Why psychs should remain illegal, but unenforced.

[Final Incarnate]

Hmm im more less thinking Legal but "Requires New Age Shaman License"( Shaman as in Clever Fella)

that License would basically be like trying to pass Bookkeeping exam, or any other job that has licensing .

As well as

"licensed New Age Shamans"
Must be CPR and First Aid Certified b4 taking New Age shaman Exam.


So basically only people who would bother taking Exam are the kind of Beings who are on Nexus.

I really couldnt see some dipshit looking for a new high doing all of this.

 

[brilliantlydim]

Let's not pretend that the laws against psychedelic use are there to protect the users. Psychedelic use is a lot more dangerous due to prohibition because accurate information is not as readily available, quality, quantity and substance is harder to verify, and the violence resulting from the black market. Psychedelics are readily available regardless of their legality or lack of, and anyone that wishes to do them will. So the only thing being illegal does is create a more dangerous environment for the users and even non users, while usurping peoples fundamental rights to do with their bodies (and minds) as they wish.

A blatant disregard for personal safety is a cause for concern.

A blatant disregard for personal safety is a persons RIGHT. People exhibit this in many ways, some more socially acceptable and legal than others. I have yet to meet someone that has used this as an excuse to make something illegal and be consistent with it.

You can be concerned for others and offer them information that you believe they are in need of and/or may help them to act in a way that is less concerning to you, but you don't have the right to stop them.

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

It is a crime, and it still would be if psychedelics were legal. If I go out and hurt people, if doesn't matter that I did it while I was drunk, stoned, on acid, or sober. I am responsible for my actions and should be held as such. If I chose to take those substances in a reckless manner and then hurt someone, it was still my actions, I am still responsible and it is still a crime. The substances aren't to blame, and me being on them does not absolve me from my actions even if they are legal.

 

[Psilosopher?]

Let's not pretend that the laws against psychedelic use are there to protect the users. Psychedelic use is a lot more dangerous due to prohibition because accurate information is not as readily available, quality, quantity and substance is harder to verify, and the violence resulting from the black market. Psychedelics are readily available regardless of their legality or lack of, and anyone that wishes to do them will. So the only thing being illegal does is create a more dangerous environment for the users and even non users, while usurping peoples fundamental rights to do with their bodies (and minds) as they wish.

A blatant disregard for personal safety is a cause for concern.

A blatant disregard for personal safety is a persons RIGHT. People exhibit this in many ways, some more socially acceptable and legal than others. I have yet to meet someone that has used this as an excuse to make something illegal and be consistent with it.

You can be concerned for others and offer them information that you believe they are in need of and/or may help them to act in a way that is less concerning to you, but you don't have the right to stop them.

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

It is a crime, and it still would be if psychedelics were legal. If I go out and hurt people, if doesn't matter that I did it while I was drunk, stoned, on acid, or sober. I am responsible for my actions and should be held as such. If I chose to take those substances in a reckless manner and then hurt someone, it was still my actions, I am still responsible and it is still a crime. The substances aren't to blame, and me being on them does not absolve me from my actions even if they are legal.

The boldified part was mainly directed at criminals like the ones who administered the OP. I don't think the Nexus needs to be reminded about harm reduction.


The "trippers licence" model seems good, but who is the governing body responsible for this? If it were a non-gov organisation, the amount of legal bullshit required for approval would be enormous. If they were a governmental department, that in itself is concerning.

I think the first gargantuan task is dissolving the stigma associated with psychedelics. This is kinda counter intuitive, since a large portion of that stigma is associated with the "hippie movement" and its nomenclature. Terms like "trips", "dropping tabs" and even "psychedelic". We already use "experiences", "ingesting" and "entheogenic". This would be futile, unless everyone jumps on board. Something tells me a certain group won't be compliant. *ahem* shroomery *ahem*

The rationale for this point comes from a colleague of mine, who is very involved with the nearly budding legal cannabis industry in Australia (sorry for the pun). According to him, the only reason why the government was willing to accept him, or even listen to him for that matter, was because he deliberately refrained from using "stoner words".

