Have you ever done LSD?

1/13/2006 11:56:21 AM

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason : http://www.alexgrey.com/images/st_hofmann100.jpg]

1/13/2006 11:58:03 AM

Quote :

"Lumex: Taking too much LSD will not produce drowsiness, and as such there is an added danger to using LSD."

Negative. LSD is nontoxic. Thanks for playing!

1/13/2006 12:02:10 PM

Quote :

"For one, alcohol has been a part of human culture for at least 9,000 years"

lsd is checmically very similar to lsa, which is found in morning glories. It's usually synthesized from lsa, also sometimes from ergot fungus. lsa has been used as a psychedelic substance for several thousand years as well.

Quote :

"This is not exactly correct. The general effects of LSD are always similar, just like alcohol. It's just that a persons reaction to those effects could vary. Every experience on LSD varies in that what is on your mind is different everytime. So the "trip" can take different directions. Alcohol is the same in that respect. If you are depressed and you drink you may dwell on your depression. If you are angry and you drink you may get angrier. If you are happy and you drink you may become happier. Alcohol gives wildly varying results depending on the person..... "

about what i was going to say.

Quote :

"e've already established that the only time that LSD is likely to cause a permanent problem is in individuals with pre-existing mental disorders. The impairment always goes away, the psychological distress that a person with a mental disorder could experience may not."

again, what i was going to say

again, you're spouting information on one chemical (alcohol) that you assume isn't true for lsd, and again, you're wrong.

Quote :

"When a person drinks too much or smokes too much in one sitting they will pass out or at least become very tired"

well actually, if they drink too much,they can die. The same can't be said for lsd. the toxic dosage has only been estimated, and it's never been proven, and nobody's ever died from too much of it.

1/13/2006 12:09:13 PM

Quote :

"the toxic dosage has only been estimated, and it's never been proven, and nobody's ever died from too much of it."

how who's just spouting information? this elephant died in 1962 as a result of too much LSD

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_history4.shtml



[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 12:15 PM. Reason : i don't actually know where that link goes...i'm on a firewalled network that won't let me view it]

1/13/2006 12:14:40 PM

The only thing I'd add (because a lot of what I was going to say's been covered) is that while LSD is a recently discovered drug, there are plenty of illegal hallucinogens (mushrooms, leaves, seeds, cacti, you name it) with an history of use among other cultures at least as lengthy as the history of the use of alcohol.

1/13/2006 12:16:18 PM

Quote :

"Negative. LSD is nontoxic. Thanks for playing!"

You missed the point

1/13/2006 12:17:26 PM

Lumex, shutup. you don't know what you're talking about.

1/13/2006 12:22:52 PM

Who the fuck are you? His mom?

1/13/2006 12:37:25 PM

SaabTurbo--

1) What more do we have? The stuff you guys have been offering this entire time that doesn't really counter anything I'm saying (but rather, what you think I've been saying)?
2) How our understanding has changed doesn't much matter as far as the actual effects of the drug, which are the only thing under dicsussion.
3) I was only around a guy tripping a couple of times, in high school. Often he wasn't terribly interesting. He didn't try to jump out of the window or anything, but he did stare at it for about an hour and a half, occasionally hiding from it.

Quote :

" Alcohol is the same in that respect."

Not even close. The variation in drunks, while real, is not so wide. And it's generally predictable if you know anything about the person's state. A sad drunk will probably dwell, you're right. But if a sad guy takes LSD, you're telling me you have even the foggiest notion of what's going to happen to him?

Quote :

"We've already established that the only time that LSD is likely to cause a permanent problem is in individuals with pre-existing mental disorders."

Yes, we have. What we haven't established here is:

1) How severe those mental disorders have to be
2) How you would ever in a million years make LSD legal, but just for people who are perfectly sane and "strong minded" and not prone to panic and so on and so forth.

Quote :

"and often likely preventable."

O Rly? Let's hear about that, shall we.

DirtyGreek --

Quote :

"sd is checmically very similar to lsa"

And coca leaves are very similar to cocaine. I've taken the former several different ways, and it's less of a buzz than a cigarette. Cocaine, I understand, is a wee bit more potent.

Quote :

"about what i was going to say."

Funny, 'cause my whole response was to your little talk earlier about how incredibly varied people's reactions to LSD were.

I've been around drunks for a long time, and I've been drunk for a long time, and I've never seen any variation that couldn't be summed up in about two sentences.

Quote :

"there are plenty of illegal hallucinogens (mushrooms, leaves, seeds, cacti, you name it) with an history of use among other cultures at least as lengthy as the history of the use of alcohol."

Length, sure, but not nearly so prevalent. Alcohol is not only found, but found to be quite important, in every major civilization since the dawn of man. The Sumerians, Egyptians, Incans, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Japanese, Chinese, every country in Europe and subsequently the United States.

Hallucinagens may have even been known to members of all those civilizations, but you'd have to be high on them right now to tell me that they're as culturally ingrained as alcohol is.

1/13/2006 1:04:40 PM

i really cant claim to know the long term effects of LSD first hand, but having lived in South Florida and been a regular at certain clubs there, I do know the terrible effects of Ecstacy first hand, and its not good. If LSD has a similar effect on the brain, I can't say I condone it, but I mean, you have a choice. Hopefully you'll be smart.

Don't give me that "you just gotta get the right guy to make it for you" raver talk-shit either. It's bullshit.

1/13/2006 2:05:42 PM

Quote :

"And coca leaves are very similar to cocaine. I've taken the former several different ways, and it's less of a buzz than a cigarette. Cocaine, I understand, is a wee bit more potent."

coca leaves are what cocaine COMES from, and cocaine is highly processed and purified version of the cocaine hydrochloride found in the leaves. That's the only reason that chewing leaves doesn't produce the same effect - you'd have to chew ALOT of them.

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc08.htm

Quote :

"Length, sure, but not nearly so prevalent. Alcohol is not only found, but found to be quite important, in every major civilization since the dawn of man. The Sumerians, Egyptians, Incans, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Japanese, Chinese, every country in Europe and subsequently the United States. Hallucinagens may have even been known to members of all those civilizations, but you'd have to be high on them right now to tell me that they're as culturally ingrained as alcohol is."

why why why do you keep saying things when you don't know they're true? there is evidence and stories of ceremonies in native american cultures and other native cultures - hell, there are still modern examples - using mushrooms, peyote, marijuana, morning glories... do I need to go on? The rig veda talks about "soma," which is thought now by some to have been a tea made from the amanita muscaria (fly agaric) mushroom. either way, it's obvious from the descriptions that it was a psychedelic
http://www.huxley.net/soma/

There were cultures whose ENTIRE RELIGIONS were based on psychedelics, grumpy. hell, some of them based their entire CULTURES on them.

http://www.dea.gov/concern/peyote.html
http://www.foodandwine.net/food/food020.htm


[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : m]

1/13/2006 2:18:24 PM

^^
LSD and MDMA are not similar, as far as I know, except that they both have hallucinogenic properties. MDMA is much more similar to Meth than it is to LSD.

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 3:00 PM. Reason : 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine]

1/13/2006 2:59:07 PM

Quote :

"cocaine is highly processed and purified version of the cocaine hydrochloride found in the leaves."

Sigh...

Yes, Dirty, I know. My point is that just because A is derived from B does not mean the two are similar in relevant ways.

Ergo, it doesn't matter that the thing LSD comes from has been around for a while longer. LSD is clearly different in some important respect, because that's the thing people take nowadays.

Quote :

"there is evidence and stories of ceremonies in native american cultures and other native cultures"

I AM GOING TO RESPOND IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHEN I WROTE IT IN NORMAL LETTERS.

I SAID THAT HALLUCIGENS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO PEOPLE FOR FUCKING EVER. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT. THEY HAVE BEEN REFERENCED IN TEXTS AND STORIES FOR FUCKING EVER. BUT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ANYWHERE NEAR SO CULTURALLY IMPORTANT AS ALCOHOL.

You're acting as though all cultures throughout history are of equal and great significance. They're not. Peyote-smoking indians are even fewer in number now than they were a thousand years ago, when they were already a very minor part of the global population. There are six or seven hundred million booze-guzzling caucasians running around today. There are two or three billion Asians, who have also been drinking sweet, sweet alcohol for some nine millennia.

Even if we are just talking about America -- and we aren't, we're talking about the entire world, but America is the relevant case -- it is absolutely undeniable that alcohol has ALWAYS been VASTLY more prevalent and culturally significant in this country than any currently illegal drug. That's why we won't get rid of it even if it is as dangerous as LSD, that's why a comparison between the two is of limited utility, and that's why I started this in the first place.

1/13/2006 3:56:28 PM

c'mon kids don't forgot if the U.S government says its bad then it must be. don't question big brother our leaders.

1/13/2006 4:01:23 PM

Quote :

"^^ Here is an artist on LSD (Well, probably not when he's actually painting ) :"

while alex gray probably has done a lot of LSD, who knows if he ever painted while tripping.

HERE is an artist on LSD....

http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/html/acidtrip1.html

1/13/2006 4:14:36 PM

Quote :

"^^ Here is an artist on LSD (Well, probably not when he's actually painting ):"

Not only that, but the link you just posted is the exact link that caused me to make my comment.....

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 4:36:53 PM

what's your point? i didnt intend for ONLY YOU to look at the link



[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2006 4:37:35 PM

Here is my point:

It was already posted in the thread.

Your comment was addressed to me, so I'm saying: "Hey, the link you provided is the same series of sketches that the other dude posted. That's who I was talking to when I said what you have in quotes up there."

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 4:42:24 PM

it's a long thread and different link

please forgive me

1/13/2006 4:44:03 PM

lol, I'm not mad about it or anything, I was just saying it was redundant for me.

Quote :

"Yes, we have. What we haven't established here is: 1) How severe those mental disorders have to be 2) How you would ever in a million years make LSD legal, but just for people who are perfectly sane and "strong minded" and not prone to panic and so on and so forth."

Can you read? I'm really wondering. Can you? I never, EVER, not even once, suggested legalizing LSD. But to answer your question, any mental disorder would pose a risk IMO.

btw:

Quote :

"Yeah I'm not necessarily for it's full legality or anything, I was just arguing with his misconceptions."

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 4:45:52 PM

Quote :

"I AM GOING TO RESPOND IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHEN I WROTE IT IN NORMAL LETTERS. I SAID THAT HALLUCIGENS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO PEOPLE FOR FUCKING EVER. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT. THEY HAVE BEEN REFERENCED IN TEXTS AND STORIES FOR FUCKING EVER. BUT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ANYWHERE NEAR SO CULTURALLY IMPORTANT AS ALCOHOL. You're acting as though all cultures throughout history are of equal and great significance. They're not. Peyote-smoking indians are even fewer in number now than they were a thousand years ago, when they were already a very minor part of the global population. There are six or seven hundred million booze-guzzling caucasians running around today. There are two or three billion Asians, who have also been drinking sweet, sweet alcohol for some nine millennia."

Iiiii see, so you were talking about just whether or not it's culturally in our particular culture. Oh, I agree that's a possibility, but if that's what you were going on about, how the hell does it in any way make your point any more important?

That said, I'd take issue with your claim, since many greek and middle eastern mystery religions, the precursors of judaism and christianity, which formed the very ideas inherent in western culture, were founded upon psychedelic rituals. The religious and philosophical traditions that formed western culture were, in large part, formed from those religions.

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2006 5:55:19 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: The variation in drunks, while real, is not so wide. And it's generally predictable if you know anything about the person's state. A sad drunk will probably dwell, you're right. But if a sad guy takes LSD, you're telling me you have even the foggiest notion of what's going to happen to him?"

Yes. LSD trips are actually quite predictable when taken properly (the whole set & setting tack addresses this), even by sad individuals. The variation that people experience is one of interpretation, not of actual experience.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: LSD is clearly different in some important respect, because that's the thing people take nowadays."

1. Very few people are taking it nowadays, actually. Nixon's discriminatory War on Hippies and Reagan's War on (Some) Drugs, which grew from the former, has been pretty successful at choking off the supply of LSD.

2. The only difference is the recency of its discovery and the particular history of its popularization. The type of drug it is, its effects, and pretty much everything about it is pretty standard as far as hallucinogens go. The one difference that stands out in my mind is the duration of the experience which is about 3-4 hours longer than with similar, naturally occurring hallucinogens.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: That's why we won't get rid of it even if it is as dangerous as LSD, that's why a comparison between the two is of limited utility, and that's why I started this in the first place."

Nobody's arguing that we get rid of alcohol. We arguing that if the government won't deny us the freedom to drink alcohol, although it does regulate the sale and distribution of it, why shouldn't it do the same with LSD?

It's only of limited utility if you agree with flatly irrational, and wholly ethnocentric policy-making.

1/13/2006 7:02:01 PM

Quote :

"The one difference that stands out in my mind is the duration of the experience which is about 3-4 hours longer than with similar, naturally occurring hallucinogens."

And since mescaline lasts about the same amount of time or slightly longer than LSD, it's not even different in that regard.

1/13/2006 9:12:38 PM

I've read accounts of mescaline not completely subsiding until 48 hours after ingesting it

then again, it's a wholly different trip, from what I understand. Unfortunately, I've never found any. But, supposedly, you're able to remain more clear-headed than with other psychedelics. The visuals are powerful, but you can "turn it off" temporarily more easily than with other drugs.

1/13/2006 9:14:29 PM

Yeah, pretty much everything I've read about it has said something along those lines. I've also heard it's a bit energetic (At least mentally) and has a similar feel to mdma in some aspects. That's to be expected though as they're both phenethylamines.

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 11:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 11:22:47 PM

Quote :

"if that's what you were going on about, how the hell does it in any way make your point any more important? "

Because my point was basically that I think we might be better off were alcohol were illegal. MIGHT being the operative word. I mean, I'm drunk right now, so I'm obviously not about to join the Prohibition Party or anything.

The reason I brought up the comparison was to say that even if alcohol should be illegal, a possibility I'm considering, it would be almost impossible to accomplish as much any time soon.

As a result, analogies between the two drugs are limited in utility.

Quote :

"since many greek and middle eastern mystery religions, the precursors of judaism and christianity, which formed the very ideas inherent in western culture, were founded upon psychedelic rituals."

1) Evidence
2) Even if you're right, psychadelics being a major part of things six thousand years ago but not so much since is still not as important as alcohol being a major part of things for all of those six thousand years and then some.

Quote :

"The variation that people experience is one of interpretation, not of actual experience."

I don't much care why there's variation, but primarily that there is, and that said variation is relevant and important.

Quote :

"Very few people are taking it nowadays"

I know; I meant that more people are taking it than are currently taking LSA or whatever DirtyGreek said came before.

Quote :

"wholly ethnocentric policy-making."

What, so is LSD a black drug now, and I missed it? Or is it Jewish? Or do we now just use "ethno" for any group of any kind?

If marijuana were the subject, then I'd say, "Maybe."

Quote :

"Nobody's arguing that we get rid of alcohol."

Wrong. That's what I am doing, if only (perhaps) as a Devil's advocate.

Alcohol is a dangerous and destructive drug responsible for widespread addiction, many deaths, and health problems. As such, I think the case for its prohibition, while not airtight or even necessarily decent, doesn't get heard as much as maybe it should.

We had the sense to cut of LSD from the start. We didn't have the same wisdom with booze. Maybe that's a mistake, and maybe, if it was, it is now irrevocable.

Quote :

"why shouldn't it do the same with LSD?"

For one, I'm not nearly convinced that LSD is any less dangerous. Some of the sources getting put up are a little dubious in the relevant respects, and certain questions I've brought up repeatedly haven't been answered. Most importantly, "How do we decide who has the mental fortitude to take LSD?"

Surely, weak minded people are more susceptible to alcohol as well, but the consequences differ in what I feel are rather important ways.

1/14/2006 4:18:30 AM

im with you for the most part grumpy as i usually say "if alcohol is bad, why add more fuel to the fire." that and im not big on variation of effects, but thats a whole other story. i dont know enough to sit here and argue about sources or history.

i think what you are missing however (perhaps purposely for effect) is that quite a few of them are saying that you are right and thus it should only be legalized for health purposes or under strictly controlled use. personally i dont think that helps anyone all that much (as you said early about perfering drugs to pain), but they arent answering you b/c many agree.

1/14/2006 11:07:26 AM

i like the world i'm in way too much to want to escape from it.

1/14/2006 11:14:04 AM

All I can say to that is that psychedelics can push reality into your face so hard it's scary. It is NOT in any way shape or form an "escape" from anything. If you use it for that purpose you will probably get pwnt badly.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 11:21:52 AM

See, call me crazy, but I tend to think that anything that can't be experienced without powerful hallucinagens doesn't qualify as "reality."

1/14/2006 11:30:40 AM

Quote :

"1) Evidence"

obviously we can't have 100% evidence, as no one alive then is alive now, and no written records were kept of the mystery cults... since they were secretive. here's this:

Quote :

"Some scholars believe that the power of the Eleusinian Mysteries came from the kykeon's functioning as a psychedelic agent; this was argued most extensively in The Road to Eleusis, by R. Gordon Wasson, Albert Hoffman, and Carl A. P. Ruck. Barley may be parasitized by the fungus ergot, which contains LSA, a precursor to LSD. It is thus possible that the initiates, sensitized by their fast and prepared by preceding ceremonies, were propelled by the effects of a powerful psychoactive potion into revelatory mind states with profound spiritual and intellectual ramifications. This theory remains controversial, as modern preparations of kykeon using ergot-parasitized barley have yielded inconclusive results."

http://www.answers.com/topic/eleusinian-mysteries

Quote :

"2) Even if you're right, psychadelics being a major part of things six thousand years ago but not so much since is still not as important as alcohol being a major part of things for all of those six thousand years and then some."

If that's anything, it's a matter of personal opinion. If it's true that psychedelics helped form what became western religion, and alcohol was used more just for partying and as a representative sacrament but its effects didn't actually FORM religious theories as psychedelics did, your point is quite arguable. Of course, that's based on how much of either theory is true, and neither is 100% provable, unfortunately

I actually really like mckenna's theories, but i'm sure you'll scoff at them

Quote :

"Here's the scenario: You have this climax Edenic partnership society based on orgies and mushrooms and herding, and the drying continues. The mushroom becomes less plentiful. It becomes localized. It becomes seasonal. The mushroom festivals become further and further apart. Eventually this is recognized; there is an anxiety to preserve the mushroom. The obvious strategy then is to put it into honey. But honey itself has the capacity to turn into a psychoactive substance, mead, a crude alcohol. So what begins as a mushroom cult, through a sincere effort to preserve the mushroom cult, turns into a mead cult a few thousand years later. Because the mushrooms are spread thinner and thinner, and the honey is more and more the focus. But look at the consequences of an alcohol cult. Alcohol lowers sensitivity to social cueing while it increases a false sense of verbal facility. So, it sets the stage for boorish behavior. From that comes the suppression of women as part of this bronze-tipped spear/grain surplus/city-building kingship/standing armies/turf-defending mentality that we find in the so-called proto-civilizations."

http://deoxy.org/t_mondo2.htm

1/14/2006 11:32:00 AM

Quote :

"See, call me crazy, but I tend to think that anything that can't be experienced without powerful hallucinagens doesn't qualify as 'reality.'"

Huh?

I never said that reality (Which is what I was talking about) couldn't be experienced without hallucinogens.... Funny that you can't even spell that word and yet you think you're qualified to even have a discussion on the matter.

Anyway, I said that they certainly wont provide an escape route, and will only make whatever problem you have worse. That is just begging for a negative experience.

You need to accept the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote :

"2) Even if you're right, psychadelics being a major part of things six thousand years ago but not so much since is still not as important as alcohol being a major part of things for all of those six thousand years and then some."

psychedelics

If you were to experience mushrooms you would without a doubt realize that they have a lot more to do with religions than alcohol. Fortunately for you, you can disregard this statement because it isn't proof. All I can say is, until you actually understand what a psychedelic does, you shouldn't really comment on it.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 11:34:30 AM

Quote :

"I never said that reality couldn't be experienced without hallucinogens...."

And I never accused you saying that.

Read what I said again. The gist was, "Anything that is experienced only under the influenced of a hallucinagen is not reality."

Quote :

"I said that they certainly wont provide an escape route, and will only make whatever problem you have worse."

It might not help you escape something negative, but it does help you get away from what's really there.

DirtyGreek--

Mckenna seems to be suggesting that human civilization is all rooted in alcohol. How could it be more significant?

The first thing you posted doesn't seem to offer any evidence, but merely the possibility that hallucinagens were consumed, and says nothing of helping to form any religion.

I mean, a billion and a half people today think that the Blood of God is alcoholic. Demand for rum prompted much of the slave trade. Booze caused two US Constitutional Ammendments. And what you've got to counter that with is, "Well, maybe some people that are completely forgotten today ate some infected barley and saw some stuff."

1/14/2006 11:42:50 AM

Quote :

"It might not help you escape something negative, but it does help you get away from what's really there"

How the fuck do you know that? You don't understand what psychedelics do, and your assumptions are based on nothing. You are pulling this shit out of your ass.

Quote :

"And I never accused you saying that. Read what I said again. The gist was, "Anything that is experienced only under the influenced of a hallucinagen is not reality.""

Read what I said again. The gist was, "Psychedelics can push reality into your face so hard it's scary. It is NOT in any way shape or form an "escape" from anything. If you use it for that purpose you will probably get pwnt badly."

You will be hard pressed to find someone who has experienced psychedelics that would disagree with what I've just said.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 11:44:56 AM

perhaps im missing something here, but when did turbo become the authority on all psychology as it relates to hallucinogens. i mean, i get that you have read up on it, but i just dont think you are qualified to say why most ppl use them, what their affects on said ppl will be at any given point, and all the interwoven psychology within.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM. Reason : im not saying you cant argue here, im just saying you cant act like ur word is gospel]

1/14/2006 11:46:50 AM

I think you're just not seeing my point. I don't care why people use them, I'm telling you that to use them for that purpose will only happen a few times, because it will be absolute torture especially with a long lasting drug like lsd.

1/14/2006 11:49:46 AM

i know what you meant, im just asking how you know that the effects will be so terrible each time? they human mind is complex. there might be some documented cases or anecdotal evidence, but im sure there are other cases to the contrary. naw' mean.

1/14/2006 11:55:04 AM

I'm fully aware that everything varies and there is no way to say with 100% certainty that certain things will happen. But you can say with a high degree of certainty that a stressful event or recent emotional trauma will likely surface during a trip, especially a long one. If you are so stressed out/depressed/whatever that you feel the need to "escape reality" the last thing in the world you should do is eat a psychedelic.

Have you experienced psychedelics? (This isn't a nasty comment or anything, I'm just wondering what your background on the issue is)

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 12:00:11 PM

nope, which is why i havent chimed in too much. i do have plenty of druggy friends who i both have and havent hung out with while under the influence of most drugs out (sans maybe heroin).

id like to note, however, that the drug they seemed most calm and collected on was acid (though they think they got ripped off, cuz they found a copy of fantasia at my friends house and it wasnt doing it for them). i still wouldnt advocate its use.

if all we had to go on was personal experience though, weed should never be legalized.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 12:11 PM. Reason : i wont go into deep detail, but i just havent had overly positive reactions to it]

1/14/2006 12:04:45 PM

Hmm, I wasn't saying all we have to go on is personal experience. But, personal experience, along with sitting for people countless times, along with lots of research tends to lead one towards reasonable conclusions about the nature of something.

Why do you think marijuana shouldn't be legalized?

Btw, I have not been arguing that lsd should be legal. I don't understand why people keep thinking that's what I'm doing. I honestly don't think that it's something that most average people should ingest.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 12:14:34 PM

i understand you arent arguing for it. the reason you use is the reason i say it should be illegal and is why it should be considered dangerous.

the point about weed was that if we only go by what our friends or we experience id argue against marijuana legalization. ive seen quite a few ppl become mentally addicted and become more worthless than theyd have been otherwise. i got a "seratonin shock" or whatever the first time i smoked up, which isnt pleasant to say the least and a few other times it made my stomach feel quite bleh. just for clarification, not that it really matters.

1/14/2006 12:30:19 PM

I don't use lsd. On the weed subject, I've seen lots of people become mentally addicted to alcohol as well. IMO the people who were addicted to alcohol were the ones I wanted to get the hell away from. My thought on legalization is that I should be able to make the decision to control my use of something as weak as marijuana. It is nowhere near as addictive as cigarettes and not as intoxicating as alcohol. Users also don't suffer physical withdrawl from cessation of use.

I'm sorry for your negative experience, but other than discomfort it probably had no negative impact on you. If you drink too much the end result is much worse IMO.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 12:42:47 PM

i see you figured out the second part, so i dont have to answer that.

i do see the problems with alcohol and cigarettes too, like grumpy, but just dont want to add more hassle or issues.

cigarettes are insanely addictive (despite my personal experience), but the high is so non-existant that i think phasing it out slowly as we basically are doing is fine.

alcohol is just such a complex issue. the difference between drinking a little and drinking a lot is leagues apart. similarly, many people who are drinking arent going to become addicted physically (or even mentally, though you could argue this for marijuana as well...id just disagree personally). the high from responsible use is relatively low, which is the problem with stats on alcohol. sure it has an intense high if you get drunk as fuck, but there is a lot larger scale of "drunkeness" or so it would seem to me. those ppl who were mentally addicted to alcohol were probably the ones who wanted to get piss ass drunk all the time, not drink now and then. id agree you'd want to steer clear of them.

to me, marijuana appears to combine the two negatives. it has a much stronger high than cigs (perhaps somewhere in the middle of alcohol) and, in my opinion, has a higher mentally addictive nature for normal use (as opposed to excessive use or abuse). just my take.

1/14/2006 1:04:02 PM

There is a difference between smoking a little and smoking a lot.

I didn't "figure out the second part," I just thought you were referring to LSD, which I was saying I don't use. So first of all, I guess clarify whether you were referring to lsd or marijuana. Then let me know what you think the "reason I use" is.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2006 1:07:06 PM

Caveats:

1. Didn't read much of the thread
2. The following is not, of course, the only reason, but definitely plays a role


Intoxication/incapacitation by alcohol can be pretty easily measured and quantified via breathalyzer (and bloodwork).

LSD is not like that. That makes it more difficult to legislate a happy medium, and more practical, from a legal standpoint, to just outlaw it.

It's also a problem with marijuana. you can pop hot for THC, but not have been stoned for days or weeks (i think they are or have developed tests to actually test for current state of intoxication via marijuana, but i'm not really an expert on that kind of thing)

1/14/2006 1:17:04 PM

You're very right about the testing thing.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM. Reason : I would be happy with decriminalization even...]

1/14/2006 1:20:28 PM

the other big obstacle is politics.

only the most principled ideologue in the political world would fight for this, because (1) how many Congressmen really give a damn if they get to trip acid legally? I'm sure you could count them on one hand, and that's being generous. They aren't going to do something politically risky at BEST for an issue that they don't really give a damn about when they have no incentive in any way, shape, or form to take that gamble.

and (2) even besides that, not enough other politicians would take that chance to give it a snowball's chance in hell of passing, so why shoot yourself in the foot politically?

1/14/2006 1:49:18 PM

I'm not sure if you were just continuing your earlier post or commenting on my statement. For clarification though, I was talking about the decriminalization of marijuana.

1/14/2006 2:16:26 PM

"reason you use" not meaning reason you use lsd. "reason you use" meaning, why you dont think lsd should be necessarily legalized. sry for the poor wording (i agree it was a bad sentence).

1/14/2006 2:26:33 PM