Hmm. . .

I thought it was going to be about these boomers.

At 10/31/09 05:40 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 10/31/09 10:27 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: So the reason that the government banned it because a majority of those in power wanted it banned is wrong?

"the reason they banned it is because most of em wanted it banned"

LOL.
That's not doing a whole lot to explain the ACTUAL reason, now is it?

I know, it doesn't have any of the official reasons because I already explained some of those and don't feel like explaining them again and it doesn't have the reasons of the individuals who voted because frankly I don't know those reasons.

That explanation was intended for an anarchist with anti-government views. It's short, simple and you can build whatever conspiracy theory you want out of it and I was hoping he would move on to the next topic I introduced which was how the concerns about LSD could addressed. He denied the conspiracy theory foundation was the reason, did not touch on the topics I introduce and stated he would rather run around in circles forever so I stopped replying.

At 10/31/09 10:21 AM, pr0de wrote: thats nice, but your reasoning on why its illegal is wrong

So the reason that the government banned it because a majority of those in power wanted it banned is wrong?

At 10/31/09 10:07 AM, pr0de wrote: so it was made illegal 30 years after its creation, for your reasoning and not the OPs

If you mean my reasoning that there was enough political support to pass a law banning LSD, yes.

and instead of "why it is" it should "why it became"

The OP asked "Why Is Lsd Illegal" not "Why was LSD banned".

as you see it wasn't made illegal for health concerns, but now that it is they use health concerns for it being illegal

And as long as people fail to address the present concerns and gain the neccesary support and influence it will stay that way.

At 10/31/09 09:48 AM, pr0de wrote: and i like the cultural influence on psychotic episodes. like a recent story about some guy who cutoff power to a hospital because he thought he was in "Silent Hill"

so try comparing the psychedelic induced stress disorder to one of a war veterans, people duped by culture

What do you mean, a war vet with stress disorder against a war vet with psychedelic stress disorder.
How do you avoid culture? Even if you succeed in avoiding known cultures, if you meet other people you usually end up making a new one.

In short, it's because there is not enough political support in influential parties for LSD to be legalised but there was enough political support for alcohol.

sure the political parties that existed in prehistoric times, or repealed prohibition

What proposal do you have so ensure there would be little or no possibly of obtaining a high enough dose?

a high enough dose of alcohol? seems pretty low for certain people to start getting violent

For both LSD and alcohol, and how to ensure that dose is the norm. Also what restrictions if any would be placed such as driving or operating heavy machinery, distribution, etc.

and from my experience others and i don't turn violent on high doses, because at high doses you are glued to your seat and might have ego death, so you would be just sitting there

While that's a typical case, the emphasis at the moment against legalisation is on self-harm, harming other and stress disorders so managing that needs to be addressed as well as emphasising positives.

At 10/31/09 09:28 AM, pr0de wrote:

At 10/31/09 09:25 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote:

I broke your factor down to multiple factors so they could be addressed.

yet you don't know at what dose it takes to make people psychotic, and if it were legal those wouldn't be factors

What proposal do you have so ensure there would be little or no possibly of obtaining a high enough dose?

Fine, why is alcohol currently illegal? Oh, it's not.

if lsd is illegal because it has the potential to make people violent then why does that other drug that has more potential to make people violent (even intelligent people) legal

In short, it's because there is not enough political support in influential parties for LSD to be legalised but there was enough political support for alcohol.

fool

Flattery will get you nowhere.

At 10/31/09 09:18 AM, pr0de wrote: try and grasp the concept that if were legal, the doses would be accurate, and even then the average dose of illegal lsd is 50ug with a single dose being $5-30

I keep saying that doses would addressed by legalisation over and over and you keep arguing for the sake of arguing.

At 10/31/09 09:15 AM, pr0de wrote:

just look at your post

If I include dose in the factoring then I would also have to include at least two more factors, the first is that you can't always guarantee your getting the same dose because like any illegal substance it can vary between deal...

