I'd say that is because we have been pushed into a counter-culture due to the social environment.

People develop deep relationships with all sorts of natural psychoactives... for example, look at the use of tobacco among Amazonian tribes... do THEY have a deep relationship with tobacco? Yes, I believe so.



This is what my set of laws attempts to address... in my perfect world you would HAVE TO grown your own cannabis (or at least cacti or mushrooms or what have you) in order to use it. This "weeds-out" (no pun intended) the lazy people and produces a more productive healthy type user.

Well then, shit, I wanna come...

That's why I don't believe in centralized government power over peoples behavior and lives. So yea I guess I am calling for a different system altogether one based around liberty. I also don't believe the tax payer should have to pay for everyone elses healthcare so yea I guess I am against federal or socialized health care as well. My out look on freedom applies to all things.

If its your family member or friend and they have a problem help them. Its not societies job to take care of everybody from the day they are born until they day. That viewpoint is why drugs are still illegal.




Sure they can. Both meth and heroin. Thats true. SWIM has done opiates many times in his life but never got addicted or used them in excessive. SWIM also has done many stimulants in his life and never got addicted or used them in excess. Would I be more tempted to use them if they were legal? Maybe but at least they would be safe and the side effects keep me from wanting to do them again anyway. SWIM doesnt like the sick feelings those kind of drugs can give you.


Concerning respecting peoples freedom whats wrong with doing meth or coke on the weekends? Nothing really. SWIM normally drinks on the weekends and thats just as if not more unhealthy? But am I an alcoholic who needs help because I get drunk once a week or so? No I don't think so. The same applies to ALL substances.

Perhaps you personally may have enough self-control to use drugs like heroin or meth safely, but most people simply do not.

I have a number of good friends with opiate addictions.... here let me post something he said to me the other day-

(Edit gotta find it first)

Looks like we want the same thing Burnt. Next question (and this might be for a different thread) - in your opinion how do we go about getting this?

'Coatl - but yet you assume people inherently have the ability and self-control to use botanicals safely, simply because they are botanicals.

It's about people not substances.

Very true, but there is still something to be said about the actual addictive properties of substances like coke or heroin. By being actually physically addictive, these substances have a far greater chance of causing addiction or abuse in users. Yes, some people are just not prone to becoming addictive to things, due largely to great self-control... but others can easily get hooked from the first try.

Abuse is to be expected more from physically addictive things (coke, heroin) than non physically addictive things (MJ, entheogens), wouldn't you say?

I completely agree. Of course botanicals with a long history of human use (and a demonstrably less potential for harm) are safer. However, I think that Coatl is blinded by her love of botanicals and finds it hard to be completely impartial.

I disagree with blanket statements like this:

Because I think they don't take into account the fact that even botanicals are open to abuse. They may be less harmful when they are abused and may be abused less often but they are not completely safe. They can't be; because we as humans use them.

---> And on the issue of coke and heroin, as I wrote earlier, this issue is still something I'm working out in my own head. From a libertarian standpoint everyone should be allowed to do all drugs, but from the point of view of the collective society we live in we have to be careful about unleashing (and therefore potentially sanctioning) the use of addictive substances.

For some reason everyone seems to think that people against the prohibition of all drugs think that heroin and meth are not dangerous at all. Of course drugs are dangerous this is all the more reason to have the government regulate them. The point is that people are going to abuse these things weather they are legally regulated or not. Based on a large amount of data the number of users is not going to change (% of population). Thus it is our responsibility to minimize the harm that this abuse causes the individual and society. People are never going to stop using drugs this is why harm reduction policies are a most. By regulating these things we gain power and control over them.

BTW cocaine is actually NOT physically addictive. there are no withdrawal symptoms. people just really like it. Marilyn Manson said regarding cocaine that you never need the first line of the night but you need everyone after that. People go on binges because coming down sucks and feeling like a million $ is nice. Never mind the fact that it turns you into a loud mouth ass hole. I had a drugs and behavior professor say that if there are 5 people in a room on cocaine there will be 5 conversations going on. In my experience this is true.

