Let's End Drug Prohibition

[origami_alligator]

@SkyPanda:
What gave the government the right to try and protect you from yourself? Government should only protect you from others, and that goes for everybody.

You seem to have this idea that ending drug prohibition will mean that everybody will be able to get away with harming others rights and doing things that are generally unacceptable.

Nobody here advocating for ending drug prohibition is saying that you should not be held responsible for your actions whilst in an altered state of mind.

[SkyPanda]

Are we talking the pharmacology definition of drugs or just recreational? And if so, why draw the distinction, isn't that unfair?

Recreational. Why would you consider a distinction unfair?

What about synthetic opiates used in severe and chronic pain treatments?

I assume they're administered in a medical environment and are not available over the counter. If they are, then I would be against that.

Regarding why prohibition is what it is, it is all about money. It's about the money for the governments, and the money for the corporations, and the money and the money and the money. Even the scare campaigns they put in schools nowadays are about the money.

I doubt that money is a factor. Surely there's more money to be had in legalisation and regulation than in prohibition and discouragement/education. The edcucation actually represents a cost to the government. However, it could be noted that in the long term, education and awareness could decrease the money that needs to be spent on medical care for those who have caused harm to themselves or others. This applies to tobacco in particular.

Why do you think drug use goes back thousands of years?

There's many terrible things that go back thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we should accept them.

Read my post please Sky.

I was talking about legal restrictions, not clashes of lifestyle.

You seem to have this idea that ending drug prohibition will mean that everybody will be able to get away with harming others rights and doing things that are generally unacceptable. Nobody here advocating for ending drug prohibition is saying that you should not be held responsible for your actions whilst in an altered state of mind.

It's not about whether they get away with it, but whether it happens.
Like I said before, i'd go with the option that reduces recreational drug use, whether that be a prohibition or no prohibition. I'd also go for an effective and practical system for allowing recreational drug users to use without harming others, were one to ever exist.

[Deathconciousness]

I didnt read through the thread but i find anyone that wants the legalization of hardcore substances such as cocaine and heroin to be nothing short of deluded and idealistic.

[a happy song]

Read my post please Sky.

I was talking about legal restrictions, not clashes of lifestyle.

No you weren't:

As far as I see it, the only way to protect non-drug users from drug users would involve some sort of separation, and it would be impossible for this separation not to impose on the freedoms of the drug user.

If someone hits a blunt in his own house, he is not violating the rights of anyone around him.

Yes, I considered that.. but then, doesn't that impose upon his freedom to choose to not live alone?

Freedom isn't people doing whatever they want to do and getting whatever they want.

I define 'freedom' as the absence of restiction or restraint. I was using freedom in its most basic sense, reword it as "doesn't that restrict him from living with others" if you like. gtg

Feel free to respond to my original post.

-

I didnt read through the thread but i find anyone that wants the legalization of hardcore substances such as cocaine and heroin to be nothing short of deluded and idealistic.

What's a better way to battle the damage such substances do? Fighting with the powers of the current laws is never going to be enough.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Are you saying that he would legally have to stop smoking? If so, why?

Yes. If you are smoking a joint in someone else's house or a house you share with someone, and they do not want you to smoke, you are obligated (legally) to either stop smoking or leave. This seems like common sense to me. I'm not sure why you have to ask this question. When you step foot onto private property, you are bound by the rules of the landowner. This is the same reason you cannot pee on someone's house or break their television without permission.

What about children.. how could they possibly consent?
And how would this consent be enforced? What would a drug user be likely to do if they could not get consent?

Young children can't consent. I agree that they should be protected somehow, but not through complete prohibition. That would be an unnecessary and absurd over-legislation. Furthermore, prohibition offers no de facto protection, even if it makes it illegal to smoke around children. Prohibition hasn't made cannabis any less accessible (by that I mean that if you walked into a typical American highschool and asked around a little bit, you'd be likely to find some quickly). This should probably be an issue for CPS to take up, just like neglect or child abuse. If it is viewed as too much of a problem, there's always the Amsterdam coffeeshop model.