I broke your factor down to multiple factors so they could be addressed. That post would never had been made, dosage would never have been explored and I would have never explained how that is not a valid factor via how it can be addressed.

and i'm always in a "good" mood, unless i smoke cannabis, and i still don't do any harm

Good for you, there are also people who aren't in a "good" mood and there are many people who drink alcohol and don't do any harm as well.
thats nice (more stereotypical culture catchphrases) but that post you made was before i posted in this thread

and keep on dodging on applying your "why its illegal" logic to alcohol

Fine, why is alcohol currently illegal? Oh, it's not.

At 10/31/09 09:04 AM, pr0ded wrote: "I'm merely explaining the reasoning behind it being illegal"

True.

ie the doses being inaccurate

Bullshit. If you want to fabricate arguments try it based on factors you yourself didn't introduce and that I felt was important enough to include in my original argument.

At 10/31/09 08:55 AM, pr0ded wrote:

At 10/31/09 08:50 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote:

Would be legal implies an invalid law being passed, I don't think that is the case.

but doses would be accurate if it was legal,

That's what I implied and that's why I didn't bring it up as an argument.

but its all on your false statement of it being legal because people will become violent, while ignoring the legality of alcohol. as that makes more people violent

No I tried to offer an explanation.

i don't need to wait an hour in an attempt to get the last word, or read any of it, since its bullshit

Shops close at midnight here.

At 10/31/09 08:04 AM, pr0ded wrote: no, you are applying something that happens because it's illegal (inaccurate dosing) to something that would be legal
without even knowing at what dose you could become more likely to be violent

Would be legal implies an invalid law being passed, I don't think that is the case. As for dosing, I explained it could be easily managed if LSD was legal. You were the one who felt this was a factor for it being illegal, you introduced it so I addressed it stating it could be managed. You are twisting my view that it is not a factor because it can be easily managed and pretending I stated otherwise.

Again and hopefully to end this misconception you have I will state it one more time. The dosage of LSD can be addressed through awareness and regulations. To claim I said any different is delusional.

average dose being 50ugs according to the DEA, 5-10 dollars
vs a 5 dollar six pack, drunks like to knock down newspaper boxes, while lsd is used in alcoholic therapy to make them stop drinking

It's good to see having some therapeutic use. People can binge on just about anything though.

and after 500 hits ingested i havent done shit

Do your experiences account for the the people who have had bad experiences as well? If not, what's your point here?

Also please address the issues of psychotic episodes and post traumatic disorders.

At 10/31/09 07:44 AM, pr0ded wrote: dose: factoring, applying illegal tendencies to something that would be legal

I'm merely explaining the reasoning behind it being illegal. I obviously don't agree with all the reasons and I showed this by stating some that can be easily addressed. You told me to factor dose so I did and explained how unreliable it is under the current circumstances and just to inform you post traumatic disorders and psychotic episodes are not illegal.

"good for you"

At 10/31/09 07:07 AM, pr0ded wrote: because they can do this on alcohol, and are probably more likely to be violent, even at low doses
so put dose in the factoring

If I include dose in the factoring then I would also have to include at least two more factors, the first is that you can't always guarantee your getting the same dose because like any illegal substance it can vary between dealers, and on rare occasions even if you buy from the same dealer. The second is moderation, some people take a lot, some don't. These two can be addressed through awareness and regulations. Some other factors are how mentally stable a person is and how LSD affects that particular person.

and i'm always in a "good" mood, unless i smoke cannabis, and i still don't do any harm

Good for you, there are also people who aren't in a "good" mood and there are many people who drink alcohol and don't do any harm as well.

At 10/31/09 07:08 AM, pr0ded wrote: "because bad trips are dep.."

op made no mention of bad trips

Since you quoted one of my posts I naturally assumed your reply was to address mine as well as the negative effects I posted while adding to the thread.

At 10/31/09 06:37 AM, pr0ded wrote:

At 10/31/09 06:25 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: others and even get an unhealthy dose of post traumatic disorders.

never done that during a "bad trip"

"Can" is not the same as "will". Also, how does your transcript address "during a bad trip people can harm themselves or others and even get an unhealthy dose of post traumatic disorders"? Does this transcript argue that can't happen?

