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

Why psychs should remain illegal, but unenforced.

Migrated topic.

Psilosopher?

Don't Panic
Senior Member
OG Pioneer
So this topic has been on my mind for quite some time. I have a terrible habit of either reading threads and thinking up a response, but forgetting to write the damn thing, or thinking of thread topics but never getting round to it.

The "Nothingness and loving donald" thread (Nothingness and loving donald - Introduction Essay - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus) has highlighted a very important detail. The fact that many people don't know shit about harm reduction, even psychedelic enthusiasts.

A blatant disregard for personal safety is a cause for concern. A blatant disregard for the safety of others is not only a cause for concern, it's a crime.

I've talked to a fair few people who want to ingest a psychedelic, and are considering going to a shaman/curandero/ayahuasquero etc. When i asked "why not ingest it yourself", a lot of them responded "i don't know anything about it". So these people are willing to relinquish their rational decision making mind to a stranger with possible ulterior motives, instead of doing a bit of research.

This may be an unpopular view, but the best medicine wo/man is yourself. This isn't to say that proper medicine wo/men aren't worth going to, it's that people should be more informed about entheogens (or anything that interests them, for that matter), instead of jumping off a cliff while blind.

"Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding... It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquillity" - Kahlil Gibran

Now imagine what would happen if our beloved psychs became legal, and one could self administer. Perhaps one could purchase it over the counter, or through some other legal means. I don't know about you guys, but if i purchase some furniture, i don't read the assembly instructions unless i really need help. This mentality can easily be adopted by people who don't know what they're doing/buying/ingesting etc. "It's just a mushroom" says the non-psychonaut, and then gulps down 10 dried mushies. It has happened before. I don't see humans and carelessness getting divorced anytime soon.

However, if psychs remain illegal, it wont be as easy to acquire. Those who seek, will find it. And often, those who seek are driven by a desire to know. This, in turn, leads to a well-informed psychonaut instead of a brainless hippie.




Apologies, my post is probably all over the place.

Thoughts?
 
The greatest harm reduction can be done due legalisation of all drugs, "evidence based" education and promotion of our (conscious) self-responsibility.

tseuq
 
Nice post! I'd just like to add that by definition, if something is illegal then it is precisely by way of it being enforced that makes it is illegal.

In other words, if there were no police officers to ever enforce the law, then why make laws in the first place? Such laws would be like scribbling laws on some toilet paper and throwing it in to the ocean hoping that the whole world will abide them. :lol:

So the title isn't worded concisely but I think we get the gist.

There is something that seems quite safe to me about walking in to head-shop in amsterdam and buying truffles with it clearly outlining on the cover the dosage and the effects as opposed to "here, swallow these mushies bro".

I have always hoped for psychedelics in a psychiatric setting, that would help me to handle my outrageous fears of insanity whilst under the influence of psychedelics.

At least you can see that there may be positive effects of it being legalized. Namely, better integration processes with help from either professionals like psychiatrists or fellow psychonauts (not just web-based as it can be quite impersonal).

I certainly agree with your post though. I can remember when I wasn't very researched or experienced with psychedelics and I had a "devil may care" attitude, asking anyone if they have it or where I could get it and once I had my hands on it I would just take a big hit.
 
Well, they should be legal imo, but only given out to doctors and specialists (people with proper training). Everybody who seeks a trip should be given one in a fit setting. Costs shall be covered by the health insurance, if it's a medical reason.

However it should be indeed illegal to give out psys to kids, dumbasses and other folks who can't handle the medicine and cause more harm than healing.
 
Ufostrahlen said:
However it should be indeed illegal to give out psys to kids, dumbasses and other folks who can't handle the medicine and cause more harm than healing.

Does that go for some tribes in the amazon who give ayahuasca to their kids?
 
fathomlessness said:
Does that go for some tribes in the amazon who give ayahuasca to their kids?
Aren't they specialists? Furthermore, you can only enforce policy in areas where you have power.
 
If something is illegal but unenforced, then it's basically 'legal'. The problem with that is that it isn't necessarily coming with the same safeguards and protection if it were actually recognised as being legal and incorporating the safety nets of quality control and sound advice/harm reduction that a legal binding duty of care would encompass.
 
They should be legal if One (1) grows them (small scale, non commercial grow) and religious/medicinal use MUST ALLWAYS be legal (decriminalized). Other peoples should receive a public *rebuke* or even some degree of social shunning for saying/speaking out loud and carelessly in regard to entheogens without due consideration and mindfulness (min.... touching the ear lobes, showing the tongue, awesomeness facial expression, fear of gawd....etc)?

Many traditional and indigenous cultures still observe these....(...we think)
 
I agree Bodhi, I don't think I'd like to live in a society where all drugs were legal to buy over the counter. It sounds fair that everything should be legal along with the correct education, but not everyone pays attention in class. Would we have to pass examinations? If so, would a written test be enough to gauge whether someone can responsibly administer a psychedelic to themselves or others? I think a situation where drugs are decriminalized would be more fitting, so at least users aren’t treated like criminals.

If the state legalizes psychedelics due to having legitimate medical applications, should they be provided outside of a medical setting? I think they'll become legally available through medical establishments/therapy centres, used under supervision of well trained facilitators. I don’t think that having a medical condition should be a prerequisite though, the human condition is enough.

I feel like if you’re wise enough to responsibly use the substance outside of an unsupervised medical setting, my guess is that you’re also wise enough to grow/extract/find your own without needing the state to provide it for you. What we do need is more testing centres like Energy Control, from what I've seen it can really help to change things for the better.
 
Saying that psychedelic prohibition is not enforced implies that nobody is sitting in a cell over these substances, which as far as I know is not true.

Personally, I feel autonomy over our own bodies and consciousness is a fundamental right, and we can never claim to be free if we don't even have control over ourselves.
 
^^^
+++

Also, due to the general "unavailability" of relatively safe, classical/plant-based entheogens, far too many people are clearly willing and able to put themselves up for playing lab-rat with so-called "legal highs", (or indeed, novel pharmaceuticals) with all the disastrous consequences that frequently entails.

Education is the key, whether it's drugs, sex, violence, debt/finance, gambling, trolling, or politics. But that's unfashionable these days, because, y'know, people might start to actually think hard about stuff and even take responsibility for their own actions...

And, speculative arguments in favour of the status quo are usually a spectacular waste of good neurons, IMO. :d
 
My opinion on all this is to give proper education, show the risks, benefits and in-betweens of each substance; empower people a bit and then let them make the conscious choice in lieu of the knowledge given, because I feel 'empowerment' has been stifled quite a bit over the last few decades.
 
Unbiased education is important, I’m just not sure it alone is enough for a state to then legally supply psychedelics to its citizens. I can’t see how legal (not only decriminalized) use could be in anything other than a medically controlled setting, along with thorough education and a screening process for mental instability etc.

I know none of you are suggesting this scenario, I just don’t think it’s as simple as people going on a weekend education course, ticking some boxes to pass a test, then being allowed to pick up some over the counter LSD along with their Lemsip.
 
Swarupa said:
Unbiased education is important, I’m just not sure it alone is enough for a state to then legally supply psychedelics to its citizens. I can’t see how legal (not only decriminalized) use could be in anything other than a medically controlled setting, along with thorough education and a screening process for mental instability etc.

I know none of you are suggesting this scenario, I just don’t think it’s as simple as people going on a weekend education course, ticking some boxes to pass a test, then being allowed to pick up some over the counter LSD along with their Lemsip.

Traumatic experiences (called “bad trips”) can have
long-lasting effects on LSD users, including mood swings
and rarely flashback phenomena [15]. It should be noted,
however, that these generally take place in uncontrolled
conditions. Conversely, it has been shown that under
controlled and supportive conditions, the LSD experience
may have lasting positive effects on attitude and person-
ality [32].


CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics 14 (2008) 295–314
 
This is such an old kind of argument, and we must all know by now that prohibition does not work. Then again, making drugs illegal but not enforcing it, isn't the answer either, because the same problems will still be there; Ie poor quality drugs, criminal elements, etc.

Legalisation and regulation of drugs is the only way forward to offer positive help and assistence to drug users(who would use drugs whatever their legality regardless); to control quality and availability, and to bid farewell to dangerous toxic junk peddled by the criminal element.

Just because they might be available legally does not mean that everyone would use them, or try them, or encounter problems-especially within a positive framework of assistence, information, quality, and duty of care.

