UK Shroomers

[MentalFabric]

The UK government is trying to make magic mushrooms illegal!

http://www.petitiononline.com/DBPF/petition.html


Please email this link to everybody interested in magic mushrooms.


Here you'll find more about the new mushroom ban:


http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6054&PN=1&TPN=1

-John

[edesignuk]

Online petitions are so well known for causing governments to change their minds...http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/rollinglaugh.gif

[Blue Velvet]

Tried some Hawaiian ones I bought from Portobello Market... most disappointing.

[mactastic]

Those are still legal there???

(And BTW, it's not magic that makes those mushrooms work...) ;)

[MentalFabric]

Tried some Hawaiian ones I bought from Portobello Market... most disappointing.

The best mushrooms are found in camden - I'd start with Thai :-D of course, what they do is highly dependant upon your state of mind and surroundings - your mind is more present than the outside world :-)

[Blue Velvet]

Those are still legal there???

(And BTW, it's not magic that makes those mushrooms work...) ;)


UK law is full of loopholes on shrooms.

Apparently, it is only illegal to make a preparation...

Ahh, this (http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/mushrooms/legality.htm) explains it better.

When I purchased mine, I was unable to ask how best to take them or anything that related to dosage, effects, preparing them etc.

[MentalFabric]

Technically the psycobilin is illegal, but damp shrooms 'unprepared' for consumption are still legal.

I don't really mind what makes them work, they're incredible for self-speculation :-)

[Blue Velvet]

The best mushrooms are found in camden

Hmm... just up the road from work :)

[MentalFabric]

Hmm... just up the road from work :)

Some of the retailers in Camden actually sell stronger shrooms than you tend to get in Amsterdam, it's really a thriving market :-) I'd go for the none-pre-packaged varieties that look most blue ;-) blue = psycobilin

[Blue Velvet]

I'd go for the none-pre-packaged varieties that look most blue

Sorry. Could you please clarify that sentence? The non-pre-packaged bit...
Every time I reread it, it means something different...

[MentalFabric]

heh, sorry about that, i mean ones that aren't already packed on display in certain sized containers, the best places will allow you to choose a size, package it for you then show you how much it weighs :-)

[Applespider]

Although I'm sure I read something recently where the police had found another loophole to mean that you couldn't cultivate them unless you'd just happened across them.

Selling 'shroom kits was OK since they weren't prepared and just a 'pretty' cultivation.... but now it seems it's not. And the new Drugs Bill might make fresh one illegal too

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_Mushrooms.htm

Interestingly, if you sell fresh mushrooms, you are required to declare them for the purposes of VAT at 17.5% since they're classed as a drug and not a food?!?

[MentalFabric]

You can still buy shroom kits, i'm thinking of getting a few before they decide whether or not to crack down :-)

I think they really need to wonder whether it's worth the extra policing. thousands of people have discovered mushrooms recently, and it doesn't look like anything bad is happening as a result. I wonder when they'll investigate why they want to make it illegal :p

[aloofman]

I think it's funny that druggies only become motivated by efforts to deprive them of the substances that they use to become unmotivated. :D

[russed]

I think it's funny that druggies only become motivated by efforts to deprive them of the substances that they use to become unmotivated. :D

hehe, clever! :)

[MentalFabric]

I think it's funny that druggies only become motivated by efforts to deprive them of the substances that they use to become unmotivated. :D

I practise kung fu, play guitar/sing/produce music, design clothes and follow many fascinations. I wouldn't call myself unmotivated, but i would call myself a druggy ^.^ :-P

[edesignuk]

but i would call myself a druggy ^.^ :-P
How cool are you :rolleyes:

[MentalFabric]

How cool are you :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm not the one attacking peoples beliefs here.

[edesignuk]

Hey, I'm not the one attacking peoples beliefs here.
I'm not attacking your beliefs. Saying that "but i would call myself a druggy" is not something that in my opinion is particularly clever is all.

[MentalFabric]

I'm not attacking your beliefs. Saying that "but i would call myself a druggy" is not something that in my opinion is particularly clever is all.

the "^.^ :-P" was supposed to signal mild humour, but IMO people are most healthy taking drugs say every other weekend, personal opinion. Even if you don't think being a 'druggy' is clever, do you support the human being's right to take drugs if we feel like it as long as we're no harm to anyone else?
I'm pretty sure no-one illegalising them knows how to use them :-)

[edesignuk]

the "^.^ :-P" was supposed to signal mild humour, but IMO people are most healthy taking drugs say every other weekend, personal opinion. Even if you don't think being a 'druggy' is clever, do you support the human being's right to take drugs if we feel like it as long as we're no harm to anyone else?
I'm pretty sure no-one illegalising them knows how to use them :-)
I couldn't care less what you, or anyone else takes, so long as it doesn't effect anyone else...but sadly, that probably isn't the case 99% of the time :rolleyes:

Anyway, we're getting a bit serious here, we're only talking magic mushrooms anyway :)

[russed]

the "^.^ :-P" was supposed to signal mild humour, but IMO people are most healthy taking drugs say every other weekend, personal opinion. Even if you don't think being a 'druggy' is clever, do you support the human being's right to take drugs if we feel like it as long as we're no harm to anyone else?
I'm pretty sure no-one illegalising them knows how to use them :-)

personally i would say it is most healthy not to take them at all, but hey thats a different matter!

[MentalFabric]

personally i would say it is most healthy not to take them at all, but hey thats a different matter!

The natural drugs (shrooms, peyote, weed etc.) are a lot more healthy than dirty chemicals people take in clubs - in most parts of the world hallucinogens used to be used when you 'come of age' as a spiritual, inward journey. I think it's a shame that we've lost that part of our culture.

[Blue Velvet]

...in most parts of the world hallucinogens used to be used when you 'come of age' as a spiritual, inward journey. I think it's a shame that we've lost that part of our culture.

It's been replaced by a plastic bottle of White Lightning (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3650248.stm) in the bus-stop with your mates...

[MentalFabric]

It's been replaced by a plastic bottle of White Lightning in the bus-stop with your mates...

White Lightning being a health drink?

Personally, I chose to just go with the spiritual inward journey :D

[pseudobrit]

psycobilin

psycobilin

Are you perchance trying to tell us about psilocybin (that's p-s-i-l-o-c-y-b-i-n) and not this "psycobilin" stuff that I've never heard of despite my thorough knowledge (but not use) of recreational drugs?

I guess you were thinking you were an authority on the subject.

none-pre-packaged varieties that look most blue

people are most healthy taking drugs say every other weekend

it doesn't look like anything bad is happening as a result

You give drugs a bad name.

[OutThere]

White Lightning being a health drink?

Personally, I chose to just go with the spiritual inward journey :D

I guess some might call it a health drink....

[pseudobrit]

spiritual inward journey

Sure you didn't mean spinal injury?

[MentalFabric]

Are you perchance trying to tell us about psilocybin (that's p-s-i-l-o-c-y-b-i-n) and not this "psycobilin" stuff that I've never heard of despite my thorough knowledge (but not use) of recreational drugs?

I guess you were thinking you were an authority on the subject.

You give drugs a bad name.

I never claimed to be an authority, I was just passing on news and trying to help people out. Just because I mispelled the active ingredient of mushrooms…
There's no need to become verbally aggressive. Give me a break.

