Ending the Drug War.

[Jiskefet]

You have a valid point on the usage of the positive side effects on those drugs for medical purposes such as treatment for other addictions or people with chronical diseases. What I do think is that this needs to be strictly regulated so the boundary between medical and recreational use keeps clear for everyone.

You mention LSD, I have to say I dont know much about it, but as far as I know this is relatively harmess to the body but can cause serious psycological damage due to the heavy trip you get in. Same as you say about mescaline, it is physically relatively harmless, but it can get a mentally less stable person into a situation where one can possibly harm himself.

And yes, those kinds of drugs are partially allowed here in Amsterdam. Until recently, you could buy them freely but now you have to subscribe, consider for a week and then you can eventually buy them. This to prevent for example tourists who are here for one weekend from using them impusively without considering first. The cause for this lays in a few incidents recently with those psycedelic drugs as you call them. A french guy was found in the back of a van cutting his beloved dog into pieces with a scissor to make a coat out of it. Also, there were two sucicides in and around Amsterdam with exchange students under the influence of mushrooms. Of course these aint the only incidents involving mushrooms but having a few in a row motivated the politicians to take measures.

I agree prohibition isnt the anser. But you cannot deny the affects it would have on society if these drugs would be freely available. Imagine mentally instable people taking those substances or someone getting behind the wheel during a psycedelic trip. Wether it is medical or not. As you say in the right situation and setting, but how is that going with the drug freely available now, alcohol? It is hard to say what the ideal middle of the road solution would be tough, maybe we are doing just fine here.

On a sidenote; you seem to know a lot about this subject, do you study something related?

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

anser
instable

On a sidenote; you seem to know a lot about this subject, do you study something related?

Answer
Unstable

He knows about it because he's seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

I agree that drugs that heavy should be regulated. Anything that alters your mind, I think, shouldn't be played around with. My philosophy is that mind altering drugs turn you into something you're not, so they shouldn't be used. Even anti-depressants fall into this category for me. I have to disagree with AbraamIsaac on the basis that drugs that make you untrue to yourself (unless you're a complete psychopath), can never be beneficial. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. So you solve someone's depression, but then there's a greater problem because that person has lost their true feelings.

[AbramIsaac]

Good points. In America, at least in my area, psychedelics have not received much interest from the types of people that act in the the ways you described. However, tourists (I'm sure there have been plenty of Americans) are a prime example of the types of people that shouldn't be taking hallucinogenic drugs. After all, it can be a terrifying experience; when one is going through such a hellishly introspective journey, foreign places and cultures are not ideal conditions.

You're right about LSD, but the psychological damage most usually would result from consistent, irresponsible use. That's not to say that such factors should be ignored. Mescaline is probably less dangerous than LSD in this respect; visually, it is more vivid (from what I've read), but anxiety isn't as severe. You're right though, people with issues may have problems with such drugs, which is why we both agree that such use should be supervised.

I am in agreement with the one week waiting period. That seems fair enough, and is a good precaution to keep people from just doing these things without proper preparation. After all, within that week of time, they will have had plenty opportunity to prepare their minds and homes for the experience they will have; as I stated before, tourists need not indulge. That french man no doubt had issues prior to his use of whatever drug he had taken. Psychedelic drugs are not the type of drugs that make you "crazy", per se. It is more of a reduction of social boundaries, and opening one's self up, so that internal issues and problems can be viewed in a new light. I'm no doctor, but that poor french man must have had some pretty serious issues to have done such a thing. Once again, though, as you said, regulation is needed to keep such things from happening.

You're right though, free availability of such drugs would be a dangerous thing indeed. I believe that people should be able to take such drugs as long as they are of age, and are restricted to a clinical type setting that would allow them to be supervised in order to keep them from harming themselves. Driving under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug would no doubt be one of the most dangerous things one could do. I think the model you have in your country is the best way to do it. In Canada, I'm pretty sure they don't have any restrictions at all on Peyote cacti, and it isn't a big deal as far as I know. Here in the states there are cacti that contain mescaline that are unregulated, and perfectly legal, but they haven't been marketed as "legal highs" because the preparation is lengthy, and nausea is common.

I believe that most natural drugs should be available if they have abuse potential. If they do not, leave them alone, as they aren't likely to cause a large-scale problem. There are quite a few species of Datura plants (in the NightShade family) that contain tropane alkaloids that cause hallucinations and delirium for days. However, you can die from overdose, and some times you just "don't come back" and are left with long-term psychological damage. As a result, people don't abuse them on a large scale, and they are completely unregulated in most all places in the United States.

To answer your sidenote question, I'm not studying for the field. However, I believe drugs have played an important role in cultural development in mankind throughout our entire history--not always for the best--and they need to be treated as personal and public health issues, not criminal behavior. The best way to make such a thing happen is to educate people about it, and as a result, I've learned quite a bit here and there.

Good conversation! I've found you dutch to be very enlightened people when it comes to drug policy. Generally, you're pretty enlightened people on many social issues, just ahead of the rest of Europe in some areas, specifically pertaining to some basic civil liberties. Freedom Vs. Order, the challenge of government; here in the U.S. we never seem to have that one figured out.

[AbramIsaac]

anser
instable

On a sidenote; you seem to know a lot about this subject, do you study something related?

Answer
Unstable

He knows about it because he's seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

I agree that drugs that heavy should be regulated. Anything that alters your mind, I think, shouldn't be played around with. My philosophy is that mind altering drugs turn you into something you're not, so they shouldn't be used. Even anti-depressants fall into this category for me. I have to disagree with AbraamIsaac on the basis that drugs that make you untrue to yourself (unless you're a complete psychopath), can never be beneficial. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. So you solve someone's depression, but then there's a greater problem because that person has lost their true feelings.

I hope the Fear and Loathing part wasn't meant as an insult. Great movie, but I saw that long after I began my search for information on this subject. I was one of few in some of the people I knew that hadn't seen it, and didn't get a chance to see it until after I had already bought The Great Shark hunt, and made my way through a good bit of it.

Disagreement is fine, it's healthy. I don't mean to disrespect your opinion, but I do disagree. I believe that psychedelics show you a more true version of yourself--the version without the boundaries you have constructed within yourself to guard you from dealing with issues that hurt. The version more close to that of a child, unadulterated by social pressure and conformist notions. Drugs such as Psilocybin and Mescaline do not elevate the mood artificially--they allow you to look at your problems in a more objective way, and then perhaps they will no longer bother you as you continue your sober life. Anti-depressants are things that concern me, simply because they mask a problem, not forcing anyone to face it.

So, in short, I believe the opposite; I believe that psychedelics work to actually show the truest of emotions, and then (in the right setting) these emotions can be dealt with. These aren't things to do habitually, once in a great while is all that would be needed. So it's not exactly the same argument as the one concerning anti-depressants and sedatives, from my perspective.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Insult? Fear and Loathing is one of my favorite films. It was a joke.

Here's a counter argument to consider: If someone has to turn to psychedelic drugs to find their "true self", then do they deserve to find it? Solving the riddle that is "you" is supposed to be a lifelong journey to revel in, not a means of instant gratification.
I just can't accept that those kind of drugs are in sync with evolution.
Your view point seems more based on scientice than human morality.
Think of this: There's an image of a white ball against a black background on a sheet of paper. 4 people with perfect vision look at it, one after the other.
The 1st participant says: "The ball is white."
TRUE statement
The 2nd participant says: "The ball is white against a black background."
TRUE statement
The 3rd participant says: "The ball is black."
FALSE statement
The 4th participant says: "The ball is black against a white background."
FALSE statement
This exemplifies that truths and falsehoods are constants. There's no such thing as a "more true than true" or a"more false than false", even though a truth or a falsehood may be more specific or more intense.
Thus, any other version you see of yourself on drugs is no truer than the version you see day to day.
Hence, no drugs are necessary to find yourself.

[AbramIsaac]

No offense was taken, just thought I might have read it wrong. Definitely one of my favorite movies also.

I see what you're saying about instant gratification vs. a lifelong journey. Don't get me wrong, when I say "true self" I only mean to say that in the sense that you are able to look at yourself in a more objective way, rather than hiding behind excuses and/or fear. "You" without the bullshit, basically. You're definitely spot on, drugs shouldn't actually be considered "instant enlightenment", so to speak, that's where the hippies messed up with LSD.

On the human evolution bit, I would say that I have a different opinion, but that can be said for anyone on many subjects (so no big deal). However, my view is based on the observation that drugs have played a large role throughout human history. Some believe that the formation of actual language began with synaesthesia, the blurring of the senses, which can become acute when under the influence of some drugs (especially psyechedelics) and such drugs can be abundant in nature. Natural hunter-gatherer behavior would've no doubt resulted in coming to contact with drugs, and synaesthesia could've been linked to the initial "leap" that we took when vision and sound (what we see, and a sound to associate to it) became linked in a way more advanced than simple grunts, screeching, etc. That's a whole book of material on that subject, so I won't get too far into it, but that's sort of the jist of some of the perceptions I have on human evolution and psychoactive substances.