Bodhisativa said:
A blatant disregard for personal safety is a cause for concern. A blatant disregard for the safety of others is not only a cause for concern, it's a crime.

And that is EXACTLY what prohibition is causing, a crime. It's no secret that Prohibition is at the root of the harms we see from drugs thesedays. This is why it is so important to legalise, it's the ONLY way it can be 'controlled'. With these Gov backed controls, comes 'safety features' 8) .
 
Swarupa said:
I know none of you are suggesting this scenario, I just don’t think it’s as simple as people going on a weekend education course, ticking some boxes to pass a test, then being allowed to pick up some over the counter LSD along with their Lemsip.

So why suggest that then? Education is not a simple transaction conducted over a weekend, whatever the ads/Govt/employer might have you believe. It is a lifelong process.

A German academic (whose name perpetually escapes me) suggested at a conference that a "driving licence" model was probably best for drugs: once you show you can handle this, we might let you have a bit of that etc, provided you've not been arrested in the meantime.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. Instinctively, I prefer the license model - get an 'trippers license' in the same way that we get driver's licenses or gun licenses. At the end of a few weeks of class you could take a test guiding someone through a trip (or an actor through a make-believe trip) and if you pass without blowing it all up, you're licensed to trip yourself.

At the same time though, I really don't like the thought of the State regulating who can have psychedelics - I see some potential for abuse there. This model only works if you have confidence that the government will make a good-faith attempt to ensure that everyone has access to the training and not just, say, the wealthy elite.

We think of these drugs as healing agents, but I cannot help but think that as long as there is State control of these drugs, the folks who are most in need of healing (the downtrodden, the oppressed, the abused) will also be the ones least likely to access them for structural reasons.

Imagine two would-be trippers: the rich banker who can easily fork over the cash for the class, the test, and has his life in order, and the poor black guy who just got out of prison, can't find a job, and is suffering PTSD?

Which of those people will benefit more from psychedelic healing? Which do you think will actually be able to get it?

Let anyone who wants to have access to these drugs. If they hurt themselves, that's on them. If they hurt someone else, hold them responsible for their actions and work towards restorative justice.

Blessings
~ND
 
Nathanial.Dread said:
Let anyone who wants to have access to these drugs. If they hurt themselves, that's on them. If they hurt someone else, hold them responsible for their actions and work towards restorative justice.

Blessings
~ND

I agree with this.
 
In my opinion, regardless of what framework we end up pouring these substances through [medical, therapeutic, societal, personal, w/e] at the end of the day people will be people and things will happen [negligence, improper use even if given the proper education, overdosing, etc]. And while personally I think the way things appear to be headed in regards to medical research, cultural revamping through documentaries, etc are going in the right direction, though I think these substances can/could have a much greater benefit, than just say 'heading to your doctor for [proper?] treatment'. I think the potential for self-growth, self-exploration is far greater when not restricted through a rigid governmental framework.
 
The way I see it, this kind of thinking can only be described as hubris and as blatantly looking down on others.

I really am not a fan of the institutionalization of the psychedelic experience, either. Scientists should be able to safely experiment with substances in clinical environments, and in cases it should be used in actual therapy, but when I see psychonauts talking about "recreational use" as if it were a dirty word, it really makes me angry.

Why should I need to submit myself to a condescending and often misguided system to be able to experience psychedelics? It should be an option, not a requirement.

I do get what the op is trying to say. As long as we're talking "maybe let's not have smartshops selling every drug ever, but the police shouldn't take people away for extracting deemz", I guess I can get on board with that, but it just won't work that way... and suppressing safe routes of sale will only promote unsafe routes of sale - like fake shamans, and shady dealers who meet you in an underpass to give you some unidentified plant matter or paper blotter for your money.

I'd say that drug laws should be eventually repealed. ALL drug laws. Illegally selling cocaine or heroine or DMT should fall under the same legal category as illegally selling Viagra or antibiotics.

What SHOULD be prosecuted is endangering others. Selling Chinese RCs as Ecstasy pills? Off to fucking jail. Being a fake-ass shaman who leaves people to drown in the tub while tripping? JAIL! Driving a car while high? JAIL, fucker!

It's not the drugs, it's what people do with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom