I think you are barking up an empty tree. The right to ingest drugs of any kind is a basic human right dating from prehistory. The law of drug prohibition makes a black market. That is the ONLY reason for the law. The other effect has been to expand drug use exponentially= as should be quite obvious- what other employment pays like dealing.
ALL drugs must be legalised, or the present financial crisis cannot be stopped- it is caused by the immense volume of blackmarket trade, which prevents management of the world economy.
In any event to cook up some sort of superstition (religion is superstition) as a fake front for getting high is in my world a VERY BAD idea. Leave 'religion' out of it.
Ayahuasca is DMT plus a MAO inhibitor- it is not LSD. --
I agree that big business is keeping the drug war active and lucrative. But it is such a sin to have the benefits of LSD unavailable to the minds that could potentially change culture the most. I cannot think of any other way to integrate the substance into the culture legally than by way of the First Amendment.
Do you feel LSD can open people up spiritually? Make them more sensitive to subtle energetic influences, emotional or otherwise? (The cliched term "vibrations" describes this classic effect, right?)
I agree wholeheartedly that spirituality and religion are, for the most part, two very different things, but the Western world seems to hunger for a spiritual connection in their life. Do you feel LSD can help facilitate that connection?
I agree that big business is keeping the drug war active and lucrative. But it is such a sin to have the benefits of LSD unavailable to the minds that could potentially use it to enlighten culture the most. I cannot think of any other way to integrate the substance into the culture legally than by way of the First Amendment.
You still just don't get it. THE DRUG LAW IS WRONG. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Supreme Court has never agreed to hear any challenge. The first attempt to prohibit alcohol by an act of Congress was tossed out by the Court just before the end of the 19th century, thus an amendment to the constitution had to be passed, and was, in 1918. The current laws are likewise illegal, the court must be forced to act, or the government convinced to legalise. ANs I do NOT mean 'some drugs' I mean ALL DRUGS.
NO OTHER APPROACH IS POSSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THE LAW HAS TO BE REMOVED BY WHATEVER MEANS IT TAKES.
Do you feel LSD can open people up spiritually
( ... )
I don't know how to fight the United States Legislative System, even if operating unconstitutionally. The idea of a Law being Unlawful seems like a legislative knot that won't be opened by tugging. Yet, the word "Restoration" in the 1997 act I'd mentioned to you earlier seems to acknowledge that the constitution had been disregarded - and that the 1st Amendment is to be rightfully restored. The Supreme Court HAS heard a challenge to the draconian drug laws, and ruled in FAVOR of the people and their right to ingest psychedelics in a controlled context (UDV vs USA, 2006). This supreme court victory is, admittedly, a baby step in comparison to giant leap of REMOVAL BY ANY MEANS IT TAKES course of action you'd mentioned, but I still feel it is very promising. It is a positive change in the direction of the legislature concerning drug use, which suggests that similarly-small baby steps in that direction would also be successful
( ... )
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Bear wrote:
I think you are barking up an empty tree. The right to ingest drugs of any kind is a basic human right dating from prehistory. The law of drug prohibition makes a black market. That is the ONLY reason for the law. The other effect has been to expand drug use exponentially= as should be quite obvious- what other employment pays like dealing.
ALL drugs must be legalised, or the present financial crisis cannot be stopped- it is caused by the immense volume of blackmarket trade, which prevents management of the world economy.
In any event to cook up some sort of superstition (religion is superstition) as a fake front for getting high is in my world a VERY BAD idea. Leave 'religion' out of it.
Ayahuasca is DMT plus a MAO inhibitor- it is not LSD.
--
Cheers.
Bear
Reply
I agree that big business is keeping the drug war active and lucrative. But it is such a sin to have the benefits of LSD unavailable to the minds that could potentially change culture the most. I cannot think of any other way to integrate the substance into the culture legally than by way of the First Amendment.
Do you feel LSD can open people up spiritually?
Make them more sensitive to subtle energetic influences, emotional or otherwise?
(The cliched term "vibrations" describes this classic effect, right?)
I agree wholeheartedly that spirituality and religion are, for the most part, two very different things,
but the Western world seems to hunger for a spiritual connection in their life.
Do you feel LSD can help facilitate that connection?
-K
Reply
I agree that big business is keeping the drug war active and lucrative. But it is such a sin to have the benefits of LSD unavailable to the minds that could potentially use it to enlighten culture the most. I cannot think of any other way to integrate the substance into the culture legally than by way of the First Amendment.
You still just don't get it. THE DRUG LAW IS WRONG. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Supreme Court has never agreed to hear any challenge. The first attempt to prohibit alcohol by an act of Congress was tossed out by the Court just before the end of the 19th century, thus an amendment to the constitution had to be passed, and was, in 1918. The current laws are likewise illegal, the court must be forced to act, or the government convinced to legalise. ANs I do NOT mean 'some drugs' I mean ALL DRUGS.
NO OTHER APPROACH IS POSSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THE LAW HAS TO BE REMOVED BY WHATEVER MEANS IT TAKES.
Do you feel LSD can open people up spiritually ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment