Why psychs should remain illegal, but unenforced.

[Chan]

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.

Ummm, it's generally reckoned that about 1 in 20 people are somewhere along the psychosis spectrum. You're very welcome to sit for them, but you might want to brush up on your empathy, and maybe hide the knives first. You have heard of Charles Manson, right? :|

Dr Leary tried the "let's just blow the fucking doors off" approach. It didn't work then, it definitely won't work now, and he set fruitful progress/research/attitudes back by at least half a century. Arguably, we are still struggling with the consequences of his well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed evangelism today.

Regulate the sharks and scammers

OK, so you do believe in the power of regulation after all! :?

 

[hug46]

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.

In the UK you don't have to see a shrink to get prescribed anti-depressants. Doctors precribe them , alot of them. The prescription of anti depressants has doubled inside a decade in the UK and in 2012 accounted for the largest rise in items dispensed in the community.

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

Ummm, it's generally reckoned that about 1 in 20 people are somewhere along the psychosis spectrum. You're very welcome to sit for them, but you might want to brush up on your empathy, and maybe hide the knives first. You have heard of Charles Manson, right? :|

My empathy is perfectly fine thank you. I just don't want to control what people do based on generalizations.

If someone has mental health problems, I'm sure they know they shouldn't be playing with psychedelics. They are probably seeing a doctor with it, too.

But if they decide to do it anyway, it's their free will to do so, knowing the risks.

Dr Leary tried the "let's just blow the fucking doors off" approach. It didn't work then, it definitely won't work now, and he set fruitful progress/research/attitudes back by at least half a century. Arguably, we are still struggling with the consequences of his well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed evangelism today.

The ban was primarily political. They wanted a way to stop the anti-establishment and potentially Soviet-friendly hippie movement.

If not for Leary, there probably wouldn't be a psychedelic culture in the West.

EDIT: Hallucinogenics researched in labs as non-lethal weapons for the army; as interrogation drugs for the CIA; as "psychotomimetics" for psychiatrists to experience what they thought being psychotic is like; as stuff to administer to mental patients in hopes that it works better than frontal lobotomy... in other words, as tools of oppression, might have certainly been more productive without Leary.

Leary democratized psychedelics, and helped incubate the culture that eventually led to the birth of this Nexus itself.

If I want to find fault with him, it's hyping psychedelics as the gate of a next phase of consciousness for humankind, as a tool for world peace, in one word, for having inflated expectations which necessarily led to disappointment. But I'd never condemn his democratic approach.

OK, so you do believe in the power of regulation after all! :?

The regulation of the supply side.

As in, if someone wants to sell drugs, they better be pure and adequately labeled. If someone wants to run an Aya retreat as head shaman, they better have some kind of mental health credentials, like a clinical psychologist degree, and they better keep it sane and safe.

If someone wants to take DMT or shrooms or whatever, they should be free to do so. In my eyes, nobody on Earth has the credentials to act as a gatekeeper to others' access to psychedelics, and I see the patronizing tone toward "society at large" here in the Nexus somewhat unsettling.

 

[Chan]

If someone has mental health problems, I'm sure they know they shouldn't be playing with psychedelics.

Unfortunately, in real life, you know the messy unpredictable version, that we all share, the second part of your supposition is likely to be invalidated by the first part.

So I find your tenuous grasp of logic, and naive solipsism, somewhat alarming. But I'd be very interested to hear how you'd eliminate the "Manson Problem"...?

"See if I care " is not the expression of somebody whose empathy is in great shape, sorry.

And none of the excellent shamans I have encountered have had a diploma on the wall. Heck, they've not even had walls either :lol:

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

In my opinion, the "manson problem" is not something we need to try to eliminate, as it cannot be eliminated (EDIT: at least without creating a nightmare total control thought police state).

I'm not speaking from a place of solipsism, but from a place of humility toward the freedom and self-determinism of other human beings (including those belonging to the so-called "general public" ). The flippant tone is aimed toward the mentality of oppressing others "for their own good".

 

[Chan]

In my opinion, the "manson problem" is not something we need to try to eliminate, as it cannot be eliminated (EDIT: at least without creating a nightmare total control thought police state).

OK, so, let's say tomorrow, everything is decriminalised. It will only be a matter of time before a horrific crime of some sort occurs, where some kind of psychedelic is implicated, and it's all over the news. There's outraged calls for action, yadda-yadda, and the ban is reinstated, most likely with even stricter penalties.

Unfortunately, for the time being at least, there are fuckheads out there. The proof is, sadly, anywhere you care to look. Not too far away from us, there was recently a spate of horse-mutilations FFS. You really want to let those monsters have unsupervised access to whatever they like?

This forum is not a place for superficial unsafe talk of drugs such as excessive use and dosages, unsafe combinations and settings and careless use of substances that naturally have a riskier profile without due disclaimers and clear signs of having learned from mistakes and offering insights for better usage.

