A legal psychedelic market

[northape]

I personally care more about respecting the rights of grown adults than how I feel about how those adults use them.

I subscribe to this too; however, we all need to start somewhere. Having psychedelics as a rite of passage for young people would be the best.
If you want to engage in this work by yourself later on, so be it. It would be nice to have some options like a community psychedelic center with full support, though.
You don't just drink plants in the Amazon, but you learn somewhere first. Even Nexus is like a community hub to get the right information.
Basically, I'm against selling to just anybody without any safety net or support. There are just as many horror stories brought up by psychedelic misuse.

 

[Varallo]

I think that many of the proposals I read here are more about regulation than legalization. Personally, I support full legalization. That means there would at most be an age limit for buyers, but beyond that, it should be completely legal to possess, trade, and use, without restrictions such as mandatory courses guidance or similar requirements. Everyone experiences life in their own way, this includes taking risks and responsibilities in using drugs.

If we claim that a substance is truly safe to use, then it should also be legal to use it without additional conditions. If that is not the case, then you could question whether it is really legalization that is justified, and whether the substance is indeed safe enough for general use.

It’s not like driving a car, which has a practical necessity attached to it. There is no such necessity here. This means that the risk-benefit justification is fundamentally different. Because there is no inherent social or practical basic need for drug use, regulating it as if it were a necessary activity makes little sense. Either it is safe enough to be fully legal, or it is not safe enough to be legal at all. Anything in between is a bit incoherent and might lead to things like decriminalizing use or possession, rather then legalizing drugs as an whole.

That’s why I don’t think drug use should be tied to systems like religious contexts, or other frameworks that try to justify or control it. That seems unnecessary and misguided to me.

 

[Voidmatrix]

It’s not like driving a car, which has a practical necessity attached to it. There is no such necessity here. This means that the risk-benefit justification is fundamentally different. Because there is no inherent social or practical basic need for drug use, regulating it as if it were a necessary activity makes little sense.

I'd argue it's a human imperative to shift our consciousness and as such is a necessity. It's a necessity for cultures that have embedded them into their culture.

That’s why I don’t think drug use should be tied to systems like religious contexts, or other frameworks that try to justify or control it. That seems unnecessary and misguided to me.

Being tied to spiritual or religious systems doesn't necessitate it being controlled overall.

However, we have locks on our doors for the same reasons we have regulations.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

I think that many of the proposals I read here are more about regulation than legalization. Personally, I support full legalization. That means there would at most be an age limit for buyers, but beyond that, it should be completely legal to possess, trade, and use, without restrictions such as mandatory courses guidance or similar requirements. Everyone experiences life in their own way, this includes taking risks and responsibilities in using drugs.

If we claim that a substance is truly safe to use, then it should also be legal to use it without additional conditions. If that is not the case, then you could question whether it is really legalization that is justified, and whether the substance is indeed safe enough for general use.

It’s not like driving a car, which has a practical necessity attached to it. There is no such necessity here. This means that the risk-benefit justification is fundamentally different. Because there is no inherent social or practical basic need for drug use, regulating it as if it were a necessary activity makes little sense. Either it is safe enough to be fully legal, or it is not safe enough to be legal at all. Anything in between is a bit incoherent and might lead to things like decriminalizing use or possession, rather then legalizing drugs as an whole.

That’s why I don’t think drug use should be tied to systems like religious contexts, or other frameworks that try to justify or control it. That seems unnecessary and misguided to me.

This is very well thought and argued, and I do find it convincing overall, when applied to individuals.

The problem comes with companies. Currently in most countries there is a legal fiction that companies are in some ways individuals. I'm for individuals being fully allowed to possess, trade, and use, without restrictions, for the reasons you stated. But I don't see why companies should have those rights. They are super-humanly powerful entities, and pretending that individuals can relate to them as peers is just fiction.

If you allow unrestricted advertising and sale of psychoactive substances by companies, you get a situation similar to the situation with tobacco for most of the 20th century. Manipulation, propaganda, social conditioning to make money regardless of the effects on people. Yes, each tobacco user had the ultimate responsibility for their choices, but the playing field wasn't leveled. It was each person as an individual vs. powerful entities shaping a whole culture to lead them in the direction of tobacco use since childhood.

So I think my neighbor Jim should be able to sell me any substance in a fully unrestricted way. Yes, he may be a liar and manipulator, and some cases of abuse are unavoidable. But he has no influence to shape culture, society, and regulations in a way that I'm statistically likely to end up hooked to whatever he's selling.

In summary, I fully agree with you, as long as it doesn't apply to companies. They aren't individuals and are potentially very dangerous.

 

[Voidmatrix]

non indigenous people to grow peyote etc and find better ways to protect it around wild harvesting etc.

This is pretty loaded. I'd be curious as to your feelings if you were part of a group that uses this as their sacrament. Especially considering there are other cacti with similar alkaloids profiles that people outside native groups don't have the same cultural and spiritual attachment to.

One love

 

[Varallo]

I'd argue it's a human imperative to shift our consciousness and as such is a necessity. It's a necessity for cultures that have embedded them into their culture.
One love

You could, but many people live full and meaningful lives without any drug involved so there’s no necessity for psychedelics, you could arguably say that for cars or transport but it is much less likely. The car was mentioned because it has a very different risk tolerance profile than most other things in our world.

This is very well thought and argued, and I do find it convincing overall, when applied to individuals.

The problem comes with companies. Currently in most countries there is a legal fiction that companies are in some ways individuals. I'm for individuals being fully allowed to possess, trade, and use, without restrictions, for the reasons you stated. But I don't see why companies should have those rights. They are super-humanly powerful entities, and pretending that individuals can relate to them as peers is just fiction.

If you allow unrestricted advertising and sale of psychoactive substances by companies, you get a situation similar to the situation with tobacco for most of the 20th century. Manipulation, propaganda, social conditioning to make money regardless of the effects on people. Yes, each tobacco user had the ultimate responsibility for their choices, but the playing field wasn't leveled. It was each person as an individual vs. powerful entities shaping a whole culture to lead them in the direction of tobacco use since childhood.

So I think my neighbor Jim should be able to sell me any substance in a fully unrestricted way. Yes, he may be a liar and manipulator, and some cases of abuse are unavoidable. But he has no influence to shape culture, society, and regulations so I'm statistically likely to end up hooked to whatever he's selling.

In summary, I fully agree with you, as long as it doesn't apply to companies. They aren't individuals and are potentially very dangerous.

I’m not to sure if it’s companies viewed as entities that is the problem, I do however agree that it’s very likely that advertising and marketing ploys are a real risk.
What you further are describing fits well in the more common-ist world I think I would like to live in, thanks for sharing this view.

 

[Jamie01]

My take on peyote is the same as Keeper Trouts. Being part of a group that uses peyote does not mean you are going to protect it, or do anything to cultivate a sustainable supply. This is IMO mostly a virtue signal and is skirting the line of racism. I’m not harming peyote by growing it. I don’t even eat it. More people need to be growing it. These laws including one ethnic group while excluding other are silly, racist and won’t work.

 

[Voidmatrix]

You could, but many people live full and meaningful lives without any drug involved so there’s no necessity for psychedelics, you could arguably say that for cars or transport but it is much less likely. The car was mentioned because it has a very different risk tolerance profile than most other things in our world.

Shulgin would vehemently disagree with you.

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

My take on peyote is the same as Keeper Trouts. Being part of a group that uses peyote does not mean you are going to protect it, or do anything to cultivate a sustainable supply. This is IMO mostly a virtue signal and is skirting the line of racism. I’m not harming peyote by growing it. I don’t even eat it. More people need to be growing it. These laws including one ethnic group while excluding other are silly, racist and won’t work.

The point is to preserve a destroyed culture that uses these plants... yes it would be more helpful if more people grew it. However, if people grow it others won't see why it's a big deal to just go out and pick it, which in turn hurts the culture that uses it.

One love

It's a lil interesting how you dodged my hypothetical that has you put yourself in the group's shoes you don't belong to.

 

[Jamie01]

This is why wild harvests should be criminalized outside of select NAC groups etc who get approval.

 

[Voidmatrix]

On a funny note, Thailand grows a shit ton of peyote

One love

 

[Jamie01]

Most members (who are Native American) also don’t have any history of using peyote. It seems out of convenience all indigenous groups have been lumped together in this context. There’s so many problems with it.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Most members (who are Native American) also don’t have any history of using peyote. It seems out of convenience all indigenous groups have been lumped together in this context. There’s so many problems with it.

I wasn't going to get into this, but this is true. It's throwing all the fruits in one basket and calling em all apples.

However, how much of not having a history with it is a result of the destruction of culture with colonialism.

One love

 

[Varallo]

I wasn't going to get into this, but this is true. It's throwing all the fruits in one basket and calling em all apples.

However, how much of not having a history with it is a result of the destruction of culture with colonialism.

One love

I think the more relevant question isn’t whether colonialism erased that history, it clearly did, but what that means for the present. If the knowledge was lost through oppression, then reclaiming or relearning those practices can be seen as an act of restoration.
At the same time, it’s equally valid to accept that cultures change, and that new forms of identity can develop without trying to reconstruct what was lost. Holding too tightly to an imagined return to the past can become a kind of cultural chauvinism.

I think that in the end, the important thing is that communities themselves decide whether to restore or to transform, rather than having that choice imposed on them.

So also in the case of peyote, it should be legal, independent of background or race, everyone who is inclined should be able to use them. Taking them from protected wilderness areas is already illegal and should be actively enforced.

 

[Voidmatrix]

If the knowledge was lost through oppression, then reclaiming or relearning those practices can be seen as an act of restoration.

This is why I am an advocate. Colonialism has more tendrils than we often look at. How one culture imposes itself upon another.

I think that in the end, the important thing is that communities themselves decide whether to restore or to transform, rather than having that choice imposed on them.

You should check out the land that most Native American's live on. So much has already been imposed upon them. I'm not sure what here that we happen to be discussing fits in with that. It's also complicated because the powers that be are also involved with communities trying to make these decisions for themselves.

So also in the case of peyote, it should be legal, independent of background or race, everyone who is inclined should be able to use them. Taking them from protected wilderness areas is already illegal and should be actively enforced.

Or just use San Pedro, similar alkaloid profile, and not imperative to anyone else's practices, and it grows faster.

One love

 

[Varallo]

This is why I am an advocate. Colonialism has more tendrils than we often look at. How one culture imposes itself upon another.


You should check out the land that most Native American's live on. So much has already been imposed upon them. I'm not sure what here that we happen to be discussing fits in with that. It's also complicated because the powers that be are also involved with communities trying to make these decisions for themselves.


Or just use San Pedro, similar alkaloid profile, and not imperative to anyone else's practices, and it grows faster.

One love

Sure thing, I have visited a cactus grower here and it’s much more economical to just buy the San Pedro’s, yet he had thousands of peyote growing on rootstock to help them grow to enormous size in a matter of years.

I believe that excluding anyone from using anything is wrong, including peyote.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Sure thing, I have visited a cactus grower here and it’s much more economical to just buy the San Pedro’s, yet he had thousands of peyote growing on rootstock to help them grow to enormous size in a matter of years.

I believe that excluding anyone from using anything is wrong, including peyote.

Yeah, I kinda wish Thai growers would share a bit more over here and then we'd have much less of an over-harvesting and endangered issue.

While I am an advocate for inclusivity, I am aware that it can never be absolute. That said, I think that sometimes, exclusion is appropriate. This is one of those instances. And it's based on the unique context. If what you said is true, that people don't need drugs to live fulfilling lives, then most people don't need peyote either... except the groups that hold it as their sacrament.

We exclude men from the women's bathroom after all.

One love

 

[fink]

Some people were born to be football players, others firemen or any number of vocations. Then there are the ones who were born to stop, ingest plants and talk about it all endlessly.

Decriminalization of psychedelics might even decrease production and use. Put the truthful warnings in plain words to the world

This experience could irrevocably change the way you view reality and trigger life destroying mental trauma. This is not a party drug. Never pay money to experience these substances.

Speculation aside, I'm staying firm on the belief that the balance of users currently has been reached naturally regardless of legality

 

[Jamie01]

The reality though still is in truth, some psychedelics/entactogens are great party drugs and a giant section of users use them this way. Burning man is a good example of this.

 

[blig-blug]

cultures change

That's how peyote use extended through the Native Americans in the US in the late 19th century, after all. It's a very recent tradition. Not that that's a problem.