[MentalFabric]

Sure you didn't mean spinal injury?

uh, no, i'm pretty sure my spine's fine.

[MentalFabric]

…
Just realised your sig talks about being non-judgemental. Hipocrasy?

[themadchemist]

Torsten Passie A1, Juergen Seifert A1, Udo Schneider A1, Hinderk M. Emrich A1


A1*Department of Clinical Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany



Abstract:


Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine) is the major psychoactive alkaloid of some species of mushrooms distributed worldwide.These mushrooms represent a growing problem regarding hallucinogenic drug abuse. Despite its experimental medical use in the 1960s, only very few pharmacological data about psilocybin were known until recently. Because of its still growing capacity for abuse and the widely dispersed data this review presents all the available pharmacological data about psilocybin.


There is a broad set of literature that suggests magic mushrooms aren't just for funsies. My guess is that the same mechanism that provides your spiritual journey also likely promotes chemical dependence.

They might not be heroin--but don't kid yourself, 'shrooms are bad for you. This isn't a question of "beliefs" or being "judgmental." It's just sort of fact.

[MentalFabric]

There is a broad set of literature that suggests magic mushrooms aren't just for funsies. My guess is that the same mechanism that provides your spiritual journey also likely promotes chemical dependence.

They might not be heroin--but don't kid yourself, 'shrooms are bad for you. This isn't a question of "beliefs" or being "judgmental." It's just sort of fact.

After I take mushrooms I generally don't want to take them again for at least a month, it just lets you know some how when is right :-) I don't believe them to be nearly as bad for the human body as alcohol, though i'm sure they're at least slightly bad for you, everything is :P That doesn't mean it should be illegal though. Particularly as it hasn't even been researched properly yet.

[pseudobrit]

I never claimed to be an authority, I was just passing on news and trying to help people out.

You were encouraging people to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs by acting as if you knew what you were talking about.

Since you didn't even know the name of the drug you were talking about, I'd say that's more than a little irresponsible.

Just because I mispelled the active ingredient of mushrooms…

That wasn't a misspelling; it was a word that doesn't exist.

Just realised your sig talks about being non-judgemental. Hipocrasy?

Yeah, it was another forum member accusing me of being judgmental. Guess he was right afterall. No hypocrisy or "hipocrasy" (now that was a misspelling) involved at all.

[MentalFabric]

You were encouraging people to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs by acting as if you knew what you were talking about.

Since you didn't even know the name of the drug you were talking about, I'd say that's more than a little irresponsible.
Does it's scientific name really mattter? it it really greater knowledge of the effects of shrooms than having taken them? Am I the only one who sees the misjudgement here?


That wasn't a misspelling; it was a word that doesn't exist.

Well look at that, I birthed a word.


Yeah, it was another forum member accusing me of being judgmental. Guess he was right afterall. No hypocrisy or "hipocrasy" (now that was a misspelling) involved at all.
OK. Then I'll worry even less about whether I'm right here.

[pseudobrit]

Does it's scientific name really mattter? it it really greater knowledge of the effects of shrooms than having taken them? Am I the only one who sees the misjudgement here?

I've taken propoxyphene before (prescription); it was good stuff. I suggest you go, find some on the street and try it.

(oh, yeah, but I'm not a doctor and it could have potentially deadly side effects, but just ignore that 'cause I've taken it before and I know the effects it will have will be harmless on everyone who reads the message board and takes my advice) :rolleyes:

[MentalFabric]

I've taken propoxyphene before (prescription); it was good stuff. I suggest you go, find some on the street and try it.

(oh, yeah, but I'm not a doctor and it could have potentially deadly side effects, but just ignore that 'cause I've taken it before and I know the effects it will have will be harmless on everyone who reads the message board and takes my advice) :rolleyes:

Thanks for highlighting the point that anyone who trusts a random person must be a moron - however this is slightly different. mushrooms, truffles and various other hallucinogens have been used around the globe for thousands of years - and thousands of people have been safely discovering them at the moment. I'm not saying I know all so trust me and go out and do it but at least research what the people who do it say so you can get an idea what happens and pass fair judgement on whether you deem it worthy.

Do you drink, by the way?

[blackfox]

On a lighter note:

Do (magic) mushrooms grow around the UK? (ie can you go pick them?) Here in the NW US, they are everywhere and if one was to buy them, they are pretty cheap (around $10-15 for 3-4g). Pretty stiff penalties if you are caught with a large amount, however...

On a serious note:

I have taken mushrooms (and some other psychotropic drugs) and found them to be pretty enjoyable and in some cases, very useful. I haven't taken them in years, however, and mushrooms are the only ones I would consider.

That said, they are potentially a very dangerous drug and should be treated with intelligence and respect. Due to people's unique body-chemistry and psychological make-up, the effects of mushrooms can vary considerably, effecting dosage requirements and well-being. They should always be taken with a group of people who have experience and in conservative portions. This is not something you want to try and impress your friends with or feel one-of-the-crowd by taking more than you should. Anyone advocating this, directly or indirectly, is an fool and an a**hole.

While I do not pretend to understand the mechanisms behind the interaction of mushrooms (or similar) with the human body, the sensory overload accompanying these drugs can seriously damage coping mechanisms and in rare cases, the very edifice of one's self. Certain personality types seem incompatible psychologically with these drugs and this can cause emotional problems. As mentioned before, there are also physical changes accompanying usage, though the degree and type vary considerably. Always be wary when messing with complex higher nervous-system function.

oh, Mental Fabric, I believe that Pseudobrit's comment about spinal injury has to do with the accumulation of residue from these drugs in your spinal fluid, which while vaguely ominous to me, is something I cannot comment on in terms of effects on one's health.

Choose wisely.

[MentalFabric]

On a lighter note:

Do (magic) mushrooms grow around the UK? (ie can you go pick them?) Here in the NW US, they are everywhere and if one was to buy them, they are pretty cheap (around $10-15 for 3-4g). Pretty stiff penalties if you are caught with a large amount, however...
We mainly get liberty caps, I even have them in my garden, the problem being you'd have to eat dozens of them to trip, aparently, and they're not the tastiest things in the world so i stick to store-bought, which are a lot stronger and generally cost aobut 50p/25cents a gram if buying in small quantities,


On a serious note:

I have taken mushrooms (and some other psychotropic drugs) and found them to be pretty enjoyable and in some cases, very useful. I haven't taken them in years, however, and mushrooms are the only ones I would consider. I really think you only need to take shrooms for a period of your life, after that you just somehow know you don't need to any more. I'm just at that stage, i think.


That said, they are potentially a very dangerous drug and should be treated with intelligence and respect. Due to people's unique body-chemistry and psychological make-up, the effects of mushrooms can vary considerably, effecting dosage requirements and well-being. They should always be taken with a group of people who have experience and in conservative portions. This is not something you want to try and impress your friends with or feel one-of-the-crowd by taking more than you should. Anyone advocating this, directly or indirectly, is an fool and an a**hole.
I completely agree. I'd say you should ideally be with only one person who you know you trust completely... though that could just be what works for me.