Many drugs are addictive but people also abuse things that are not necessarily addictive like cannabis and hallucinogens. Some people have an abusive personality. This is unavoidable. We should however makes sure that these people have access to clean products, honest information and treatment and medical-care if they require it. The truth of the matter is only a small % of people who try a drug end up using it regularly. Of these only a small % are adversely effected by there use. Many people use in secret and the only repercussion is legal if they are caught.

Yes and I understand that, unfortunately i've had too many friends go down that path too. I would just rather just see them treated as people with a substance abuse problem not criminals.



I think it requires a paradigm shift in the way people view society and the state. Many people are conditioned to believe that were it not for the government we would be slaves to big corporations working for pennies suffering and helpless. This is not true and has been a perpetuating myth of our times. It took me a long time to break this conditioning and I always thought I was in favor of freedom. I as many others were looking for it in the wrong direction. We briefly touched on these issues in the case of capitalism thread (science history section).

The paradigm shift applies to the war on drugs as well. If people were comfortable with liberty and what it really means and understood how it benefits society they would be more comfortable with drugs and people who choose to use them.



HAha so true. But this is exactly why SWIM wouldn't abuse cocaine even if it were legal. There are just too many annoying side effects. Can't sleep, wired edgying feeling, feel like shit after first couple lines, cravings, mental depletion. I think people who get addicted tend not to think about how they are going to feel after (they don't think about consequences, often you notice in many people with addictive personalities whether its sex or drugs or whatever) they use rather just think about how great those first few hits are.

Firstly, here's an interesting article: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/dally.htm

And here's a quote from somewhere else that pretty much sums up why entheogens are illegal:

"Because if they were legal we'd have people running around with a skewed perception of reality. People could get seriously hurt or worse. What's to stop someone from running out into the middle of the street if they think cars are giant cuddly bunnies? And how would one go about making something "semi-legal"? It either is or it isn't. Anything that makes you lose control over your ability to complete rational thought probably shouldn't be legalized."

A nice variation on the 'thought he was an orange and ran away from someone trying to peal him argument'. I wonder what this person thinks about alcohol.

I ran into a smug anti-drugs guy at the weekend. His argument was basically that the government has a moral duty to protect its citizen from chemicals that might damage them.

He actually used the word 'immoral' to talk about entheogens.

Botanicals CAN be abused, but it's much harder ESPECIALLY if you can't obtain them in an extracted or concentrated form, only intelligent people (with knowledge comes respect) who knew how to work with the botanicals could actually get high.

The idea of many of these policies is to get rid of the lazy drug user and turn her/him into a self-sufficient, knowledgeable, respectful, private user. As we here at the Nexus encourage with the use of DMT.

Mimosa is legal, but it isn't legal to have DMT... so, if you are discrete the knowledgeable and respectful users will be safe, but the stupid "I wanna get high" lazy druggies would not.

One of the ways to be self-sufficient is to grow botanicals... so get GROWING!



What you should tell him is that it is scientists job to do studies (which are not funded by the fucking government or pharmaceutical companies, but you know, actual real science) and tell us which drugs are addictive and harmful and which are not. It only takes a quick look at history and ethnobotany to understand the difference between cultural and traditional botanical psychoactives and modern day narcotics like heroin and cocaine. That guy was a fucking dumb ass. Tell him that alcohol and tobacco are very dangerous drugs and should be made illegal to protect people from "chemicals that may damage them".

Yeah, what the fuck kind of bullshit is that? Protect the public???? Does he know how many deaths occur from alcohol and tobacco ONLY (direct deaths - alcohol poisoning + cancer, etc) yearly? What an asshat... the amount of people that die directly from all other substances doesn't even come close, not as many people use them, yes, but nonetheless. Especially entheogens. How many die yearly from OD'ing on mushrooms? On LSD? On mescaline? Very, very small number, I'm willing to bet. And the reason is also probably because of the prohibition status of them (people eating cid that really isn't cid... foolish users injesting poisonous fungus...).

His argument essentially rested on the idea that alcohol and cigarettes are legal in England because they always have been. Yes you can argue about peyote and mushrooms, but they're not part of our particular cultural history.

His point was that, yes alcohol and cigarettes are destructive, and that's precisely why you can't add anything more to the list of substances available to people.

Classic closed minded argument that a)decriminalising drugs would vastly increase the number of users and b) even if they could be done more safely if they were decriminalised, the government cannot morally sanction their use.

It came down to this in the end, after I'd given him all of the logical argument I had - as well as accepting some things in my viewpoint that need to be worked out (that the last couple of posts on this thread have been about). I said this:

“you’re not taking on any of my arguments, you’re clinging to the same thing you’ve said over and over again, which you simply can’t substantiate. That shows that you are misinformed and/or very stubborn, in which case you need to realise that there is another side to the argument and open your mind. Whether you admit now that you are wrong or not I’d like to think that you would at least give it more thought. Do some research, accept the potential of being wrong, and if you find that you are ultimately right that’s fair enough, but don’t judge something you know nothing about.”

He sniggered and walked off.

That link is definitely worth a read.

Ya dude, I have heard that before and I just have to say WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!! Psilocybin mushroom use in Europe goes back 1000s of years... so um... legalize that? Some people are really stupid and can't be helped.

They were legal, and I was shouting now's the time to seize this opportunity and begin a tradition. But then what happened? They caught on. They started being sold everywhere. It was great for people like me, but then you had people like a guy I knew called Rob The Pillhead who started taking 100 grams of Hawaiians (fresh) + pills + alcohol + ganja and freaking himself out. This is the kind of guy who smokes the strongest cigarettes and pulls them as deeply as possible into his lungs because "he likes to feel he's damaging his lungs."

And therein lies the argument. Responsible use. It's a catch-22; maybe people can only learn responsible use through the decriminalisation of drugs to give them a chance to learn, but then until they're responsible they can't be decriminalised!

As you may have read elsewhere, I learnt responsible use the hard way from my first mushroom trip. I then had this emblazoned on the inside of my skull in ayahuasca coloured ink after I had a massive overdose on syrian rue (throwing up bile every 10 mins for 4 hours + ayahuasca trip).

I think if you read between the lines you will see the intention of my policies is to create responsible drug users.

Yep, and I agree. I've learnt so much about myself, my reasons for seeking these experiences and my relationship to the substances that offer me them through being forced to prepare brews and so on.

The difference between you and me Coatl is that I want a workable solution that covers synthetic substances as well. Natural substances should definitely be made legal, no questions asked, because you cannot make the earth illegal.

But (in my moral and spiritual worldview) I still deserve the right to experiment with Shulgin's chemicals and others.

i still need to read the rest of the thread to respond correctly to the other things. I was talking with a grower from Humboldt (not me, i wish) and he said that legalization would be counter to his goals. He mentioned something along the lines that the grey area that is currently in place is excellent and that taxing his crop would be bad for him. That along with mass produced mary jane.

I dont know if i agree with him, especially since not all the USA is in that grey area. chong sure knows.

As long as alcohol is legal, coke, heroin , meth , mdma all should be legal.

Its just another way to kill yourself. You can not justify to me allowing one and not all. They are ALL TOXIC, addictive and will kill you. Drunk idiots bother me more than strung out meth addicts. I lived with several so ya.

All non-easily ODing substances(Mj,dmt,shrooms,etc) should be legal first, but I am not hypocritical enough to say stand here and let alcohol slide and not the others. I have done all the above save heroin and mdma for extended amounts of time and was able to stop.

Education and treatment for those that want it is how we can help those that decide to partake in harmful intoxicants. Outlawing them makes them criminals and means there will be a black market, and thus crime related to it. Do not outlaw it, regulate, tax and educate.