• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Saturation equals acceptance?

Migrated topic.
B

Blinkkin

Rising Star
Probably inaccurate Google statistics:

64% of Americans regularly drink alcohol
20% smoke cigarettes (used to be much higher of course)
2-10% have tried LSD at least once.
40% have tried marijuana.

In order for psychedelics to become legal, does it have to reach a certain saturation point in the population or will it always be a matter of protecting people from themselves (self-knowledge) by those who make the laws and may also fear self-knowledge? Is it a matter of cultural preference to distribute harmful drugs that cause driving deaths and cancers but not those that heal since we have no cultural support mechanism for healing? Numb it, don't fix it?
 
Blinkkin said:
Probably inaccurate Google statistics:

64% of Americans regularly drink alcohol
20% smoke cigarettes (used to be much higher of course)
2-10% have tried LSD at least once.
40% have tried marijuana.

In order for psychedelics to become legal, does it have to reach a certain saturation point in the population or will it always be a matter of protecting people from themselves (self-knowledge) by those who make the laws and may also fear self-knowledge? Is it a matter of cultural preference to distribute harmful drugs that cause driving deaths and cancers but not those that heal since we have no cultural support mechanism for healing? Numb it, don't fix it?
Click to expand...

Well if legality was related to statistics, marijuana should be more legal than tobacco, ie weed would be legal as well as cigarettes, or cigarettes would be illegal as well as weed.

As long as the drugs can be seen as having a high potential for abuse, I doubt they will become legal.
 
Blinkkin said:
Probably inaccurate Google statistics:

64% of Americans regularly drink alcohol
20% smoke cigarettes (used to be much higher of course)
2-10% have tried LSD at least once.
40% have tried marijuana.

In order for psychedelics to become legal, does it have to reach a certain saturation point in the population or will it always be a matter of protecting people from themselves (self-knowledge) by those who make the laws and may also fear self-knowledge? Is it a matter of cultural preference to distribute harmful drugs that cause driving deaths and cancers but not those that heal since we have no cultural support mechanism for healing? Numb it, don't fix it?
Click to expand...

Did you ever think about what is significantly different between MJ and LSD on the one hand and alcohol and tobacco on the other hand? The former two are much more harmful. So for all practical purposes they should be prohibited. Right? So, there is something else more imporatnt that makes the former two illegal. I think it is obvious. It is their ability to produce profound mystical experiences.

So, maybe a fear of the sin of idolatry deeply embedded in our culture by judeo/christian religion is at fault?

I am sure that even if a completely non-addictive, absolutely harmless drug that causes in 100% of people consuming it a brief reversible profund spiritual experience was invented very soon it will be made illegal. So it is not a matter of saturation, it is rather a matter of desaturation of a significant part of humanity from outdated, and unsupported beliefs.
 
It's not so much statistics by the numbers but what they mean. I believe people are coming around to the idea of marijuana legalization due to the fact that so many have tried it and felt it was harmless. This is where saturation comes in, the public comes to know it's harmless, so they don't oppose legalization efforts. Marijuana has been stigmatized as a gateway drug so part of the reason not to legalize it is concern in that area - once we smoke marijuana, we'll all be on heroin, which most people do believe is harmful. If marijuana was no longer an illicit drug, people wouldn't think if one drug is harmless, this other one might be ok as well.

Alcohol and tobacco already had the masses addicted before the idea of outlawing substances took hold. The lawmakers that outlawed marijuana might have done so with a cigarette in hand and the scotch from lunch in their stomachs.

If the sacraments of the main modern religions had psychedelic properties I think we would see a lot more acceptance. The lawmakers looking at drug bills drink wine at mass and think that's good enough for them, why do others need "drugs?"

The ability to provide mystical experiences is believed by many to happen when you're hit by a bible on stage or you hold up your hands in a stadium and sway gently while singing songs with a shared list of buzzwords. This isn't illegal. Bob Larson though, they should watch that guy.
 
I think a big part of it is probably the long-term cultural use of the substances. I mean, booze has been a part of European, and by extension modern American, culture since people moved out of caves (figuratively speaking... it anyone wants to get into an anthropology argument, I'll go there). As a result, it's completely accepted, regardless of how harmful it is.

The thing is about spice and the like is that it doesn't have the long-standing tradition and acceptance in American culture that alcohol does... it showed up sometime in the past hundred-odd years, and freaked out the government, and now it's banned. Psychedelics weren't banned based on harmfulness, more based on new weirdness. Now, in cultures like Brazil, where ayahuasca does have a long-standing tradition, it's legal for use in ceremonies.

Despite all of this, things are definitely changing... while tobacco isn't becoming illegal, it's definitely going in that direction. Modern society is pushing it out because of its harmfulness. You don't see any "More Cigarettes in More Places" campaigns, but pot has a legalization movement. Alcohol is illegal in a number of Middle Eastern countries; and I'm curious if marijuana is legal in some of them because of Sufism's ties to hashish.

So, saturation hopefully will breed acceptance, but it also takes time...
 
I think it will be Ayahuasca that opens the way to the legalization of psychedelic drugs.

Here in Hungary, the chairman (!) of the Hungarian Psychiatrist Society (Ede Frecska) is actively disseminating the idea of ayahuasca-supported psychotherapy in a shamanic context. Almost all psychiatric conferences now have an ayahuasca workshop, I heard that the interested participants can in fact taste the brew there (which seems a bit irresponsible to me btw).

I think that most people, when hearing about ayahuasca ceremonies, do not make the connection between this sort of traditional use and the well-known psychedelic drugs (like LSD, psylocibin or even DMT). And this is a good thing, because it keeps the issue clean (the prejudices associated with the known psychedelics don't come into play). When it becomes evident that ayahuasca can help in the healing of psychological problems, then the connection can be made and it can be pointed out that LSD, psylocibin and DMT are the same thing.
 
That's a really good point... ayahuasca really doesn't have the same stigma. And the fact that it is widely accepted in South America would be a good starting point to allow its introduction in countries like, say, the US, and it's good that Hungary is getting on the ball. Some solid academic work coming out of Hungary would make a difference!

Otherwise we really do need to get a legally recognized religion going...
 
Back
Top Bottom