While I do not pretend to understand the mechanisms behind the interaction of mushrooms (or similar) with the human body, the sensory overload accompanying these drugs can seriously damage coping mechanisms and in rare cases, the very edifice of one's self. Certain personality types seem incompatible psychologically with these drugs and this can cause emotional problems. As mentioned before, there are also physical changes accompanying usage, though the degree and type vary considerably. Always be wary when messing with complex higher nervous-system function.

oh, Mental Fabric, I believe that Pseudobrit's comment about spinal injury has to do with the accumulation of residue from these drugs in your spinal fluid, which while vaguely ominous to me, is something I cannot comment on in terms of effects on one's health.

Choose wisely.

Despite any health risks, I wouldn't have not taken mushrooms. Sure I may die younger, but each trip is like a lifetime. And since taking mushrooms I've discovered Zen and started eliminating want from my life.
Of course, the effects vary highly....

[BakedBeans]

what an interesting thread - stupid and pointless, yes but also interesting

the main point of argument is that they are less "harmful" than cigs and booze, hmmm

cutting your fingers off is less harmful than cutting your head off.

several hallucinogenic varieties have been shown to be toxic to humans in medium to large doses. now, im not sure about you - but toxic to me indicated harmful

Psilocin is a close chemical relative of LSD - although milder and you are "less likely to get a bad trip"

my friend had a bad trip - now he is dead - but yeah
being a druggy is cool :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

[stuff said more eloquently and politely than I had patience to do]

Excellent post.

Anyone who universally advocates and endorses a recreadtional psychoactive drug that they do not even know the name of will get nothing but contempt from me.

BTW,

"spiritual inward journey" jumped out at me as an (non-literal) anagram for "spinal injury" and just so happened to dovetail with said spinal fluid contamination.

Can you say flashback?

[pseudobrit]

Do you drink, by the way?

On occasion. Seldom to excess.

[blackfox]

We mainly get liberty caps, I even have them in my garden, the problem being you'd have to eat dozens of them to trip, aparently, and they're not the tastiest things in the world so i stick to store-bought, which are a lot stronger and generally cost aobut 50p/25cents a gram if buying in small quantities,
Thanks for satiating my curiosity.




Despite any health risks, I wouldn't have not taken mushrooms. Sure I may die younger, but each trip is like a lifetime. And since taking mushrooms I've discovered Zen and started eliminating want from my life.
Of course, the effects vary highly....
<sarcasm> and it has obviously done wonders for your grasp of English sentence-structure (ie double-negative)<sarcasm>
I am glad you have enjoyed yourself. I felt the need to post because the decision to take mind-altering substances is one with potentially serious repercussions (on many levels) and should not be approached flippantly. As with all important decisions (and even some not), I prefer to make them as informed as possible.

[Peterkro]

We mainly get liberty caps, I even have them in my garden, the problem being you'd have to eat dozens of them to trip, aparently, and they're not the tastiest things in the world so i stick to store-bought, which are a lot stronger and generally cost aobut 50p/25cents a gram if buying in small quantities,

I wouldn't suggest eating dozens of them, it probably wouldn't kill you but it also wouldn't be nice. Stick to less than 30(apparently)

[MentalFabric]

the main point of argument is that they are less "harmful" than cigs and booze, hmmm

my friend had a bad trip - now he is dead - but yeah
being a druggy is cool :rolleyes:

IMO the main point of the argument is that we should have the freedom to do things which are damaging to ourselves should we choose to.

I'm sorry about your friend, but just because one person dies doing something doesn't mean it'll kill everyone. The reason I compare to alcohol is because most people don't think that should be illegal.

[MentalFabric]

Thanks for satiating my curiosity.

<sarcasm> and it has obviously done wonders for your grasp of English sentence-structure (ie double-negative)<sarcasm>
I am glad you have enjoyed yourself. I felt the need to post because the decision to take mind-altering substances is one with potentially serious repercussions (on many levels) and should not be approached flippantly. As with all important decisions (and even some not), I prefer to make them as informed as possible.

why shouldn't i use a double negative? ;-) I agree with you, that mushrooms are a serious thing to do… not so much because of the physical side effects but because those who aren't completely truthful to themselves can get quite a shock 'pon taking shrooms. A bad trip is pretty awful (i've only had one - a huge spider jumped on my face while i was lying down. Yes, I looked at the thing when i wasn't tripping to check… biggest spider i've seen outside of captivity!), but a lot of people get it the other way round. It's all about what's in your mind.

[MentalFabric]

Excellent post.

Anyone who universally advocates and endorses a recreadtional psychoactive drug that they do not even know the name of will get nothing but contempt from me.

when did i universally advocate and endorse a "recreadtional" drug? i was letting people know they're trying to make it illegal and answering people's questions to the best of my knowledge. We can prove nothing in this world, so why breed contempt?


BTW,

"spiritual inward journey" jumped out at me as an (non-literal) anagram for "spinal injury" and just so happened to dovetail with said spinal fluid contamination.

Can you say flashback?
very nice.

[pseudobrit]

The reason I compare to alcohol is because most people don't think that should be illegal.

Alcohol can be enjoyed without experiencing intoxication.

Psilocybin cannot.

[MentalFabric]

Alcohol can be enjoyed without experiencing intoxication.

Psilocybin cannot.

I beg to differ. It's possible to take small amounts of mushrooms and only slightly change your perception. Same as alcohol.

[pseudobrit]

I beg to differ. It's possible to take small amounts of mushrooms and only slightly change your perception. Same as alcohol.

Alcohol can be enjoyed with no intoxication whatsoever (wine with dinner, for instance), whereas the only purpose for consuming psilocybin is to experience an altered mood and/or hallucinate.

[skunk]

Alcohol can be enjoyed with no intoxication whatsoever (wine with dinner, for instance), whereas the only purpose for consuming psilocybin is to experience an altered mood and/or hallucinate.
Aren't you being a little disingenuous here, PB? Isn't it the same for all psychotropic intoxicants, alcohol included?

[pseudobrit]

Aren't you being a little disingenuous here, PB? Isn't it the same for all psychotropic intoxicants, alcohol included?

I can enjoy a cold beer (1) without any intoxicating effects at all. Can one enjoy hallucinogenic mushrooms in a similar fashion?

[Royal Pineapple]

a cold beer and a glass of wine can be enjoyed without intoxication only because they taste good. hallucinogenic mushrooms don't taste good, and as such the only way to "enjoy" them is through their intoxicating effects. however if one were to actually like the flavor im sure it could be enjoyed without the intoxication.

i no more an expert on the subject than anyone else in here, however i have heard that the amount of liver damage you sustain from a normal mushroom trip is comparable to a of heavy drinking. it is food poisoning after all.

on a side note, mushroom trips arent actually that comfortable. in fact it is one of the least comfortable things you can do, you can tell that you are sick. but they are quite enjoyable and if done correctly (group, safe place, etc.) can be life changing experiences.

[MentalFabric]

a cold beer and a glass of wine can be enjoyed without intoxication only because they taste good. hallucinogenic mushrooms don't taste good, and as such the only way to "enjoy" them is through their intoxicating effects. however if one were to actually like the flavor im sure it could be enjoyed without the intoxication.
I always thought alcohol was a taste that had to be aquired, but I'll trust you on this one as I don't seem to be in the majority on this one ;-)

i no more an expert on the subject than anyone else in here, however i have heard that the amount of liver damage you sustain from a normal mushroom trip is comparable to a of heavy drinking. it is food poisoning after all.
where did you hear that?

on a side note, mushroom trips arent actually that comfortable. in fact it is one of the least comfortable things you can do, you can tell that you are sick. but they are quite enjoyable and if done correctly (group, safe place, etc.) can be life changing experiences.
Usually when tripping i don't notice my body, so I wouldn't call it uncomfortable… I know peyote can be though, what kind of shrooms are you talking about?

[BakedBeans]

where did you hear that?


try searching google for it, it will be in the first page you come across,

as for bad trips, you say just because it happened to one person it doesnt mean its unsafe for others, well - wrong it means it is unsafe - not harmless like you claim.

tobacco should <B> definitely </B> be banned, its gives you cancer - and makes you STINK.
alcohol should be monitored - it kills your brain cells and makes you smack people in the face or fall under a bus ( ;) )
shrooms, just as bad really - risk of bad trips and they are toxic

as for actually banning things, not gonna happen with tobacco or booze
its more a money thing with tobacco

[MentalFabric]

tobacco should <B> definitely </B> be banned, its gives you cancer - and makes you STINK.
alcohol should be monitored - it kills your brain cells and makes you smack people in the face or fall under a bus ( ;) )
shrooms, just as bad really - risk of bad trips and they are toxic

I am SO tired of people who think that I shouldn't be allowed to hurt myself (e.g. smoke and get cancer) if it's my own preference.

[apple2991]

tobacco should <B> definitely </B> be banned, its gives you cancer - and makes you STINK.
alcohol should be monitored - it kills your brain cells and makes you smack people in the face or fall under a bus ( ;) )
shrooms, just as bad really - risk of bad trips and they are toxic


AL-Famous should definitely be banned--he gives me high blood pressure, which makes me sweat, which means I STINK. Oh, wait. Or, it could be my choice whether or not I read what you say, thus giving me unhealthy side-effects...you know, kind of like the CHOICE to smoke or not.

And monitoring alcohol? Are you kidding? How do you propose that would work?

Oh, and I like the smell of cigarettes. So, define "Stink". I think the guy sitting next to me on this flight who smells like the only bath he has taken in the past 15 years was in a tub full of dead fish "stinks" a lot worse than the residual smell of a couple cigarettes, but hey, it's fun being arbitrary.

[brap]

AL-Famous should definitely be banned--he gives me high blood pressure, which makes me sweat, which means I STINK. Oh, wait. Or, it could be my choice whether or not I read what you say, thus giving me unhealthy side-effects...you know, kind of like the CHOICE to smoke or not.
...
Oh, and I like the smell of cigarettes. So, define "Stink". I think the guy sitting next to me on this flight who smells like the only bath he has taken in the past 15 years was in a tub full of dead fish "stinks" a lot worse than the residual smell of a couple cigarettes, but hey, it's fun being arbitrary.
I could cope with the smell if it didn't give me cancer, too.
I am SO tired of people who think that I shouldn't be allowed to hurt myself (e.g. smoke and get cancer) if it's my own preference.Yeah, see above.

[MentalFabric]

I could cope with the smell if it didn't give me cancer, too.

Unless you're constantly in a room full of smokers i highly doubt you're gonna get cancer from secondary smoke, the exhaust that the London buses pour out is much worse for your health.

[BakedBeans]

AL-Famous should definitely be banned--he gives me high blood pressure, which makes me sweat, which means I STINK. Oh, wait. Or, it could be my choice whether or not I read what you say, thus giving me unhealthy side-effects...you know, kind of like the CHOICE to smoke or not.

do my words harm your eyes?
because other smoking hurts my lungs it gives my son asthma.
if my choice was to kill you, then your family then myself is that ok? no matter how slowly i do it

And monitoring alcohol? Are you kidding?

no im not kidding, what if your mum or dad got drunk and beat you every night? with a belt or a stick - beat you so hard that you would never forget it?
what if your best mate got punched so hard by a drunk yob that his brain bled so fast he couldnt be saved, would you say the same at his funeral?
what if a drink driver killed your child?

but no - that is being serious. maybe skirting over real issues makes you think its ok.


as for the smell/stink you might think it smells nice and the stench of your breath smells nice, but i bet that guy sitting next to you on the plane though "what a disgusting guy, i know ive got hygiene issues but this guy is unreal"

Unless you're constantly in a room full of smokers i highly doubt you're gonna get cancer from secondary smoke, the exhaust that the London buses pour out is much worse for your health.

you doubt it will?

huh. yeah - mentalfabric... sounds about perfect

[EGT]

I was thinking about posting something like this a while ago but I thought it was best not to because a lot of people would be for the bill to make magic mushrooms illegal. I find it all very interesting. I haven’t read all the replies so …

Now its time for EGT to step in … its going to get serious, D’oh!

First let me start of by saying that magic mushrooms’ causing liver damage is simply not true! It is a very common misconception. It’s true that some variants will cause CONSIDERABLE liver damage similar to that of a heavy drinker but not mushrooms that contain psilocybin. The other mushys contain toxins called amatoxins ... not good for you at all. There are hundreds of mushroom horror stories, probably a lot to do with "bad trips" and then those to do with myths and rumours from the street (I remember hearing a funny one about magic mushrooms supposedly gave you holes in your brain, LOL but it was thought that because shrooms are similar to acid – acid being a corrosive chemical = holes)

And Please don’t start comparing acid to mushrooms: Acid is man made, mushrooms are naturally grown fungi found world wide in a huge diversity. As it stands, acid= Illegal, mushrooms= not illegal but we’re fighting to keep it that way aren’t we?)

So anyway, if you've heard of someone having liver problems due to magic mushrooms it is most likely a case of misidentification. Some mushrooms look *very* similar but they contain different substances.
Liver toxicity is indeed a possibility with the Amanita sp (The big red and white ones like from Alice in wonderland) but these are not very commonly used in the traditional magic mushroom sense, but they do grow naturally across a lot of the UK as do other magic mushrooms! A lot are native to the United Kingdom!

I’m stunned about the news of this “mushroom bill” in fact, it’s a little bit sickening. I remember reading a bit about it on the Internet a few weeks ago but I haven’t had time to read the full story. I think a police officer came across a large amount of mushrooms stored in a shop somewhere in the UK and this eventually lead to a court case which has obviously gone to the highest ranks because, of course, magic mushrooms are illegal if they have been “prepared” In anyway, like drying them out or even chopping them up but not if they are fresh. We store vegetables in our fridges to keep them fresh, why not magic mushrooms?

Should the government go and ban them? I can see why a lot of shallow-minded people would think so, but I think proper research should be done before banning them out right (it SOOO isn’t going to happen and online petitions really aren’t the way either)
If they did research and found something that would be serious to peoples health, then by all means, first in line to pass a bill to make them totally illegal. But when you seriously think about it and, I’m going to upset a lot of grumpy people by saying this, but things like alcohol and tobacco are worse because they so obviously are!

Smoking Tobacco –People know the risk of cancer, heart disease, whatever. It is all over the place now. Non-smoking pubs in Southern Ireland, non-smoking pubs in Scotland in the years to come. I wonder how much money the British government waste each year on treating cancer patients as a result of smoking, heart surgery etc? They pump all this money into the nations health service but then its all blown away treating people who are ill as a result of smoking. In years to come, the number of people who smoke is going to decrease.

People who drink too much – all the problems associated with that, god I’m not even going to list them, THEY KNOW! YOU KNOW. It’s as clear as daylight! Alcohol consumption is regulated to a certain degree A bit of alcohol every now and then isn’t going to do you any harm and I don’t see how magic mushrooms should be any different. In fact a bit of red wine every once and a while is scientifically proven to be good for your heart … maybe there is something about magic mushrooms that is of a benefit to us that hasn’t been scientifically proven yet? (Beside the fantastic visuals :P) Treatment for rare illnesses … Like the periwinkle has been shown to help treat childhood leukaemia and other things.

How much money does the government waste as a result of people taking magic mushrooms? When have you ever heard things like that on the news? Are they really affecting people’s health? Is it costing other people money? Are the sales of magic mushrooms having negative affects on people like other drugs? Most certainly not!! They aren’t linked to terrorism like Marijuana and cocaine are (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, search) Maybe in years to come, we will find that mushrooms have some devastating impacts on us, but as it stands, they don’t.

The tax that the government receives as a results of people importing magic mushrooms form the Netherlands and wherever else is bound to be a good thing, but obviously, its not substantial enough for the government to be concerned. Its not like cigarettes or booze, from which the government makes tons of money from every year. It’s not substantial because they aren’t widely used! If they cause our health to get bad at least its only a small majority of the population and I prefer to go private anyways :P (only joking)

The use of Mms is on the increase however, and I think the government is a bit scared of what might happen if they are used a lot more. They don’t want them to turn out like cigarettes now do they?!!!

They are certainly not a good social drug. Any time I’m tripping, its either with some good friends or on my own. I very nearly went out to a party one night, but the build up was terrifying and I came to my senses and decided not to go. It was lucky I didn’t. Its very scary being somewhere you’re not used to when on mms. You may appear to be lost and sometimes look a bit insane but hey, I look like that anyway. When you’re at home listening to some music with something nice to watch on TV or something its just perfect. Walking in the woods, visiting the park, going to the beach. All perfect.

Shroomers know this. It’s important to them. The place and timing has to be right, other wise the trip goes tits up.
I mean? Come on! How is this in anyway dangerous to other people? The government would love it if alcohol were like that and yet, in an attempt to reduce binge drinking, in November, bars and pubs in England and Wales will be able to apply for a licence to stay open 24 hours – in order to REDUCE binge drinking? REDUCE IT!? The mind boggles! It really does!!!!!!


Mushrooms do not taste nice, in fact, it’s like chewing on an old mouldy sock. A lot of people are put off straight away because of the taste. They are horrible; there is no denying it and I think this is what separates us shroomers from other people straight away. If you have the will power to eat them then you get the trippy visuals etc as a reward! :P …AND … Mushrooms are neither physically addicting nor likely to cause psychological dependence. Many people actually find that their desire to use mushrooms goes down for a period of time after use. I’ve defiantly found this to be the case.

Studies have shown that over years of occasional use, the user notices no apparent change in physical or mental condition that would be considered detrimental. In fact, many users state the opposite. To put it bluntly, there are no long-term effects.

There is one documented case of a man who consumed large amounts of a certain mushroom and died afterwards. He took far too much and had probably prepared them in tablet form. It’s like anything else really. Drink too much, fall down and hurt yourself. Eat too many MacDonald’s, your going to get fat! Its just common sense! f

The experts who investigated the case are still not united as to whether it was because of the mushrooms or some other reason BUT it did make people stand up and say “hey, we really better investigate this”. And that’s what they did with Mice, rabbits and various other farmyard animals who probably had the time of their lives before being slaughtered to be made into beef burgers.(Im not a vegetarian btw)

Anyway, after injecting particular dosages intravenously to the animals, they concluded that to reach the same concentrations orally, without puking your guts up, would take an extremely long time and an Iron stomach! … Which links me nicely to my next point.

There is a period of tolerance after mushroom use. Using mushrooms two days in a row will lead to a diminished experience the second day. Even if you tried, you’d probably have a very hard time reaching the amounts that that idiot took.

(Research:

"Psilocybin affects core dimensions of altered states of consciousness and physiological parameters in a dose-dependent manner. Our study provided no cause for concern that Psilocybin is hazardous with respect to somatic health" - Acute psychological and physiological effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: a double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-effect study; Hasler F , Grimberg U, Benz MA, Huber T, Vollenweider.

"This drug is not associated with physical or psychological dependency, acute toxicity is largely limited to possible panic and anxiety attacks and, in terms of chronic toxicity, the worst that can happen are flashbacks. Consequently, the use of paddos (hallucinogenic mushrooms) does not, on balance, present any risk to the health of the individual" - Risk Assessment by CAM (Coordination Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of New Drugs), 2000)”

(to be continued)

[EGT]

...

I'm very sad that this bill has been disputed about and I’m almost certain that they will be banned which is why I’m making the most of a bad situation while I still can (just got some Yangoons, Hawaiians and English Mexicans today :D Its been about 6 months since my last trip so its time to go back to mushie land)

They’ve been used culturally for centuries with a high degree of safety and I think mushrooms should be respected by those who use them. Of the people I know that do use them, this is certainly the case. I think it pretty much the same for those who use them world wide.

Thanks for your time.

*apologises for the awful spelling and grammar.

[Royal Pineapple]

umm, wow
im going to use that new knowledge thank you

[MentalFabric]

...

Thank you! I'm glad to see that there are a few other shroomers here who know what I'm talking about :-)
Though, I think we're probably doomed to lose this debate, as as shroom people we realise we could be completely wrong and that logic is not flawless, making us less willing to claim anything as true :-)

peace :)

[MentalFabric]

do my words harm your eyes?
because other smoking hurts my lungs it gives my son asthma.
if my choice was to kill you, then your family then myself is that ok? no matter how slowly i do it
Yes, your words hurt my eyes as they make me want to gauge them out. Outdoors, in a city (the only place you'd have enough smokers around to supposedly cause you a problem) the air contains much worse fumes coming out of cars, factories, general waste. Cigarettes are the last thing you should be worrying about IMO

no im not kidding, what if your mum or dad got drunk and beat you every night? with a belt or a stick - beat you so hard that you would never forget it?
Then my mum or dad would have serious psycological problems that would mostly likely have been the cause of the alcohol, not vice versa.

what if your best mate got punched so hard by a drunk yob that his brain bled so fast he couldnt be saved, would you say the same at his funeral?
I wouldn't blame it on alcohol I'd blame it on people who use alcohol irresponsibly.

what if a drink driver killed your child?

ditto


you doubt it will?

huh. yeah - mentalfabric... sounds about perfect
you can't prove anything in this world, I'm not gonna say I know it won't happen, but if you're the kind of person who's more likely to get cancer (some of us are more susceptible than others) You'll suffer more from other pollutants in the air than a tiny amount of secondary smoke when you walk past smokers.

[pseudobrit]

when did i universally advocate and endorse a "recreadtional" drug?

For the record, here:

thousands of people have discovered mushrooms recently, and it doesn't look like anything bad is happening as a result.

