So I got a question for y'all... There's been endless threads all over the interwebs about the nature of psychedelics being illegal. Probably we're all on the same page as to where we stand on that. I was thinking today, how many people do I know, that have had a psychedelic experience with (insert substance here) and gone on to have the opinion that they should be completely, schedule 1 (or A) illegal? I can't think of a single one. Does anyone here know someone like that? That has had a legit experience with lucy or shrooms or cactus or one of the many forms of dmt, and concluded "ya, that shit SHOULD be illegal. Period" ?
I imagine PCP or Datura may have elicited such reactions But I think such an opinion on a substance would be more an indicator of that person's leanings vis a vis state/citizen interaction and jurisprudence, more than about the substance in question. Even if I tried a drug that was horrible in every way, unless it was causing (provable, regular) deaths/harm to society or citizens, I wouldn't see a justification for anything beyond me not doing the substance again.
I know a guy who used to be pretty hooked up from what he says. He told me one time he ate 40 hits and didnt come down for a week, he won't do it again. But he dosn't know shit about acid and abused it. He was trying to tell me lsd dosn't give you visual distortion, but his cid did because it was strcnine, and now his back is all fucked up from acid. But from his story he paid as low as 75 a sheet when his guy was backed up with 2c's and other stuff., so either he is lieing or he had a straight family connection for clean stuff. Sad a guy like that had such a good hookup.
I don't think any "intoxicating" substance should be illegal, nor does the constitution. Dictating what a person can or can not ingest is an infringement of their human rights as spelled out in the constitution. That is the reason why drugs are "scheduled" and that scheduling is based on medical efficacy and prudence more than anything else. It goes back to the pure food and drug act of 1906. All drug laws have their roots in that act. Marijuana was actually technically legal until 1967 (?), but you had to have a tax stamp in order to grow, process or posses it, but in order to get the stamp you had to already have the marijuana and so doing you were in violation of the tax act. Therefore it was impossible to obtain a tax stamp for marijuana without breaking the law, a real catch-22. It was a modification of the laws they enacted to "control" automatic weapons in the '20's-30's. Fully automatic weapons aren't illegal in the U.S., you just have to have the right licenses and permits, which are not issued very often. Leary challenged the marijuana tax laws before the supreme court and won, so for about 4 months pot was completely legal in the U.S.. The drug scheduling that Nixon put into place in '71 and that comprise the backbone of the current laws was and is entirely based on the medical efficacy of a substance, no validated medical use, then it's controlled. It sure as hell doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with how harmful a substance is, otherwise tobacco and alcohol would both be schedule 1. Notice that in the scheduling it isn't worded that a substance is "illegal" but rather "controlled". The reason is because to pass laws that prohibit an individual ingesting something is unconstitutional in the U.S., but controlling substances based on their medical usage isn't. Again it goes back to the pure food and drug act of 1906. It's a little confusing and almost paradoxical, but that's the way it is.
Thank you. Zactly. Noxious, totally hear ya. I was saying we've all read threads about the history of prohibition and for sure we're on the same page. You've been around the block a few times, do you know anyone that's had a decent experience and came out afterwards saying psychedelics should be illegal?
No, not really. But I do have friends who smoke and have dosed acid and shrooms before, but remain totally ignorant about them. Just recently the topic came up with a friend and he asked "Isn't it true that after you take LSD a certain number of times you are considered legally insane?" The myths and disinformation about psychedelics is still rampant, even amongst stoners. In a lot of the clinical literature I've read, even people who initially had horrid bad experiences later came to appreciate them and value them for what they learned about themselves.
Ya, exactly my point. It seems like the only people I've ever heard say they feel psychedelics should be illegal are ones that haven't had an experience. The mythology especially around LSD is so widespread. Someone here just posted about someone he knew that dosed so much he tripped for days and that it had stryictnine in it. It's sad, really. It was just a thought really... I can't think of a single person I've ever met or read about saying these things should be kept illegal if they've experienced them firsthand.
I think psychedelics should be Schedule II drugs and should be used strictly in psychotherapy or dispensed by a psychiatrist in unit doses for self-psychotherapy. So basically, you go to a doctor, she says you would benefit from psychedelic psychotherapy, so she refers you to a therapist who does it, and you go there and legally take the drug under the watch of a therapist who would function as a trip-sitter.
I like the idea of safety, but I cannot imagine having a fully transcendental experience in such a clinical setting. Perhaps if you were free to do as you please; the therapist ought to only be a guardian. I do not believe in individual guidance (except maybe in cases of truly oblivious patients haha).
I don't mean that the guide would sit there and bug you the whole time. I simply envision being able to enjoy sitting in a comfortable room, being able to walk around some gardens, and listen to music, but all being in a safe setting. The degree of interaction between the therapist and you would be agreed upon before you start the session. I still envision this to be a very personal, beautiful experience. Not a clinical, creepy, 'hospital-puke-colored' wall, type of thing haha.
That sounds scary as Hell! Must have been pretty freaky. What did they give you for an antidote? It is a Muscarinic Antagonist, so I guess you would need an AChE Inhibitor or something. Do you remember what they used? Or did they just feed you benzos to calm you down!
They had no clue what I was on, and I was acting reasonably calm. I wasn't freaking out or anything; my aunt took me to the hospital because I was talking to people who weren't there. They thought I was on drugs, but couldn't figure out what. The shitty part is that I had to endure the fucking needle protruding from my veins sucking blood out and feeding me water. How uncomfortable that was was unbelievable, and it led to some serious mental anguish.
Yeah that sounds pretty taxing to say the least. So it was basically against your own wishes. Did you intentionally not disclose what you had taken, or were you too delirious to really explain the situation? That sounds like a very big waste of time and money, though, altogether. Sorry it had to happen.
At first I had no clue what was going on. Even though I was very delirious, I was relaxed. Then, when I actually was being questioned by the doctor, I'm pretty sure I was babbling nonsense. They had me pee in a cup, which I vaguely remember missing, and I sat there for about five hours. It was completely unnecessary, and it ruined my experience. Good thing I only remember bits and pieces ha.