Because bad trips are dependant on mood, making them somewhat unpredictable and during a bad trip people can harm themselves or others and even get an unhealthy dose of post traumatic disorders.

Started with:
Old MacDonald had a farm, Ee i ee i oh! And on that farm he had some chickens, Ee i ee i oh! With a cluck-cluck here, And a cluck-cluck there Here a cluck, there a cluck, Everywhere a cluck-cluck Old MacDonald had a farm Ee i ee i oh!

My pick:
Old MacDonald, I, Ohio farmers yeah yeah! God is my chicken on his farm! Voices, voices, voices, voices here, voices, voices everywhere, I have an old McDonald's, where, yes, I have the advantage on a farm in Ohio!

At 10/29/09 11:32 PM, jake-thesnake wrote:

At 10/29/09 11:22 PM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: The Newgrounds theme, with the Gray and Black persona.

I had that for a long time. But it slows down Firefox so i have default.

But I do have the Newgrounds Toolbar

Cool, the toolbar is made by Wackyanimation so I can't take credit for that. The Newgrounds theme takes less resources if you have the animation switched off(now the default setting) and personas automatically switch it off as well.

The Newgrounds theme, with the Gray and Black persona.

The Audio Forum is the "proper" place for audio related questions, don't forget to look at the "read this first" section though!

At 10/29/09 08:37 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 10/29/09 08:33 PM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: The reason you can't is because everyone would be able to go to like this:

And that means?.......

The US national symbol is the bald eagle, if you can violate company policy with patriotic clothes you might as well do it in style. Hey, shouldn't you have learnt this a long time ago?

At 10/29/09 08:18 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: FOR CHRISTS' SAKE!!! It says 'One nation UNDER GOD in the pledge of fucking allegiance! Why can't you wear a button saying that!? We have a fucking SONG called; 'God bless America' goddamnit! This country is SO fucked....

The reason you can't is because everyone would be able to go to like this:

At 10/29/09 06:55 PM, kidray76 wrote: I'm going to assume you mean by the newgrounds audio portal standards. The answer though is probably Yes, it is illegal. When you submit a song, your claiming the WHOLE song is yours and original done by you. Though not an audio mod, they'll probably encourage you to stay away from sampling and remixing considering your taking someone elses work and incorporating it.

What are your thoughts on if the samples have been declared public domain(ie. not owned or controlled by anyone)?

I was going through the sources and apparently he was pulling levers and pushing switches in the basement so he could have shut down the emergency power as well.

I signed up for the beta yesterday but haven't got an invite yet. Is it as good as the video makes it out be?

At 10/29/09 06:40 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: Same idea to the argument I'm making. I'd rather not leave the fate of mankind to chance, I'd prefer to see as much of the facts as I can, then make an informed decision. . .

I agree, and I think discovering evidence and experimentation will play a key role in making a decision. Without this there would be no chemotherapy to treat the patient. Right now there is a lot of evidence being discovered about the environment and experimentation in numerous areas as well as a lot of mistakes being made and documented that will help in the future. Because of this I'm fairly confident survival will not be left to chance.

The more privacy decreases, the more important disclosure becomes. I would like an internet without privacy to disclose very little. If the information you said was public, it would not be very hard for a criminal to find a victim and I'd be campaigning against it for public safety.

At 10/29/09 06:07 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: There's never a guarantee that a game of Russian roulette ends in death, but play it enough times and it will. Best to play it safe and put the gun down, but since that's not even an option it's best to check the chamber before pulling the trigger.

Interesting, there's also never a guarantee that chemotherapy will work, but that doesn't stop the patient being treated.

At 10/29/09 05:56 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: But mankind will still be around, and there are no guarantees that such a machine will be made in time, and even if it is viable it'll be after any climate change. And you need to stop watching G.I Joe.

Don't forget there's also no guarantee that mankind won't be able to adapt to environmental changes.

At 10/29/09 05:56 PM, Carmilla wrote: Ice cubes and cough drops work fast, but they're extremely temporary.

Even anesthetic drops?