IMO people are most healthy taking drugs say every other weekend

The natural drugs (shrooms, peyote, weed etc.) are a lot more healthy

in most parts of the world hallucinogens used to be used

hallucinogens have been used around the globe for thousands of years - and thousands of people have been safely discovering them at the moment

I really think you only need to take shrooms for a period of your life

I highlighted the parts I really take issue with. You most certainly did universally endorse mushrooms.

Also for the record, I'm anti-prohibition.

[BakedBeans]

i cant be bothered with the argument anymore because at the end of the day you can sit there finding your spiritual plane (chemicals reacting) and im here happy to be in the realm of the sensible,

good luck with your drug taking, when you have a really bad experience feel free to come back and thank me for my attempts to make you see the truth


i could go into how wrong you are to say parents have mental instabilities (or however you put it) and prove how wrong you are - but i really don't have the time to waste or the inclination

[MentalFabric]

For the record, here: ...

Note the IMO in front of the paragraph, stating that that was only my opinion. I didn't state it as fact.

[MentalFabric]

i could go into how wrong you are to say parents have mental instabilities (or however you put it) and prove how wrong you are - but i really don't have the time to waste or the inclination

Neither of us can prove anything, can't we just agree to disagree? I don't mind if people have different opinions, and there's no need for any hostility to lie between us :-)

peace

[themadchemist]

Thank you! I'm glad to see that there are a few other shroomers here who know what I'm talking about :-)
Though, I think we're probably doomed to lose this debate, as as shroom people we realise we could be completely wrong and that logic is not flawless, making us less willing to claim anything as true :-)

peace :)

Let me preface my comments with the fact that I am now of the opinion that psychodelic mushrooms should probably not be made illegal, with exception to those that are known to have long-term (or short-term serious) negative health effects. I'm not fully appraised of the literature, but if that presented by those defending shrooms is reliable, then it appears that the addictive effects of psilocybin are small. Just as I feel that it would be best for marijuana to be legalized and regulated, I think that the consumption of shrooms should remain legal, but be regulated.

However, what I think irks me most about you, Mental Fabric, is that you take the consumption of psychodelic substances and turn it into some fashion of spiritual enlightenment. It is as if the consumption of psilocybin confers upon the so-called "shroomers" or "shroom people" an ability to comprehend this world more acute than us mere mortals.

It is disingenuous.

You take mind-altering substances. You enjoy the effects. They may give you some strange or interesting perspectives on life.

These hallucinogenic substances don't make you some sort of Shroom Messiah, so get off your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing holy pulpit and square yourself with the fact that you're a drug user, not Buddha.

[EGT]

I think it'd be great if they remained legal but regulated. It's still possible they won't be banned but whatever happens happens. There isn't much we can do if the bill goes ahead.

I'm not going to read anymore posts because i haven't a clue were you guys have gone "off on one" :p

Have a good weekend!

[MentalFabric]

However, what I think irks me most about you, Mental Fabric, is that you take the consumption of psychodelic substances and turn it into some fashion of spiritual enlightenment. It is as if the consumption of psilocybin confers upon the so-called "shroomers" or "shroom people" an ability to comprehend this world more acute than us mere mortals. I don't believe mushrooms are spiritual, though they may well be and it can certainly seem like is sometimes, I'm pretty sure it's just playing with your psyche. This does actually offer some enlightenment, as mushrooms have helped me, at least, in taking different perpectives and realising better how my mind works. I think shrooms stimulate the mind.

You take mind-altering substances. You enjoy the effects. They may give you some strange or interesting perspectives on life.

These hallucinogenic substances don't make you some sort of Shroom Messiah, so get off your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing holy pulpit and square yourself with the fact that you're a drug user, not Buddha.
When did I become the "self-righteous, self-aggrandizing holy pulpit"? I'm just trying to discuss shrooms with people who take shrooms, I have no argument with anyone and I respect other people's views as much as mine own (which I constantly question). I'm sorry that the way I've attempted to do this has caused you to feel this way.

By the way, all signs point to the fact that Buddha took mushrooms. But Buddha was just a man too.

peace

[Mord]

It's been replaced by a plastic bottle of White Lightning (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3650248.stm) in the bus-stop with your mates...

the hobo's near me drink white ice.

i happen to dislike waking up and looking at your arm as it glows a color that dose not exist as you realize your having an orgasm in your knees.

as for where to get the best shrooms, camden dose it again, i live near portabello road and it's no place to get drugs especially when your teacher go's there every weekend which i tell you was not a fun person to bump into when your buying shrooms.

anyway i gave all that up and i'll never touch even a drop of alcohol ever

[themadchemist]

[quote=MentalFabric]When did I become the "self-righteous, self-aggrandizing holy pulpit"?


You were gripping your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing holy pulpit when you said the following.


as shroom people we realise we could be completely wrong and that logic is not flawless, making us less willing to claim anything as true


Apparently, taking shrooms makes you more keen at comprehending deep philosophical issues like the veracity of logic...Sounds sort of like a self-proclamation of enlightenment to me.

Then again, we could look at:


I really think you only need to take shrooms for a period of your life, after that you just somehow know you don't need to any more. I'm just at that stage, i think.


Here, you make taking shrooms seem like some type of phase in your life important to your development as a person.

Of course, you're sometimes more obvious about your sentiments:


in most parts of the world hallucinogens used to be used when you 'come of age' as a spiritual, inward journey. I think it's a shame that we've lost that part of our culture.


Ingesting substances that are probably dangerous is an important part of our culture that we're supposed to preserve? Funny thing, you said that you didn't think shrooms were "spiritual," but here you suggest that hallucinogens are part of a "spiritual, inward journey." By using drugs, you're somehow on a higher plane than the rest of us.


And since taking mushrooms I've discovered Zen and started eliminating want from my life.


So apparently your indulgence in hallucinogenic mushrooms has made you a transcendent ascetic...


Hey, I'm not the one attacking peoples beliefs here.


And considering this profound philosophy of which you are an apostle, you think that criticizing the consumption of psychodelic mushrooms is an attack on your "beliefs." You actually think that partaking in drug use is some sort of belief system.


By the way, all signs point to the fact that Buddha took mushrooms. But Buddha was just a man too.


And here you go associating yourself with Buddha.

From talking of "spiritual, inward journey[s]" to referring to your shrooming as your "beliefs" to comparing yourself to Buddha, I think that you have (hallucinogen-induced?) delusions of grandeur that your predilection for the magic mushroom confers upon you mental and spiritual capacities inaccessible to us commoners.

[skunk]

[QUOTE=MentalFabric]From talking of "spiritual, inward journey[s]" to referring to your shrooming as your "beliefs" to comparing yourself to Buddha, I think that you have (hallucinogen-induced?) delusions of grandeur that your predilection for the magic mushroom confers upon you mental and spiritual capacities inaccessible to us commoners.
Somehow, this very real risk inherent in the ingestion of psychotropic fungus is rarely mentioned. Haven't we got enough deluded grandees?

[pseudobrit]

.[chomp]

Well said.

playing with your psyche. This does actually offer some enlightenment, as mushrooms have helped me, at least, in taking different perpectives and realising better how my mind works. I think shrooms stimulate the mind.

You're not being enlightened, your serotonin and dopamine neurotransmission systems are being locked down, altered and overloaded.

You're inducing a temporary psychosis. Sure it seems to make sense and you discover perspectives and connections that you didn't see before.

If someone does this naturally, it's called psychosis. You're initiating it chemically.

[themadchemist]

You're not being enlightened, your serotonin and dopamine neurotransmission systems are being locked down, altered and overloaded.

You're inducing a temporary psychosis. Sure it seems to make sense and you discover perspectives and connections that you didn't see before.

If someone does this naturally, it's called psychosis. You're initiating it chemically.

Absolutely. Now, I can't help but consider that this might confer a certain new perspective on a person, but enlightenment, eventually, isn't just some drug-induced trip. Ken Kesey did acid and found inspiration there, but not everyone can do so. Most people who do acid just make nothing of their lives. Even if Buddha did consume hallucinogenic mushrooms, this was not the reason, or most of the reason, that he could create enduring ideas.

[amnesiac1984]

Absolutely. Now, I can't help but consider that this might confer a certain new perspective on a person, but enlightenment, eventually, isn't just some drug-induced trip. Ken Kesey did acid and found inspiration there, but not everyone can do so. Most people who do acid just make nothing of their lives. Even if Buddha did consume hallucinogenic mushrooms, this was not the reason, or most of the reason, that he could create enduring ideas.

I don't think you should be knocking the idea of mushrooms being spiritual so readily. They really have been used by ancient tribes to help some form of spiritual enlightenment and some people believe it is what helped us evolve from monkeys. I see spiritualism as the direct result of brain chemistry and psychosis, not something higher than that, thats simply what it is, it doesn't make it less important or less meaningful just because science has explained it with equations.

Oh and BTW whoever said that marijuana and cocaine is sponsoring terrorism, so what? Your taxes are sponsoring terrorism and so is all that oil revenue. Cocaine supports terrorism, Oil and therefore all plastics support terrorism, in fact buy anything thats not made or grown by Bill from down the street, and you are probably supporting some highly questionable activities, not to mention corporate greed.

Anyway why the **** can't we take mushrooms? Is it because we may become less efficient production units for our corporate masters?

So somebody died, oh dear stop the presses. People get eaten by sharks on their surfboards, are we gonna ban surfing? Are we gonna ban free-climbing? Surely free climbing is more dangerous than mushrooms, and you might land on someone so its not just yourself your gonna harm when you fall!!!!

[skunk]

in fact buy anything thats not made or grown by Bill from down the street, and you are probably supporting some highly questionable activities, not to mention corporate greed.
For that matter, how do you know what Bill from down the street is up to?

[themadchemist]

I don't think you should be knocking the idea of mushrooms being spiritual so readily. They really have been used by ancient tribes to help some form of spiritual enlightenment

What do you mean by spiritual enlightenment? My point is that I don't think drug-induced hallucinations are equivalent to spiritual enlightenment.


and some people believe it is what helped us evolve from monkeys.


And those people have no idea what they are talking about. I'm sorry, but even a cursory knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms would demonstrate that organisms don't evolve by eating mushrooms and having trips. If you wish, I'll press on and explain this, but I'm not going to go ahead and do it in this post.


I see spiritualism as the direct result of brain chemistry and psychosis, not something higher than that, thats simply what it is, it doesn't make it less important or less meaningful just because science has explained it with equations.


You're not getting an argument with me on the fact that all our experiences have a physical basis. My argument is that drugging up doesn't necessarily make you some sort of messiah and your visions aren't necessarily (they probably aren't) enlightenment. There are a few people whose brilliance allows them to look upon the human condition and reach conclusions about the world that we would consider enlightened. Perhaps on occasion, these individuals may have used some form of hallucinogen, but the necessary condition for their enlightenment was their self-reflection, deep intelligence, and dedication to knowledge...Bits and pieces of memories of half-conscious drug-induced delusions don't constitute the conditions for the pursuit of enlightenment.


Oh and BTW whoever said that marijuana and cocaine is sponsoring terrorism, so what?


I think it's more heroin than marijuana and cocaine, considering that opium derived from poppies is the major export product of Afghanistan and was so under the Taliban.


Your taxes are sponsoring terrorism and so is all that oil revenue. Cocaine supports terrorism, Oil and therefore all plastics support terrorism, in fact buy anything thats not made or grown by Bill from down the street, and you are probably supporting some highly questionable activities, not to mention corporate greed.


You have to take into account a certain dilution factor. When I buy copy paper, sure it might somehow indirectly fund terrorism (it also involves an activity that I regret, but can't entirely avoid, the destruction of the environment) but the degrees of separation between the production of paper and terrorism are so great in number that the role of paper production in terrorism is negligible. I would argue that heroin, oil, and yes, our tax dollars to the extent that our foreign policy is totally nonsensical, have very small dilution factors and contribute much more significantly than almost anything else we do to the propagation of terrorism. Of course, for most of us, oil and taxes comprise a greater portion of our expenditure than, say, heroin.


Anyway why the **** can't we take mushrooms? Is it because we may become less efficient production units for our corporate masters?


This is totally irrelevant to the rest of your argument. Why did you say it? People like to throw around the word "corporate" because they think it makes them sound erudite, but it is exactly the opposite. This is especially true when individuals inject the word into an argument where it has no place because they have no other contention to make. Please see the rest of this thread for reasons that it is inadvisable to consume hallucinogenic mushrooms.


So somebody died, oh dear stop the presses. People get eaten by sharks on their surfboards, are we gonna ban surfing? Are we gonna ban free-climbing? Surely free climbing is more dangerous than mushrooms, and you might land on someone so its not just yourself your gonna harm when you fall!!!!

I am not going to begin equating the use of hallucinogenic substances to surfing. I hope that in the future, you refrain from doing so, as well. How many people are injured from surfing by getting eaten by sharks? Certainly fewer (percentage-wise) than the number who suffer negative health effects because of bad trips on psilobycin, I would imagine. Indeed, we don't even understand the effects of psilobycin completely, but if it's like many other hallucinogens, then there are likely to be negative side effects.

[Peterkro]

"What do you mean by spiritual enlightenment? My point is that I don't think drug-induced hallucinations are equivalent to spiritual enlightenment."
What is "spiritual Enlightenment" other than drug induced or doctrinal propaganda swallowed by the gullible. Nice sounding term "spiritual enlightenment" means F-all.

[skunk]

What do you mean by spiritual enlightenment? My point is that I don't think drug-induced hallucinations are equivalent to spiritual enlightenment.
That's strictly a matter of opinion, though, isn't it? The undeniable fact that most drug-induced states do not produce long-lasting enlightenment does not prove that they are not related phenomena. Several thousand shamen might disagree with you.

And those people have no idea what they are talking about. I'm sorry, but even a cursory knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms would demonstrate that organisms don't evolve by eating mushrooms and having trips. If you wish, I'll press on and explain this, but I'm not going to go ahead and do it in this post.
Whoa there! Amnesiac wasn't talking about physiological evolution, but intellectual and cognitive evolution, as I think you will see if you re-read his post.