Drugs are:
-harmful to the health of the individual in the short and long term
-put the user in a state of mind that could be dangerous to themself and others

That's a generalization. In the long term, there's no denying that drugs are bad for your health (unless you have glaucoma!). But I remember reading a study (I'm sorry that I lost the link) that stated that test subjects were physically examined, smoked a joint, and then came back the next day. Doctors were unable to find any differences in health. So if short-term means one use, you might want to rethink that. If that's not what short-term means, then define it. And really, is this at all relevant? Plenty of things are every bit as unhealthy but do not have the same social stigma.

Your second point is incredibly ignorant, although it's sometimes true of alcohol (which is a drug). I don't think salvia divinorum trips put anyone at risk, including the user. Also, cannabis is incredibly safe. How many people take a bong hit and then beat their wives or steal stuff? In most cases I would imagine that cannabis users spend their time on the couch or in the forest eating snacks. Someone who drops acid isn't going to steal anything or put anyone else at risk, they're gonna be trippin'.

edit:

I doubt that money is a factor. Surely there's more money to be had in legalisation and regulation than in prohibition and discouragement/education. The edcucation actually represents a cost to the government. However, it could be noted that in the long term, education and awareness could decrease the money that needs to be spent on medical care for those who have caused harm to themselves or others. This applies to tobacco in particular.

Well, tobacco and alcohol corporations are the major contributors to anti-drug lobbying (in America, at least). You can't say that's not movitated by capitalism. Booze and cig companies aren't exactly altruistic.

A bigger issue, to me, is that government thrives off of the invention of new crimes. Government's job is to deal with crime. When there is not enough crime, there is not enough demand for government and those who are in positions of power lose their power. The quick fix for the government is to create new crimes and further abridge the civil liberties of its populace. This way, the power hungry can ensure that they stay in power.

[Deathconciousness]

I didnt read through the thread but i find anyone that wants the legalization of hardcore substances such as cocaine and heroin to be nothing short of deluded and idealistic.

What's a better way to battle the damage such substances do? Fighting with the powers of the current laws is never going to be enough.[/quote]
you can say the same thing about all laws then

and its a fact (fact as in shown through various historical examples) that making something illegal severely lessens its use.

[Clovic]

"and its a fact (fact as in shown through various historical examples) that making something illegal severely lessens its use."

Are you being sarcastic? If not, then you are just plain wrong. Look at the Detroit area in the 1930's if you don't believe me.

Recreational. Why would you consider a distinction unfair?

It strikes me as a little hypocritical to allow one definition the honor of being "okay" or "right", but not the others. So recreational use is bad, but medicines for pain and other ailments is okay. Why is exploring one's consciousness any less important than someone relieving pain? "Recreational" seems to have a bad connotation attached to it. There's a reason these substances are used in religions among other places, they impart truly life changing and amazing experiences onto those open to the journey.

I assume they're administered in a medical environment and are not available over the counter. If they are, then I would be against that.

Well, there are things which you can only get in a hospital (IV Morphine for example) but you can get prescribed something like oxycodone pretty easily. Not over the counter, but all you need is a doctor's signature, and there are TONS of reasons for getting such a script that the excuses are endless. Does that then mean that whatever is "legal" to prescribe is "okay" or "safe"?

Taking the governments word on matters such as this is dangerous. There are anti-psychotic medicines out there that are more dangerous in the wrong hands after minimal use than just about any "hard" drug you can think of.

"I doubt that money is a factor. Surely there's more money to be had in legalisation and regulation than in prohibition and discouragement/education. The edcucation actually represents a cost to the government. However, it could be noted that in the long term, education and awareness could decrease the money that needs to be spent on medical care for those who have caused harm to themselves or others. This applies to tobacco in particular."

You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Go back to the 60's and the 70's when the drug laws were really starting to pile up, those administrations were doing it for the money, just like the one's in the 20's and 30's were doing before the FDA started putting regulations on products. There's money to be made in opposing drugs as well, they've just chosen to approach it from that angle instead of legalizing it and taxing it. Go look at Dutch statistics, they have positive judicial results almost across the board in regard to their legalizations of marijuana and mushrooms.

There's many terrible things that go back thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we should accept them.

While that is a true statement, why is it something that shouldn't be accepted? These things are here on earth with us. Growing naturally. Did you even know there are "drugs" naturally occurring in our brain? DMT, go look it up. Exploring the mind and the universe is something everyone should be interested in, and while there are other ways than drugs to do it, that does not mean psychedelics are not also valid.

[Tanner]

I don't think people should do drugs but I think they should be allowed to. I don't think people should get abortions but I think they should be allowed to. I don't think people should kill themselves but I think they should be allowed to. I don't think people should get married to people they don't love but I think they should be allowed to.

... the Libertarian Right is a strange place to be.

[blue_tetris]

You're not politically right if you think the government should be fully libertarian. Whether you exercise those liberties has nothing to do with your political stance.

You are libertarian right if there's still a few social issues that you figure people aren't safe to self-manage in. Otherwise, you're fully libertarian when it comes to politics; you just have a sense of morality that prevents you from acting upon all your liberties.

[Tanner]

Schools and the military should never be privatized. Schools should be palaces and barracks should be castles but neither should be run by Blackwater.

[blue_tetris]

Schools and the military should never be privatized. Schools should be palaces and barracks should be castles but neither should be run by Blackwater.

I could agree with that, as well. That's a leftist economic idea, by its nature, because it advocates a socialized system. You were for socialized medicine last time we talked, too. I figure you're pro-liberty enough for the most part that the places where you lean left or right are subordinate to the fact that you're a straight-up libertarian.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

I think schools should be privitized as much as people want, as long as there is always a public alternative.

[scythe]

I didnt read through the thread but i find anyone that wants the legalization of hardcore substances such as cocaine and heroin to be nothing short of deluded and idealistic.

Did you read the story, or are you simply poisoning the well?

I take offense to being called "deluded", by the way. Enlighten me, why am I deluded?

Drugs are:
-harmful to the health of the individual in the short and long term
-put the user in a state of mind that could be dangerous to themself and others

Prove it. It's been established (I think?) that it's not the government's responsibility to protect you from yourself, so the bolded is the only claim that is important.
And I'd say the danger has to be significant, not "if someone was holding a jar of nitroglycerine and they were on acid they might drop it".

[Clovic]

I didnt read through the thread but i find anyone that wants the legalization of hardcore substances such as cocaine and heroin to be nothing short of deluded and idealistic.

Also, another point on that, the dutch just passed a law to have centers for safe administration of infectable drugs for addicts. They can come in twice a day for safe and regulated injections of safe amounts and clean materials.

It's pretty narrow minded to say something like that.

[SkyPanda]

No you weren't:

Yeah, I was. Legal separations, legal restrictions, not self-imposed ones.

Young children can't consent. I agree that they should be protected somehow, but not through complete prohibition. That would be an unnecessary and absurd over-legislation. Furthermore, prohibition offers no de facto protection, even if it makes it illegal to smoke around children.

Well said.

Your second point is incredibly ignorant,

Yes, clearly. ;___; I don't know much about recreational drugs used medicinally, but i'd contest that they are even relevant. Surely its practical to distinguish.

Well, tobacco and alcohol corporations are the major contributors to anti-drug lobbying (in America, at least). You can't say that's not movitated by capitalism. Booze and cig companies aren't exactly altruistic.

Of course! But isn't the concern more with the government's financial motivations, not the drug companies, considering that the government would be the ones deciding whether to prohibit or not.

A bigger issue, to me, is that government thrives off of the invention of new crimes.

I find this hard to believe. You'd need figures to show that income from crime is greater than the costs of creating and maintain jails, police forces, security, judicial systems, etc, not to mention all of the intanglible costs, and the decreased chance of re-election.

Why is exploring one's consciousness any less important than someone relieving pain?

I think there's a serious difference in necessity there. :p

These things are here on earth with us. Growing naturally.

Firstly, only some drugs are natural, don't forget about the ones off the street that are mixed with godonlyknowswhat, secondly, there's a motherload of naturally occuring things in this world that we cannot or should not eat, smoke or consume if we want to preserve health and sanity.

[Clovic]

I think there's a serious difference in necessity there. :p

Uhm, I completely disagree, but that is my point, how can you say that? You're just disregarding the mystical, medicinal, and educational effects of some of these substances just because you think they're "bad for you"? I'm sure you've never heard of MAPS, but they just finished up an MDMA study using the substance to treat PTSD. They're presenting the results to the FDA among other organizations currently and will soon have the okay for a larger scale test. Pretty soon "ecstasy", you know, that thing that eats people's brains, is going to be legally obtainable for people who are as of yet unable to overcome traumatic life events. Also, it is very possible that tests for LSD are going to be begun for the first time since the 70's to deal with similar issues. Marijuana is already becoming very widespread as a medicinal product.

Firstly, only some drugs are natural, don't forget about the ones off the street that are mixed with godonlyknowswhat, secondly, there's a motherload of naturally occuring things in this world that we cannot or should not eat, smoke or consume if we want to preserve health and sanity.

Well, most people begin the conversation with Heroine and cocaine as the "hard" drugs, but oh guess what, both are natural. Sorry. Also, you can't just claim a blanket statement like this and make it be true. Yes, there are poisons out there that will kill us, but peyote is not going to kill us, it gives an experience unlike any other. Don't eat the poison, it will preserve your well being, eat the peyote, expand your mind, gain understanding and wisdom, further oneself. You act like there's only one viewpoint to look at drugs with.

There are tribes which chew on the coca leaves as part of the tribes tradition and world view. It helps them get all the duties required for each day done, otherwise they would get behind and would not be prepared for the rains, farming seasons, everything required for life. Chewing on the substance sustains them to live in a way. Is this wrong just because cocaine is taboo in our environment? Is it fair to say they are doing something "wrong" because we believe it to be against the law and wrong?

Open your mind dude, it's cool to be against something, but to be so one-sided seems a bit close minded.

[Atilla]

Recreational. Why would you consider a distinction unfair?

It strikes me as a little hypocritical to allow one definition the honor of being "okay" or "right", but not the others. So recreational use is bad, but medicines for pain and other ailments is okay. Why is exploring one's consciousness any less important than someone relieving pain? "Recreational" seems to have a bad connotation attached to it. There's a reason these substances are used in religions among other places, they impart truly life changing and amazing experiences onto those open to the journey.

What? No. That's ridiculous. Medical use of drugs is distinct from other uses because it protects people's health and/or allows them to function normally. Cutting people open with a scalpel is bad, but performing surgery is not. Normally, it's bad to pin a stranger's nose shut and breath into their mouth without consent, but it's okay if you're trying to resuscitate them. Wearing a space suit around town is wacky. Wearing a space suit on the moon is necessary. Clearly there's a difference between something which needs to be done to protect people, and something which you're doing for giggles.

Uhm, I completely disagree, but that is my point, how can you say that? You're just disregarding the mystical, medicinal, and educational effects of some of these substances just because you think they're "bad for you"? I'm sure you've never heard of MAPS, but they just finished up an MDMA study using the substance to treat PTSD. They're presenting the results to the FDA among other organizations currently and will soon have the okay for a larger scale test. Pretty soon "ecstasy", you know, that thing that eats people's brains, is going to be legally obtainable for people who are as of yet unable to overcome traumatic life events. Also, it is very possible that tests for LSD are going to be begun for the first time since the 70's to deal with similar issues. Marijuana is already becoming very widespread as a medicinal product.

...and when they're used for legitimate medicinal purposes, it falls under the therapeutic use of drugs, rather than recreational, and is thus already legal. It is not implicit that something which is suitable for medicine is also suitable for recreation, so the mere fact that something can be used as a medicine is not grounds to lift the ban on recreational use, over the counter sales, etc. Also, the form of the drug used in medicine may be different to that used for recreation; and therapeutic drugs often use very small, carefully measured doses, while recreational users frequently do not. Thus, recreational use is not comparable to medicinal use in most cases.

There's many terrible things that go back thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we should accept them.

While that is a true statement, why is it something that shouldn't be accepted? These things are here on earth with us. Growing naturally. Did you even know there are "drugs" naturally occurring in our brain? DMT, go look it up. Exploring the mind and the universe is something everyone should be interested in, and while there are other ways than drugs to do it, that does not mean psychedelics are not also valid.

Well, most people begin the conversation with Heroine and cocaine as the "hard" drugs, but oh guess what, both are natural. Sorry.

Deadly Nightshade also grows naturally, but it's not really a good idea to eat it. Other things which occur naturally include arsenic, lead, salmonella, and the venom of assorted species. Whether something occurs naturally has no bearing on whether it should be consumed by humans. Also, many compounds occur naturally in humans, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to drug yourself with them. Compounds formed naturally in the human brain can cause various forms of insanity if misused, not to mention various forms of death. You need to focus on the actual effects of the drug, rather than yelling "But it's natural! It can't be bad if it's natural!"

There are tribes which chew on the coca leaves as part of the tribes tradition and world view. It helps them get all the duties required for each day done, otherwise they would get behind and would not be prepared for the rains, farming seasons, everything required for life. Chewing on the substance sustains them to live in a way. Is this wrong just because cocaine is taboo in our environment? Is it fair to say they are doing something "wrong" because we believe it to be against the law and wrong?

Firstly, chewing a leaf is different from taking processed cocaine. Modern drugs are vastly more potent because they are specifically created and processed for their mind-altering properties. It's like the difference between eating an apple, which contains some sugar, and eating a cup of straight sugar. Or between eating a poppy-seed bun and smoking opium.

Secondly, if you believe something is against the law and wrong, it's totally fair to say it's wrong if some other group of people does it. That's kind of the whole point. I think murder and rape are against the law and wrong. If this tribe practiced ritual rape and human sacrifice as part of their religious traditions, I would believe that to be wrong also. We are in no way obligated to approve of something because some bunch of people somewhere does it.

[SkyPanda]

Well, most people begin the conversation with Heroine and cocaine as the "hard" drugs, but oh guess what, both are natural. Sorry. Also, you can't just claim a blanket statement like this and make it be true.

clovic: "These things are here on earth with us. Growing naturally."
You suggested that simply because they are natural, that makes them okay. I replied that not all natural things are okay, therefore drugs are not necessarily 'okay' simply because they are natural. There's two blanket statements here, and only one of them is mine :)

You act like there's only one viewpoint to look at drugs with.
Open your mind dude, it's cool to be against something, but to be so one-sided seems a bit close minded.

If the situation arises where someone was to present arguments that convince me to embrace recreational drug usage, than I would most certainly do so. However that's yet to happen, so don't think that just because you haven't convinced me yet, that i'm single minded.

You're just disregarding the mystical, medicinal, and educational effects of some of these substances just because you think they're "bad for you"?

Mystical? I'm intrigued!

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Of course! But isn't the concern more with the government's financial motivations, not the drug companies, considering that the government would be the ones deciding whether to prohibit or not.

Yes. And lobbyists are the people who go to the government and ask them to do one thing or another. In this case, that thing is prohibition. While the government might actually lose money from the expenses associated with prohibition, the individual politicians will not (if the lobbyists offer them money)

I find this hard to believe. You'd need figures to show that income from crime is greater than the costs of creating and maintain jails, police forces, security, judicial systems, etc, not to mention all of the intanglible costs, and the decreased chance of re-election.

You're confused about what I meant here. I don't mean that the government makes more money with prohibition, I mean it gives them more power. For many politicians, this is what they really want. Decreased chance of re-election would apply if people weren't already convinced that drugs should be prohibitted.

[origami_alligator]

Firstly, chewing a leaf is different from taking processed cocaine. Modern drugs are vastly more potent because they are specifically created and processed for their mind-altering properties. It's like the difference between eating an apple, which contains some sugar, and eating a cup of straight sugar. Or between eating a poppy-seed bun and smoking opium.

I would just like to add that street cocaine involves a concrete mixture and gasoline, among other things to produce a drug that is addictive and harmful to your body. One can argue that coca leaves are naturally occurring (because they are), but one cannot argue that street cocaine is a naturally occurring substance.

That's like me trying to claim that LSD is naturally occurring because it comes from a synthesized chemical found in an ergot seed when it's mixed with so much other shit before it gets into the hands of someone that you can't really call it natural. Besides, the chemical that is LSD has to be synthesized first. If you eat ergot straight you get some really nasty effects on the body.