I triple-checked, and I can't see anything in the Attitude section endorsing anarchy.

Finally, nothing shakes my fervent belief that many people potentially do stand to gain from psychedelics more, than getting into insane, circular, "People's Front of Judea"-style arguments with (presumably) experienced users on the same fricking side. There are many paths up the same mountain, I suggest we leave it at that. I've only just returned here after a lengthy break, and I'm not enjoying this exchange. Sorry.

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

Unfortunately, for the time being at least, there are fuckheads out there. The proof is, sadly, anywhere you care to look. Not too far away from us, there was recently a spate of horse-mutilations FFS. You really want to let those monsters have unsupervised access to whatever they like?

Okay, so here's how I see it: those people HAVE unsupervised access to whatever they like. All they need to do is pick up their phone and call their dealer.

Also, there is another thing they have unsupervised access to (at least in the US): guns.

OK, so, let's say tomorrow, everything is decriminalised. It will only be a matter of time before a horrific crime of some sort occurs, where some kind of psychedelic is implicated, and it's all over the news. There's outraged calls for action, yadda-yadda, and the ban is reinstated, most likely with even stricter penalties.

You are describing a so-called moral panic. A moral panic is an irrational panic highlighting disconnected incidents to push an agenda. You can make a moral panic about anything with enough money and publicity.

Moral panics cannot be prevented by being careful. Heard of the "satanic abuse" moral panic from the 80s? For years, millions of Americans really believed that there are evil devil-worshipping cabals sitting in positions of government and judiciary, raping and sacrificing children and then hushing it up.
There was zero basis to it. As in, it wasn't even a substance or guns or something that's actually real, it was a fairytale bogeyman thing.

Also, even excessive care and good results may not stop a moral panic, like when in Africa many believed that the doctors are evil warlocks out to spread the Ebola they were working to control and cure.

What you can do about moral panics is present a counter-value. Win people over to your cause, make them see the moral panic for what it is - irrational fearmongering. Look at how much panic there is around guns, and yet nobody is banning guns. Heck, you can win an election by promising not to ban guns (while hinting at how your opponent might want to). And guns are involved in not a few incidents, but pretty much all of them!

We are internalizing the oppressive rhetoric of our oppressors. Try to recognize it and stop it. We need a strong, realistic, grounded, but self-assured stance. One who starts out on the defense doesn't even have the chance to win.

I triple-checked, and I can't see anything in the Attitude section endorsing anarchy.

Finally, nothing shakes my fervent belief that many people potentially do stand to gain from psychedelics more, than getting into insane, circular, "People's Front of Judea"-style arguments with (presumably) experienced users on the same fricking side. There are many paths up the same mountain, I suggest we leave it at that. I've only just returned here after a lengthy break, and I'm not enjoying this exchange. Sorry.

Well I'm a moderate anarchist (= humans should be seen as equal, self-determined beings, not sheep in need of herding). Okay, let's be more constructive.

Looking at how, once again, everyone already has access to anything, only in an unsafe, unreliable and illegal way, how could we start our fixing stuff?

First off, let's fight for decriminalization. First of small quantities, then when people notice how the world didn't end, of large ones and trafficking. Note what this doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that suddenly you can buy crack cocaine at Duane Reade. It means there are no specific "drug laws", and instead the crazy stuff is kept in check by consumer protection, tax and similar laws.

This could help turn the mafia-controlled, Breaking Bad-style black market into a community farm urban sharing hippy commune type of thing.

Then, let's enable controlled sale. This means coffee shops and smartshops with pharmaceutical quality drugs. I guess you can always limit the scope of what they can sell, but psychedelics are pretty safe. You can get a number of extremely powerful psychedelics over the counter in Holland, and it has been so for decades - no huge issues. (Yes there was the whole mushroom ban scandal, but that was a right-wing government doing right-wing things to appease right-wing people, not something logical. Ie. a temporary backlash in an environment of progress.)

At the same time, you can enable controlled environments to experience. Aya retreats, the use of psychedelics in psychotherapy, etc. A practitioner should of course be certified to work with people (certified within our Western culture and society), and should of course have the right (and obligation) to select whom to serve.

BUT, people who don't want to go through such a "guru", should just be able to go to the smartshop, get all the information, get advice and guidance, and just be able to get the stuff. Because if they cannot get it from a controlled source and really want it, they will get it from an uncontrolled source, which is worse.

And while I'm anti-supervision, I'm very much pro-education. I do think everyone should have access to all the knowledge and information needed to make a sound judgement about using psychedelics (which is why I really like what goes on here on the Nexus). If I talk to someone who I think seems too unstable to take psychs, I WILL tell them that I think they should probably talk to a mental health professional first. If I see someone I think is abusing, I WILL tell them that I think they should lay off the stuff.

What I will never do is campaign for someone to take the right of these people away to do whatever they please.