My views are based on science, but I believe morality is an important factor. I do not see anything wrong with using drugs, unless you become dependent on them (in a way, subserviant) or they are unhealthy. Psilocybin and Mescaline are both natural substances, and they are fairly safe. Habituation isn't normally associated with traditional psychedelics either, so addiction isn't an issue you would expect to run into. Psychedelics are also more of a spiritual journey than many of our more traditional religious activities (although, religious use of psychedelics is most likely the original religion, depending on who you ask), and once you look at yourself without material wants, insecurity, and other things that make us the most undesirable, you may find yourself wanting to be a better person. That's another part of human evolution/drug use/moral standards. Some speculate that after we had developed as people, and psychedelics ceased to play a role in our lives, we went from the partnership society model to the dominator model. So I'd say that morals do play a part in my beliefs.

I would also like to make it clear: I don't believe psychedelics are necessary to find yourself. I don't think everyone should do them. However, I do think that when they are properly utilized, they can be a tool to further explore one's self. I understand where you're coming from, and your point isn't lost on me, but I've come to this conclusion after a lot of personal discipline of my own, and a lot of soul searching on my part. That isn't to say that I think everyone should believe what I do, just that people shouldn't be unable to experiment with these natural plants in the proper setting (if they choose to do so).

[Jiskefet]

I think you guys both have a very clear and interesting view on the "exploring your true self" or "You without the bullshit" issue. Let me add mine to it.

My opinion on this is kind of in the middle. In my view the way to "explore" your true self depends on every person individually. For one person it is by traveling trough a foreign country for tree months on his own. Person number two has to jump out of a plane with a parachute. The other has to listen to a certain song, while person number four needs to run a marathon. I can imagine adding someone to this list who has to take some kind of substance to make this very personal experience possible.

GGGG has a very valid point on the "there is just one truth" comparison, but I also have a opinion on this. Thing is, you sometimes need a certain environment to get to see this truth, in your example, you have to turn the light on to get to see the ball. Less abstract examples I have allready mentioned above. No one can find this inner thing by just living the life you always do without doing anything that differs from the normal things a person does. Not saying it is necessariy to use a certain drug to accomplish this, but for some people it might be "just their thing". I hope I make sense here.

Aabram, I totally agree on all you say on the evolution part. It is interesting to see how drugs actually influenced the development of that we call religion now. We might keep these things in mind for possible topics later on.
What you say on that it has to be possible for one to experiment with those kinds of substances might be a good point. But;
Despite i really believe in all I said here, I still think the question how to prevent the wrong people from using it, someone using it in the wrong environment, or someone just abusing it, cannot be answered in a world where anybody is able to get those substances to "experiment", nor where it is totally prohibited.

I seem to be the only one here who hasnt seen "fear and loating in Las Vegas". I might take a look at it soon.

[AbramIsaac]

Aabram, I totally agree on all you say on the evolution part. It is interesting to see how drugs actually influenced the development of that we call religion now. We might keep these things in mind for possible topics later on.
What you say on that it has to be possible for one to experiment with those kinds of substances might be a good point. But;
Despite i really believe in all I said here, I still think the question how to prevent the wrong people from using it, someone using it in the wrong environment, or someone just abusing it, cannot be answered in a world where anybody is able to get those substances to "experiment", nor where it is totally prohibited.

I seem to be the only one here who hasnt seen "fear and loating in Las Vegas". I might take a look at it soon.

You have a good point. Exactly how do we go about regulation? I'm not sure. I think your country has taken an important step though. A "Permit" of sorts may be an answer. Perhaps one would have to apply to get such things, with a restriction on the amount you can buy, and minimum age limits. Beyond that, perhaps it would be doctors that issued such permits, and doctors (or psychologists, even) that provided for the session in which the subject could take the psychedelic. This way, the selling of these drugs could be prohibited due to the dealer not having proper permission to vend such a product. This is important for taxing, safety, and ethical issues.

This isn't unreasonable, I don't believe. In your country, isn't cannabis use restricted to the cafes? The same could be done for psychedelic drugs, but with more control placed on the whole situation. Less of a capitalistic endeavor, more of a spiritual, or therapeutic type of situation.

Religious use would also be condoned--that's the only thing the United States has already got going on. However, this is something that has been debated, and it doesn't seem totally solid to me; I also don't believe that the use of psychedelics should be restricted to religious capacity, as I believe people can grow and learn about themselves separate from religion, just as they can separate from drugs.