i don't think it should be legalized...it is illegal for a reason, it's not just "the mans" way of controlling you...lsd fucks people up, true lsd that is...obviously the acid that's available today isn't pure lsd... i've seen this on the history channel, the history of lsd is extremely interesting... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5904240612788659431&q=transcendence i think it's only part one though... although many people experiement with lsd and it is a good thing in some cases, it doesn't mean that it's going to be a good thing for everyone some drugs should be legalized, but some drugs are illegal for a reason
i totaly agree with you as always but would add that some that are legal should be illegal or no..fuck the law..doesnt matter if theyre illegal or not..some just should not be used (dont mean lsd) (but lsd is overused)
All drugs should be legal in a free country, plain and simple. Legalize it, tax it, and use the money collected from taxes to pay for hospitalizations. People arent stupid, if lots of people start getting fucked up, then the people who dont want to be fucked up with stop, and they rest wont care and will get fucked up, natural selection.
All drugs of abuse have that potential. And the potential for abuse is much higher with alcohol and tobacco than it is with a drug like LSD. The statement "LSD fucks you up" is about as "true" as "the sun causes crops to wither and die." Sure it does. But that's not the whole story. A component of legalization should/would be education: and I'm not talking about DARE. That's not true either. A recent experiment (reported in "Erowid Extracts") with a vial of Sandoz acid has put that little rumor to rest. There are research chemicals being passed off as LSD, but generally, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and swims like a duck, it'll quack at you too. It is. This is quite a good capsule history (45 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89S_o7fOwpA Nothing is a good thing for everyone. Do you think peanuts and latex should be illegal because some people have severe allergies to them? I'm uncomfortable with the idea that drugs should be illegal to keep them out of the hands of a nebulous "some people". Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it's not working with other drugs. Period.
I think to many people would take it with the wrong mindset, it would also get really abused if it was illegal. I think it should be legalised to be done under special conditions and such for people who want to try it.
All drugs should indeed be legal. To quote the late Bill Hicks: "It's a personal choice, just like alcohol, just like cigarettes. As long as that personal choice does not infringe upon the freedoms of other persons personal choice. Thats called logic, it'll help you."
I see LSD as a tool. Like many other tools - such as a car or a computer or even alcohol, it can be used in ways that are both beneficial and harmful. With alcohol, it is assumed that a person must reach a certain age to be qualified to make the decision to drink or not. With a car, a person has to be a certain age and also pass a test to be able to drive. Personally, I think LSD should be legal once a person is a certain age and can show that they have the necessary knowledge about it to make responsible decisions (possibly through some sort of testing). Maybe some people would consider this going too far. If so, then certainly a doctor (psychiatrist) should be able to prescribe it for supervised use if given his knowledge he feels it would be helpful to the patient.
If they did that, do you think people would actually obey the age limit? I'm not sure if they would. I mean, If people can get alcohol before they turn 21, it seems like they would do the same thing with LSD.
Some people wouldn't, just like some people drink or drive a car before they are of legal age. But most probably would, just like probably only a minority of under-age people drink or drive (at least regularly).
I don't think an age limit would work. I'd say you would have underage people getting around the regulation the same as with alcohol, and in my opinion, this renders the age limit ineffective.
really?? all it did was give me a headache...though I do think nootropics have utility. piracetam's been pretty good to me speak for yourself... if I had the means to synth d1ethylamine, and the green light from the misses... what does morality have to do with it? where's the moral obligation in the health care industry, when your options are limited to Phizer and Roche products that have ridiculous side effects?
Yes, but many, myself included, assume that choices made under the influence of an intense hallucinogen don't have any real "merit" compared to choices made while sober. I'm sorry, but LSD is an extremely powerful, mind-altering drug and it would take a huge leap of faith to be able to completely trust that everyone that takes it would be able to make competent, mindful decisions while under its influence. That doesn't mean I'm against its use.
All drugs should be legalized! It is a basic natural right to be able to ingest yourself with whatever substance you want. It's a natural right, human right, and essential for a free society. The government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot do. Government is not the solution to any drug problems. Prohibition never works. Why do you think America has it the worst? It is the most harsh against drug users who are mostly non-violent. When drugs got banned, we saw a huge increase in drug use in America. Not only in the receant drug prohibition, remember alcohol prohibition? That was a nightmare and so is the current War On Drugs. Even if I chose to ban drugs, I would never go after LSD. Sure it's powerful and yes perhaps more people do not have the mental strength to handle it. However, LSD is a soft drug that doesn't lead to addiction. It is virtually impossible to overdose and there are little to no health risks. Same goes with other soft drugs such as mescaline, shrooms, weed, ect. If I was to ban drugs I would ban the harder psychomotor stimulants (cocaine, speed, ect.) and the opiates (morphine, heroin, ect.) HOWEVER, no matter how bad a substance is prohibition is never the answer. It just makes everything worse. And the government has no right to detirmine what is bad and what isn't. They obviously don't have clue now (considering the fact they go after soft drugs more than hard drugs).
You seem to have ignored the kicker: "As long as that personal choice does not infringe upon the freedoms of other persons personal choice. Thats called logic, it'll help you."