 

[ganesh]

A blatant disregard for personal safety is a cause for concern.

OK.

So here's a question. How do you create a safer place for personal safety then?

Ahh...You sort of regulate things. You make checks. You quality control things, you make sure that people are told truth's so that they can make safer empowered decisions. You accept that people will do stuff regardless, so you make it safer for them, etc.

Now look to the Amazon, and despite Ayahuasca being legal, it is unregulated, so Charlatons can get into the trade; Some people are dying because of simple things like lack of medical CARE because of Nicotine purges gone wrong, ETC. This is why it is important that if something like this is legal, that some kind of safety mechanism needs to be in place to protect the consumer, as well as the industry. Luckily 'some' reputable centres are doing something about this, and are in some kind of an association, although this is better than nothing, it's still unregulated, so people need to step carefully.

If this were to happen in a 1'st world country, then some kind regulation would be essential. In fact in Europe untill recently 'legal highs' were sold and banned because of issues that were related to it being an unregulated industry. If it was regulated, then it may have still been in operation as some kinds of safety mechanisms would have been in place, thus preventing the negative scenarios leading to negative press, and a total ban on all psychoactive substances-apart from Alcohol and Tobacco.

 

[nen888]

..i'll place a foot in each camp,
i think psychedelics should be legal, but selling them shouldn't be..
.

always one for a good discussion Bhodhisativa

 

[form is emptiness]

My 2c: I'm guessing more people died or had their lives destroyed by alcohol abuse in the last 72 hours than deaths or lives destroyed due to psychedelics in the last 72 years.

If one is to be concerned about lives being harmed by 'drugs' - alcohol abuse ought to be your number one trigger.

Psyches were made illegal to prevent folks from having tools with the potential to help them to see thru the layers of feral gubmint bullshit used to prop up fake ass authoritarianism.

Gubmint does not give a hoot about the creation of safe protocols for psychonauts.

Imo, folks really need to get over having big bro micromanage every aspect of theirs or others lives.

A spiritualized approach to psyches are anathema to gubmint headspace. The only use gubmints have for psyches are for projects like MK-Ultra.

/rantard

 

[Swarupa]

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.

You're right, I should've said 'I don't think any of you are suggesting this scenario' as it's unclear what what kind of education you think is adequate before someone has state sponsored access to psychedelics.

I agree education is the main prerequisite, I just also think that education alone probably isn't enough for the state to supply psychedelics to it's citizens; I'd imagine it would have to be more controlled. Maybe the licensing you suggested would work, so once a person is experienced within the medical setting (and/or educated sufficiently) they could then have a license for home use.

I think everyone that wants to try psychedelics should have access, but if it's legally through the state I doubt it will ever be over the counter. I just don't personally believe that's realistic or safe for the population at large.

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.

I think you're right, it's just a matter of what kind of regulation. Although safer options may become available I think there will always be a blackmarket, any scenario where the state supplies psychedelics would probably involve restrictions on how much each person can have within a certain timeframe. I'd imagine few of us that are experienced would want the state determining our doses.

 

[○]

My 2c: I'm guessing more people died or had their lives destroyed by alcohol abuse in the last 72 hours than deaths or lives destroyed due to psychedelics in the last 72 years.

If one is to be concerned about lives being harmed by 'drugs' - alcohol abuse ought to be your number one trigger.

Psyches were made illegal to prevent folks from having tools with the potential to help them to see thru the layers of feral gubmint bullshit used to prop up fake ass authoritarianism.

Gubmint does not give a hoot about the creation of safe protocols for psychonauts.

Imo, folks really need to get over having big bro micromanage every aspect of theirs or others lives.

A spiritualized approach to psyches are anathema to gubmint headspace. The only use gubmints have for psyches are for projects like MK-Ultra.

