The Debate on Hallucinogenic Drugs

[CloudEater]

Hallucinogenic drugs include... LSD (Lysergic Acid), Psilocybin mushrooms, PCP (Phencyclidine), Cannabis/Marijuana, and probably a few others...

What are your thoughts on these drugs?
Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?
Should these drugs be taken more seriously?
Do you really care if people consume these drugs?
What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

[Athlas]

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote: Hallucinogenic drugs include... LSD (Lysergic Acid), Psilocybin mushrooms, PCP (Phencyclidine), Cannabis/Marijuana, and probably a few others...

What are your thoughts on these drugs?

You forgot the deliria, like DMT and datura. LSD and shrooms are relatively harmless compared to these, but still quite dangerous when taken at the wrong time or by the wrong person. I used to think everyone was ought to take LSD at least once during their lifetime, so we'd attain an enlightened society. I learned quite a lot from my trips, but to truely recall your thoughts and feelings during them, you have to take another hit. It's impossible for me to do that, though. I'd probably sell my kidneys to make it possible again.

Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?

Yes, they are. Alcohol is probably the most hypocritic drug in existance, though. I don't understand why on earth it's still legal. The only country to have banned it so far is Sri Lanka, which had the highest percentage of alcoholics in the world. The effects of alcohol cause the largest number of drug deaths, be it because of overdose or intoxicated driving/brawling/...

Should these drugs be taken more seriously?

Definetely. People should be more aware of the danger they harbour.

Do you really care if people consume these drugs?

No, as long as they know what they're doing, and keep the possible effects in mind.

What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

None of your business...

[pr0ded]

dmt isn't classed as a deliriant or anticholinergic, but its effects are much different from other psychedelics (all visuals and no alteration in though processes)

and there are similarities in visuals across different cultures (machine elves etc)

but the experience could be explained by James Kent's hypothesis

and variation in effects from its purity, or if its mixed with other psychoactive substances, like MAO inhibitors to make it orally active

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote:
What are your thoughts on these drugs?

It's just stupid. Why poison yourself to dream about smurfs instead of getting some work done or renting some DVD.

Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?

I feel so. Alcohol one can have just for the taste alone. I like my wine or amaretto or beer just because it is actually tasty. I don't need to get drunk to have any use for alcohol. As for tobacco, I feel it is stupid because people just want to have the addiction and it doesn't really benefit anything else. But at least, you can talk and interact properly with a smoker.

Should these drugs be taken more seriously?

I'd say yes, but maybe media deformed my image of these effects.

Do you really care if people consume these drugs?

Hmm, if people want to be stupid, let them. As long as it's not my daughter getting high and having 5 boys gangbang her to earn the money for it.

What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

Tomorrow night I'll be tasting some cava, alcohol is gooooood.

[pr0ded]

poisoning yourself to dream about smurfs? ingest and go to sleep and hope you dream about smurfs? in the case of lsd it is non-toxic and keeps you awake, so you can't dream about smurfs

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues /2006/January/LSD.asp
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries /news/2006/01/70015

lsd alters your perception, causes you hear clearer or sense clearer

and all post-jazz contemporary music is spearheaded by psychedelic users.

even top40 music, which i can verify by listening to it with my seemingly permanent altered perception

[pr0ded]

"During this time, Jobs experimented with psychedelics, calling his LSD experiences "one of the two or three most important things [he had] done in [his] life."[23] He has stated that people around him who did not share his countercultural roots could not fully relate to his thinking.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#
Early_years

which i guess people can't seem to figure out this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretat ions_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey

or countless other movies, even understand lyrics of songs

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Ma in/WordSaladLyrics

a lot of that stuff isn't actually word salad, like the syd barrett one is actually inspired by James Joyce, as one of his songs "golden hair" is based on one of his poems

heres one of his books

and that sonic the hedgehog song in the word salad link is 'psychedelic'

acid rock fell out of use since all rock can be considered 'psychedelic'link

[Ericho]

I would say that we should first legalize marijuana and once that is done, all hard drugs will be legalized eventually as it's obvious prohibition didn't work. While the things may be bad in themselves, people are just going to get more of it in more of it in even worse versions.

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 01:18 PM, Ericho wrote: I would say that we should first legalize marijuana and once that is done, all hard drugs will be legalized eventually as it's obvious prohibition didn't work. While the things may be bad in themselves, people are just going to get more of it in more of it in even worse versions.

If we were going to legalise murder, would also less people be doing that?

[Elfer]

At 10/31/09 12:52 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: It's just stupid. Why poison yourself to dream about smurfs instead of getting some work done or renting some DVD.
maybe media deformed my image of these effects.

Gee, you think so? If you want to get a more realistic picture or these drugs, you're going to have to actually meet people who have experience with them.

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 01:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
Gee, you think so? If you want to get a more realistic picture or these drugs, you're going to have to actually meet people who have experience with them.

Well, as long as people can behave properly on LSD, shrooms etcetera while I interact with them, I have nothing against it.My GF for instance does hate it when her father used even marihuana because he becomes an asshole afterwards, or so she says...

[Elfer]

At 10/31/09 02:11 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Well, as long as people can behave properly on LSD, shrooms etcetera while I interact with them, I have nothing against it.My GF for instance does hate it when her father used even marihuana because he becomes an asshole afterwards, or so she says...

Yes, well, this is why we need better awareness of the ideas behind responsible drug use. Unfortunately, prohibition is a major barrier to promoting this sort of behaviour.

[pr0ded]

proper? like manners? you want me to engage in culturally laid down behaviors?

and you want to interact? will we be at an "acid party"

because i can go about my day on it, unless i smoke some cannabis
unless its strong stuff, but it makes me more introverted and makes my voice lighter

and do your expectations exclude drunk people?

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 02:23 PM, pr0ded wrote: proper? like manners? you want me to engage in culturally laid down behaviors?

Yes. I want to be able to discuss bussiness matters with you or introduce you to my other friends without you looking like an ass.

and you want to interact? will we be at an "acid party"

At the place I meet you. If you're acting stupid high on some shit at an acid party, go ahead. As long as you act properly in a standard setting.

and do your expectations exclude drunk people?

No, drunk people are stupid too.

[Elfer]

At 10/31/09 02:26 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/31/09 02:23 PM, pr0ded wrote: proper? like manners? you want me to engage in culturally laid down behaviors?

Yes. I want to be able to discuss bussiness matters with you or introduce you to my other friends without you looking like an ass.

If we're talking about proper behaviour, let's start with why you're bothering people at home uninvited.

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 04:56 PM, Elfer wrote:
If we're talking about proper behaviour, let's start with why you're bothering people at home uninvited.

I'm not a vampire, I can do so according to social standards. AKA huh?

[Elfer]

At 10/31/09 05:09 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/31/09 04:56 PM, Elfer wrote:
If we're talking about proper behaviour, let's start with why you're bothering people at home uninvited.

I'm not a vampire, I can do so according to social standards. AKA huh?

You want to discuss business matters and introduce new friends while someone is tripping? What's your problem? That sort of situation would imply you're either bothering someone at an inappropriate time or they're tripping in an inappropriate setting.

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 05:37 PM, Victory wrote:
Strawman argument. Ericho never raised that as a point for legalisation in his post, and nothing indicated that he even took that stance.

You're so very right.
But I still oppose when people say it should be legalised because by being illegal people will dot it more (forbidden fruit issue).

At 10/31/09 06:00 PM, Elfer wrote: That sort of situation would imply you're either bothering someone at an inappropriate time or they're tripping in an inappropriate setting.

If a person wants to trip balls in his own envirenment and stick to his private space, then by all means he may do so for all I care. A person should be free to do whatever he wants as it does not interfere with what other people do.

[Korriken]

I say legalize it all, it makes for a fantastic population control mechanism.

[SadisticMonkey]

the government obviously shouldn't be able to tell people what chemicals they can and cannot choice to consume

[Elfer]

At 10/31/09 06:20 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: If a person wants to trip balls in his own envirenment and stick to his private space, then by all means he may do so for all I care. A person should be free to do whatever he wants as it does not interfere with what other people do.

So basically you're saying you want the same basic social restrictions that exist on alcohol, with slight modifications tailored to the specific drug?

Because I mean, I'd be fine with that.

[RaptorJesus]

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote: Hallucinogenic drugs include... LSD (Lysergic Acid), Psilocybin mushrooms, PCP (Phencyclidine), Cannabis/Marijuana, and probably a few others...

What are your thoughts on these drugs?
Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?
Should these drugs be taken more seriously?
Do you really care if people consume these drugs?
What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

IMO no government (state or federal) should have any role in what grown adults put into their bodies. Plain and simple. Life would go on.

[estrago1]

Well, these are hallucinogens, so obviously you are going to hallucinate, which means that you probably won't be in control of what you're doing. In which case, its not really the drug that is the problem; its the after-effects.

But I pose this question: what are the consequences of taking too many hallucinogens? I know that trips can get worse as you become addicted more and more. And let me ask this: does withdrawal come into effect with these drugs? Chances are, the cons out weigh the pros, so taking a hallucinogen once will get you the high you're looking for, but get addicted and a shitstorm awaits you.

By the why, I really have no idea what I'm talking about, and at this point, I'm really just rambling. The only knowledge I have of hallucinogens is what I've learned in school and what I've read about Syd Barrett.

[Elfer]

Hallucinogenic drugs are non-addictive and have a heavy tolerance factor (i.e. if you want to have an intense trip, it takes about a week for the seratonin receptors in your brain to "charge back up," if you will).

Basically what they told you in school is bullshit.

[RubberTrucky]

At 10/31/09 09:48 PM, Elfer wrote:
So basically you're saying you want the same basic social restrictions that exist on alcohol, with slight modifications tailored to the specific drug?

If hard drugs were to be legalised then it shoukld be sure that
1. They really have limited effects and not make the general user do fucked up stuff. So those drugs should be able to be used 'responsibly'.
2. The addiction should be low enough so people can limit the use to private spaces and not act like an ass in spaces they were not meant to be using those drugs.

So yes, I don't want to allow people tripping balls on the street like I don't want people drunk pissing against public property and stuff.

[bcdemon]

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote: Hallucinogenic drugs include... LSD (Lysergic Acid), Psilocybin mushrooms, PCP (Phencyclidine), Cannabis/Marijuana, and probably a few others...

Really? You place pot in the same category as Acid, shrooms and pcp, have you ever done those drugs before? Speaking through experience I would never place pot in the same grouping.

What are your thoughts on these drugs?

LSD is a crazy intense drug.
Shrooms are a natural LSD.
PCP, like coc, who cares.
Marijuana, nice mellow feeling, cravings for chips.

Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?

LSD and PCP are, shitloads of chemicals can't be good for ya. Marijuana, depending on how it's grown can be chemical free. LSD is worse than marijuana when it comes to driving, and marijuana is better than alcohol for driving (how much damage can you do going 25km).

Should these drugs be taken more seriously?

Yeah, marijuana should seriously be decriminalized. Mushrooms are an all natural product, leave it alone.

Do you really care if people consume these drugs?

Nope.

What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

Probably come home from work, have a beer and a hoot, and watch some MNF.

[Ericho]

At 10/31/09 01:27 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: If we were going to legalise murder, would also less people be doing that?

Murder is different because it actively hurts someone no matter what goes on. Things like drugs are not necessarily used to hurt people. You didn't give any arguments against things like prohibition, which clearly didn't work.

[awkward-silence]

Here are a few thoughts.

We should be decriminalized. All of the arguments I have ever encountered (and invite someone to argue with me otherwise) for keeping it illegal are either untrue, or true but still much less harmful that other substances we allow.

I am a fan of hallucinigens. Though I am fearful of them. I know people who have messed themselves up on substances like Acid. I can't tell if it was because the acid was "bad" meaning improperly made or improperly administered. Both of these problems could be alieviated with legalization.

Mushrooms shouldn't be illegal. They have a long history of use in religous ceremony and if peyote and ayahuasca are legal, there is NO reason shrooms should not be.

[Elfer]

Shrooms should be not only legal, but mandatory. We could end all war in a week.

[TheStonePilot]

At 11/1/09 11:02 AM, Elfer wrote: Shrooms should be not only legal, but mandatory. We could end all war in a week.

And we would get nothing done. The government would crash. Economy would crash. Millions (if not billions) dead. I really hope you mean that sarcastically. Drugs do not cause (most) wars.

Also, I don't think marijuana would count as a hallucinogenic. It's more of just a numbing drug, if you were to classify it.

[pr0ded]

despite such users getting stuff done, like bilbo gates

hallucinogenic is too general, deliriants are the ones that cause hallucinations in the definition of the word

cannabis is a psychedelic, altered perception etc

there would be GREAT FAMINE