try to milk any system. These people will do that regardless of what our society provides. What is worse is to have a society where an illness, a streak of bad luck or an ineffective economy will not provide. What that does is create desperate people. All you have to do is visit a 3rd world country and witness those who have nothing to loose. Some of them exude a sense of freedom. Some exude a sense that they will do anything to survive. The latter destabilizes society.

There is some balance in the middle. If we give too much to the lazy, society is destabilized. If we give too little to the needy, society is destabilized.

Zealots of the Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian persuation are all dangerous. I work my butt off to provide but I know that I only flourish by the grace of God (or perhaps by my teacup named God). There is nothing wrong with providing for the needy.