Letter To Owsley Stanley

Jun 07, 2009 00:45

Hi Bear ( Read more... )

owsley stanley, lsd, bear

Leave a comment

Comments 8

turboswami June 7 2009, 10:00:43 UTC


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

turboswami June 7 2009, 10:01:05 UTC


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

turboswami June 8 2009, 09:16:12 UTC
Yes,

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

turboswami March 14 2011, 08:10:49 UTC
The Bear and The Law ( ... )

Reply


turboswami June 7 2009, 10:04:22 UTC
This was the first thing I saw when I opened livejournal to add The Bear's reply as a comment:


... )

Reply

turboswami March 14 2011, 08:09:47 UTC
(it was a picture of an angry bear)

Reply


the2minh8 June 8 2009, 14:20:11 UTC
I'm a little rusty on First Amendment law, but I'm interested enough in your proposition to do a bit of research on it. Give me some time and I'll check out the cases and statutes and see what's there.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up