/rantard

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

The "trippers licence" model seems good, but who is the governing body responsible for this? If it were a non-gov organisation, the amount of legal bullshit required for approval would be enormous. If they were a governmental department, that in itself is concerning.

ANY governing body is concerning. You either have clerks, doctors or religious people deciding who can take psychs, and these are equally bad.

I think the first gargantuan task is dissolving the stigma associated with psychedelics. This is kinda counter intuitive, since a large portion of that stigma is associated with the "hippie movement" and its nomenclature. Terms like "trips", "dropping tabs" and even "psychedelic". We already use "experiences", "ingesting" and "entheogenic". This would be futile, unless everyone jumps on board. Something tells me a certain group won't be compliant. *ahem* shroomery *ahem*

Regardless of your friend's experience with the government, I guess from the first part of your message that you do understand that the ban on psychedelics was put in place to suppress the left-wing, anti-war hippie movement in the cold war era. Let's not perpetuate the unjust stigma on hippie culture.

Yes, when we're in the future writing some official paper for the government outlining a system for legalizing psychedelics, I'm all for using professional language. But don't stigmatize our heritage "in the wild". The human rights movements of the XX. century didn't win by assimilating majority prejudice, but by attacking it.

I want Hippie Pride marches with people wearing tie-dyed hoodies, shaggy hair and marijuana leaf badges, not doctors in suits and white coats in high-rise buildings talking clinical language down at people and making millions off patentable analogs of ancient psychedelics.

Ahh...You sort of regulate things. You make checks. You quality control things, you make sure that people are told truth's so that they can make safer empowered decisions. You accept that people will do stuff regardless, so you make it safer for them, etc.

Nobody is against regulation. But you regulate the supply side, not the demand side.

I think everyone that wants to try psychedelics should have access, but if it's legally through the state I doubt it will ever be over the counter. I just don't personally believe that's realistic or safe for the population at large.

We ARE "the population at large".

I think you're right, it's just a matter of what kind of regulation. Although safer options may become available I think there will always be a blackmarket, any scenario where the state supplies psychedelics would probably involve restrictions on how much each person can have within a certain timeframe. I'd imagine few of us that are experienced would want the state determining our doses.

The question is, whether most people need to go through the black market to have access, or the black market is a fringe.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

My 2c: I'm guessing more people died or had their lives destroyed by alcohol abuse in the last 72 hours than deaths or lives destroyed due to psychedelics in the last 72 years.

If one is to be concerned about lives being harmed by 'drugs' - alcohol abuse ought to be your number one trigger.

"Because shot in the face is worse than being punched in the stomach, I'm not going to worry about anyone punching someone's stomach."

Do you see the logical fallacy you're doing here? I see this all the time from pro-weed advocates saying 'alcohol is worse!' I'm for universal legalization, but this isn't a great argument, especially if you're trying to convince folks who reflexively trust government regulation of behaviors.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Dogbark]

I tink it should be a requirement that the first 5 - 10 trips are under the supervision of a medical professional. This way people would learn the best practice AND theyd already be fimilar with the substance.

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

I tink it should be a requirement that the first 5 - 10 trips are under the supervision of a medical professional. This way people would learn the best practice AND theyd already be fimilar with the substance.

You probably managed to do both without being "under the supervision" of anyone. I hope. Let's not be so full of ourselves.

I think most of you might be thinking about "how to prevent a moral panic that would result in the re-criminalization of psychedelics after a too liberal model", but I am convinced this is a wrong way to think about it.

You cannot prevent moral panics with oversight. If you don't have oversight, you might get a moral panic about "crazy kids getting themselves killed on drugs you can buy in the convenience store down the corner"... If you have oversight, you'll have moral panics about "crazy Doctor Frankenstein psychiatrists dosing innocent people with the devil's own drugs".

I'm pretty sure the second one sounds worse. Also, people DO have a bias formed by laws. People would say "well these drugs MUST be really dangerous, otherwise you could get them at the pub like beer". So increased oversight actually increases suspicion.

@Nathanial.Dread is right in that "alcohol is worse" is a bad argument for legalization; but I do think it's a good argument among ourselves for this very question... Alcohol consumption doesn't need medical oversight. If the psychedelics really are far less dangerous, why would they need any?

And once again, I'm not talking against the option of medical supervision of trips, I'm talking against making it mandatory. What is a good idea is regulating supply and making sure information is readily available to all (in verbal form at the purchase too, the way a good pharmacist tells the patient the most important things about a medical drug they are buying).

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

I tink it should be a requirement that the first 5 - 10 trips are under the supervision of a medical professional. This way people would learn the best practice AND theyd already be fimilar with the substance.

The problem with these kind of licensure frameworks is that they would necessarily drive up the cost of getting a license, which in turn means skewing access to these drugs. The wealthy would be far more likely to be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs (not the mention the lost work time associated with attending classes) than the poor.

If we agree that the ability to control your consciousness is a fundamental human right, you have to acknowledge these disparities in access.

If I have a fundamental right to alter my consciousness, but you're acting as a gate-keepr, having knowingly designed a system that I will never be able to participate in, I would argue that you have violated my rights.

Blessings
~ND

 

[brilliantlydim]

Now look to the Amazon, and despite Ayahuasca being legal, it is unregulated, so Charlatons can get into the trade; Some people are dying because of simple things like lack of medical CARE because of Nicotine purges gone wrong, ETC. This is why it is important that if something like this is legal, that some kind of safety mechanism needs to be in place to protect the consumer, as well as the industry. Luckily 'some' reputable centres are doing something about this, and are in some kind of an association, although this is better than nothing, it's still unregulated, so people need to step carefully.

Perhaps the illegal status in other countries contribute to the amount of charlatans that may operate successfully in the Amazon. Do you think the Amazon had a problem with Ayahuasca charlatans before the days of internet and an influx of tourists to the region for such ceremonies? The fact that it is illegal most other places creates an environment for uninformed individuals seeking something from people outside of their community, leading to the proliferation of charlatans. Charlatans can operate because the people that come to them don't know them and are not from their community. Thats why charlatans are often travellers, seeking "customers" from different regions, or hidden away in remote locations.

If there were people in our communities legally and willing to perform such things, do you think people would be as interested traveling across the world and putting their lives in the hands of a stranger? It is in the best interested for the provider in a community providing to members of that community to provide a safe and quality service or product to individuals. The regulation comes from the community automatically, no government intervention required. If you have a choice between someone in your community you know does things in a safe and proper manner and one that is more questionable, I think I know who you would choose. The charlatan will go out of business.


I don't think it is right to regulate anyones ability to use whatever means necessary to "treat" themselves. I think the best person to decided what someone needs is them self and it is their fundamental right to do as such.

It all goes back to information. People that are informed can make the best decisions for themselves. When something is illegal, it becomes taboo and the information around it becomes less open and reliable.

 

[form is emptiness]

"Because shot in the face is worse than being punched in the stomach, I'm not going to worry about anyone punching someone's stomach."

Do you see the logical fallacy you're doing here?

Not until you pointed that out. A false equivalence it is. I could have constructed a better argument. Thanks.

But it got me thinking about an idea that suddenly flashed : how nice it would be if there were something like the DMT-Nexus but built in physical form like an actual college or uni with departments offering insightful theory and practice of entheogenic sciences, with spaces, labs, gardens. A proper school for travelers, who after some years of training, are unleashed to beautify the world and heal the earth....

 

[dragonrider]

Ofcourse there are various angles from wich you can look at this question, but to me it comes down to whether civil liberties should be restrained out of solidarity with people, not capable of dealing with these liberties.

If it was about something with wich you could easily hurt many, many people in the blink of an eye, like say, assault rifles, this would maybe make some sense.

But the freedom of the mind is realy another kind of thing.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Gubmint does not give a hoot about the creation of safe protocols for psychonauts.

Alot of money could be made, if psys were legal for depression treatment:

The economic burden of depression, including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and dysthymia, was estimated at $83.1 billion in 2000 in the United States.5 This total was composed of $26.1 billion in direct medical costs, $5.4 billion in suicide-related mortality costs, and $51.5 billion in indirect workplace costs (absenteeism from work and presenteeism while at work).5

The Economic Burden of Adults With Major Depressive Disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010)

Article Abstract Background: The economic burden of depression in the United States—including major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder, and dysthymia—was estimated at $83.1 billion in 2000. We update these findings using recent data, focusing on MDD alone and accounting for comorbid...

www.psychiatrist.com

A meta-analysis of more than 60 clinical studies covering almost 60,000 adult patients estimates that the total cost in the United States of the treatment of patients with depression is in the range of $188 billion to $200 billion.

Depression Costs US 200 Billion Dollars Per Year

Combined annual costs (including health care and productivity losses) for people with treatment-resistant depression were almost double...

www.gatewaypsychiatric.com

Actually, you can patent old drugs for new treatment modalities...

 

[Chan]

ND is bang on the human rights aspect, but the current facts suggest that maybe 5% of the (Western) population are probably unsuited to unsupervised access to powerful mind-altering agents.

A greater percentage, and most likely the "target market", are already on SSRI/SNRI meds which also preclude safe, effective usage of most entheogens.

Our system is now set up so that the 95% have to jump through hoops intended to catch the 5%. I despise this, but see the logic, reluctantly.

Some people with driving licenses drive drunk, get road-rage, but most don't. Still...

We also need to remember how vulnerable and/or suggestible anybody can be, under the influence of these things. The sharks and scammers would be in there yesterday, without some form of safeguarding.

Let's get to the Moon, before we start talking about Neptune...

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

ND is bang on the human rights aspect, but the current facts suggest that maybe 5% of the (Western) population are probably unsuited to unsupervised access to powerful mind-altering agents.

Where did that come from? Also, 5% of the population can probably be deemed unsuited to life on the planet Earth. See if I care.

A greater percentage, and most likely the "target market", are already on SSRI/SNRI meds which also preclude safe, effective usage of most entheogens.

Well maybe in the US. Not so much outside. Meds just aren't this big a thing across the Pond. Heck, seeing a psychiatrist is not a big thing across the Pond in the first place - most people only go when they feel they cannot function in life due to some mental illness, otherwise they don't.

Our system is now set up so that the 95% have to jump through hoops intended to catch the 5%. I despise this, but see the logic, reluctantly.

"Our system" was set up to suppress groups by race, class and political views. It is still used for this purpose. There is no logic beyond the logic of the Machiavellian ruler.

Some people with driving licenses drive drunk, get road-rage, but most don't. Still...

The driver's license only certifies that you have the knowledge and routine to drive a car in traffic. 99.99% of drunk drivers and road ragers have a driver's license.

We also need to remember how vulnerable and/or suggestible anybody can be, under the influence of these things. The sharks and scammers would be in there yesterday, without some form of safeguarding.

Regulate the sharks and scammers; and make it so that people don't need to go through them, nor do they feel the need to.

Let's get to the Moon, before we start talking about Neptune...

We're talking whether we want to add rules or take them away. First step is decriminalization, without adding any weird rules.

 

[Swarupa]

Imo, folks really need to get over having big bro micromanage every aspect of theirs or others lives.

A spiritualized approach to psyches are anathema to gubmint headspace.

There are those that could benefit from having psychedelics available through the gummint/health services, such as people afraid of coming to the end of their lives (a lot of people), possibly people with depression, mid-life crisis etc; folks that aren’t the kind to usually dabble in these things but may hear of the benefits and would like a well guided experience.

You’re general message is right though, at least for people like me, this is all theorizing about a future integration of psychedelics into establishments I probably won’t ever be a part of. While it may sound flakey or too vague for some to take seriously, an underground spiritual revolution in some ways is more realistic.