[scythe]

I would just like to add that street cocaine involves a concrete mixture and gasoline, among other things to produce a drug that is addictive and harmful to your body. One can argue that coca leaves are naturally occurring (because they are), but one cannot argue that street cocaine is a naturally occurring substance.

What? It's cut with baking soda, not concrete. And yes, cocaine is a naturally occurring substance. It doesn't occur naturally in it's extracted form, though.

That's like me trying to claim that LSD is naturally occurring because it comes from a synthesized chemical found in an ergot seed when it's mixed with so much other shit before it gets into the hands of someone that you can't really call it natural. Besides, the chemical that is LSD has to be synthesized first. If you eat ergot straight you get some really nasty effects on the body.

"when it's mixed with so much other shit"
LSD isn't "mixed" with anything. It's a surprisingly unstable compound that is so much more potent (in terms of dosage size, not effects. LSD doses are measured in micrograms) than almost anything else it can't be easily laced. It's a pure compound, not a mixture of chemicals.
Also, no synthesized chemicals are found in seeds.

Notably, none of this matters: read my previous post.

[blue_tetris]

You're just disregarding the mystical, medicinal, and educational effects of some of these substances just because you think they're "bad for you"?

Mystical? I'm intrigued!

Entheogens. Substances you take to see god. They're as old as religion itself.

[origami_alligator]

I would just like to add that street cocaine involves a concrete mixture and gasoline, among other things to produce a drug that is addictive and harmful to your body. One can argue that coca leaves are naturally occurring (because they are), but one cannot argue that street cocaine is a naturally occurring substance.

What? It's cut with baking soda, not concrete. And yes, cocaine is a naturally occurring substance. It doesn't occur naturally in it's extracted form, though.

I was talking about extracting cocaine from the coca leaves, not increasing profit on the streets. "Cutting" a drug with other powdery substances is different than extracting it.

"when it's mixed with so much other shit"
LSD isn't "mixed" with anything. It's a surprisingly unstable compound that is so much more potent (in terms of dosage size, not effects. LSD doses are measured in micrograms) than almost anything else it can't be easily laced. It's a pure compound, not a mixture of chemicals.
Also, no synthesized chemicals are found in seeds.

I've heard that you can mix drugs like heroin and methamphetamine in LSD. The truth of those statements may be lacking, but I wouldn't put it beyond drug dealers to test out mixing other drugs with LSD to produce more intense highs. Whether or not it produces any other effects, I don't know. It could just be rumor.

[Clovic]

What? No. That's ridiculous. Medical use of drugs is distinct from other uses because it protects people's health and/or allows them to function normally. Cutting people open with a scalpel is bad, but performing surgery is not. Normally, it's bad to pin a stranger's nose shut and breath into their mouth without consent, but it's okay if you're trying to resuscitate them. Wearing a space suit around town is wacky. Wearing a space suit on the moon is necessary. Clearly there's a difference between something which needs to be done to protect people, and something which you're doing for giggles.

There's also a difference between something done for giggles and something done for far more serious reasons. I could argue that I am unable to function normally without the use of psychedelics to clear and sort out my mind. But is this reasoning any more valid than wanting to explore the powers of the substance? We explore other things all around us, why are these specific substances any different, they should not also be explored?

...and when they're used for legitimate medicinal purposes, it falls under the therapeutic use of drugs, rather than recreational, and is thus already legal. It is not implicit that something which is suitable for medicine is also suitable for recreation, so the mere fact that something can be used as a medicine is not grounds to lift the ban on recreational use, over the counter sales, etc. Also, the form of the drug used in medicine may be different to that used for recreation; and therapeutic drugs often use very small, carefully measured doses, while recreational users frequently do not. Thus, recreational use is not comparable to medicinal use in most cases.

Actually, you hit on one of the strongest points that pro-drug argument has to offer. The reason the dutch, among other countries, are experimenting with their drug laws is because there is not one formula that works. By banning it like we have, we endanger those people choosing that path. Even if you disagree with their choices, is it fair to endanger them? It is proven that it is impossible to eliminate drug use, so why not make it a little safer? If drugs were legalized and distributed, it would be monitored and clean. There would be far less danger in using and the stigma would go down even further.

Let me pause to ask a question here. How come you care so much about what is "legal"? You think the people making the rules are perfect? There's a lot of fucked up rules out there. Have you ever seen Reefer Madness? And you believe that's even close to what happens? When it came out it was a driving force in the negative laws and portrayal of marijuana. Now, even in the negative light the media gives it, it's obvious it was over the top, yet the results it caused remain.

Deadly Nightshade also grows naturally, but it's not really a good idea to eat it. Other things which occur naturally include arsenic, lead, salmonella, and the venom of assorted species. Whether something occurs naturally has no bearing on whether it should be consumed by humans. Also, many compounds occur naturally in humans, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to drug yourself with them. Compounds formed naturally in the human brain can cause various forms of insanity if misused, not to mention various forms of death. You need to focus on the actual effects of the drug, rather than yelling "But it's natural! It can't be bad if it's natural!"

Actually, Nightshade is more than one type of plant. Some are more deadly than others. Some give some pretty astounding effects which should be researched in my opinion. Datura is an amazing plant when used responsibly, yet people choose to skip this step and it results in a bad view of the plants.

Also, I do focus on the actual effects of them. Whereas the things you name make one sick and poisoned, the substances I've mentioned give astounding experiences and mystical, life-changing introspections. Of course you wouldn't eat arsenic, why would you? I can answer that question for these substances in many different contexts - religious, personality development alteration, meditation, exploration. Arsenic and salmonella don't do any of these things. There's the difference.

Firstly, chewing a leaf is different from taking processed cocaine. Modern drugs are vastly more potent because they are specifically created and processed for their mind-altering properties. It's like the difference between eating an apple, which contains some sugar, and eating a cup of straight sugar. Or between eating a poppy-seed bun and smoking opium.

Secondly, if you believe something is against the law and wrong, it's totally fair to say it's wrong if some other group of people does it. That's kind of the whole point. I think murder and rape are against the law and wrong. If this tribe practiced ritual rape and human sacrifice as part of their religious traditions, I would believe that to be wrong also. We are in no way obligated to approve of something because some bunch of people somewhere does it.

Actually, sir, you are wrong. Street cocaine, the stuff you're talking about, is going to be cut with so much shit that it will be nowhere close to what that leaf once was. Sucking on the leaves, or making a tea, gives an experience of the purest kind, so yes, it is different from processed cocaine - it is stronger!

But you seem to be obliged to approve of the laws set forth just because some old fuckers set them forth.

Mystical? I'm intrigued!

The indigenous peoples to south america and Africa who I mentioned earlier use the mystical side of the experience as a large portion of the motive behind using. You have to go on anecdotal evidence unless you become curious to see for yourself, but it can be absolutely amazing and unexplainable. I've talked to God. But not "God" - God. And that's cool if you think I'm crazy, but then you are dismissing a huge IF.

I would just like to add that street cocaine involves a concrete mixture and gasoline, among other things to produce a drug that is addictive and harmful to your body. One can argue that coca leaves are naturally occurring (because they are), but one cannot argue that street cocaine is a naturally occurring substance.

That's like me trying to claim that LSD is naturally occurring because it comes from a synthesized chemical found in an ergot seed when it's mixed with so much other shit before it gets into the hands of someone that you can't really call it natural. Besides, the chemical that is LSD has to be synthesized first. If you eat ergot straight you get some really nasty effects on the body.

Uhm, the first paragraph you wrote is laughable, that is not true. As to your second point, that is why it must be synthesized! Does the fact that it is not automatically in it's pure form make it somehow "wrong"?

I've heard that you can mix drugs like heroin and methamphetamine in LSD. The truth of those statements may be lacking, but I wouldn't put it beyond drug dealers to test out mixing other drugs with LSD to produce more intense highs. Whether or not it produces any other effects, I don't know. It could just be rumor.

The only thing they're worried about is money, heroine is way more expensive than LSD, there is no way they would cut something with something more expensive. It would be a waste. Also, the high you get from LSD is intense enough, there's no reason anyone would need to be doing this. They may use a substitute which isn't LSD, but this would be silly in practice.

[Deathconciousness]

Clovic

everything you have posted has made me want to criminalize more drugs. You just sound like a drug addict trying to justify his habits.