You're not getting an argument with me on the fact that all our experiences have a physical basis. My argument is that drugging up doesn't necessarily make you some sort of messiah and your visions aren't necessarily (they probably aren't) enlightenment.
The word "necessarily" is the key here. Nobody is claiming that you automatically attain "enlightenment" - whatever that is - by getting spaced out, but it may have produced or assisted in key transformations.

There are a few people whose brilliance allows them to look upon the human condition and reach conclusions about the world that we would consider enlightened. Perhaps on occasion, these individuals may have used some form of hallucinogen, but the necessary condition for their enlightenment was their self-reflection, deep intelligence, and dedication to knowledge...Bits and pieces of memories of half-conscious drug-induced delusions don't constitute the conditions for the pursuit of enlightenment.
Perhaps the hallucinogen was a necessary condition for their self-reflection.

I think it's more heroin than marijuana and cocaine, considering that opium derived from poppies is the major export product of Afghanistan and was so under the Taliban.
Amnesiac's point is well made: the distinction is entirely artificial.

You have to take into account a certain dilution factor. When I buy copy paper, sure it might somehow indirectly fund terrorism (it also involves an activity that I regret, but can't entirely avoid, the destruction of the environment) but the degrees of separation between the production of paper and terrorism are so great in number that the role of paper production in terrorism is negligible. I would argue that heroin, oil, and yes, our tax dollars to the extent that our foreign policy is totally nonsensical, have very small dilution factors and contribute much more significantly than almost anything else we do to the propagation of terrorism. Of course, for most of us, oil and taxes comprise a greater portion of our expenditure than, say, heroin.
Speak for yourself! :rolleyes:

This is totally irrelevant to the rest of your argument. Why did you say it? People like to throw around the word "corporate" because they think it makes them sound erudite, but it is exactly the opposite. This is especially true when individuals inject the word into an argument where it has no place because they have no other contention to make.
Being a bit heavy-handed here?

Please see the rest of this thread for reasons that it is inadvisable to consume hallucinogenic mushrooms.
It is "inadvisable" to do many things which most of us do every day.

I am not going to begin equating the use of hallucinogenic substances to surfing. I hope that in the future, you refrain from doing so, as well. How many people are injured from surfing by getting eaten by sharks? Certainly fewer (percentage-wise) than the number who suffer negative health effects because of bad trips on psilobycin, I would imagine.
Indeed, we don't even understand the effects of psilobycin completely, but if it's like many other hallucinogens, then there are likely to be negative side effects.
Let's not get into the "psilobycin" argument again: it's "psilocybin". You speculate that surfing injuries are "certainly" less commonplace: have you any figures to support your certainty?

[pseudobrit]

Let's all say it together:

psilocybin

"Sil-Oh-Sigh-Bin"

[themadchemist]

That's strictly a matter of opinion, though, isn't it? The undeniable fact that most drug-induced states do not produce long-lasting enlightenment does not prove that they are not related phenomena. Several thousand shamen might disagree with you.


Fair enough.


Whoa there! Amnesiac wasn't talking about physiological evolution, but intellectual and cognitive evolution, as I think you will see if you re-read his post.


Our evolution "from monkeys," to which Amnesiac refers, is most certainly a physiological one. Speciation is not an intellectual or cognitive evolution, so I am forced to interpret this as physiological.


The word "necessarily" is the key here. Nobody is claiming that you automatically attain "enlightenment" - whatever that is - by getting spaced out, but it may have produced or assisted in key transformations.


Well, if you look at what started all of this, Mental Fabric's statements, then you'll see that my main problem with this line of reasoning is a presupposition that taking the hallucinogen provided some special insight. That has been the contention I have been disputing in my last several posts. I thought that amnesiac was rehashing the same sort of argument.


Perhaps the hallucinogen was a necessary condition for their self-reflection.


I suppose we'll never know.


Amnesiac's point is well made: the distinction is entirely artificial.


Oh, but it isn't. Keep in mind that psilocybin (read further for my comment on the spelling correction) does not bind to "enlightenment receptors" on your neurons. Psilocybin affects diffuse modulatory systems meaning that it probably has a wide variety of effects. Therefore, whereas non-drug-induced reflection, which uses normal mechanisms to elicit neural response, is unlikely to produce harmful physiological side effects, taking any sort of active, foreign neurological agent very likely will.


Speak for yourself! :rolleyes:


I was.


Being a bit heavy-handed here?


Maybe a bit. ;)


It is "inadvisable" to do many things which most of us do every day.


Some more than others. I would argue that taking hallucinogens ranks a bit higher on the inadvisable list than a number of other things.


Let's not get into the "psilobycin" argument again: it's "psilocybin".


Thanks. If you look at my previous posts, it is clear that I know this. I was typing my reply in between experiments and was in a hurry. So I misspelled a work. I apologize.


You speculate that surfing injuries are "certainly" less commonplace: have you any figures to support your certainty?

By saying "I imagine," I made it clear that I was speculating. In retrospect, I regret the statement, but hold to one of the points I was trying to make, not in spite of, but because of the differences between drug use and surfing. It is hard to compare the extent of injury caused by a drug and that caused by surfing. Often, drugs exert serious negative side effects only after long-term use. There is some indication that psilocybin, which is similar in structure to LSD, might have certain similar effects--but we don't know. If this is the case, then the argument between whether mushrooms is more harmful than surfing would still be difficult to make because a bruise or even a broken leg are very different from psychological and neurophysiological changes induced by the use of drugs like psilocybin.

However, if we do decide to ignore the intensity or quality of the injury, I'm quite certain that toxic mushroom pathology is more frequent than shark-related surfing injuries (my original comparison). While I don't have numbers for psilocybin in particular, here is my data:

According Mary E Cataletto, MD (http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic874.htm):

"In the US: Incidence of mushroom toxicity is reported to be 5 exposures per 100,000 population per year. According to a 12-year study by Goldfrank et al, more than 50% of patients experienced no symptoms, 25% were treated in a health care facility, 10-15% had minor symptoms, less than 5% had moderate symptoms, and 0.2% suffered major toxicity. In 1999, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 8996 mushroom exposures with 2930 treated in a health care facility and 6 fatalities."

Of course, some of these reports of toxicity may include hallucinogenic symptoms that purposeful users of magic mushrooms would consider desirable.

According to CNN.com (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/03/shark.perspective/index.html):

According to the International Shark File, there were 79 shark attacks worldwide last year. So far this year there have been 51 attacks, with 28 of them occurring in Florida.

If we can trust the definitions of toxicity and attack provided by the American Association of Poison Control and the International Shark File, respectively, then I think the evidence is patent.

I hope that this clarifies a few of my points.

pseudobrit--Thanks for the spelling lesson. However, as I suggested earlier, I think it is a superfluous one.

[amnesiac1984]

This is totally irrelevant to the rest of your argument. Why did you say it? People like to throw around the word "corporate" because they think it makes them sound erudite, but it is exactly the opposite. This is especially true when individuals inject the word into an argument where it has no place because they have no other contention to make. Please see the rest of this thread for reasons that it is inadvisable to consume hallucinogenic mushrooms.


Skunk did all the work for me but I just wanted to add that this part of my post was just a bit of wild speculation that should have been taken with a pinch of salt, perhaps I should have made myself clearer.


I am not going to begin equating the use of hallucinogenic substances to surfing. I hope that in the future, you refrain from doing so, as well. How many people are injured from surfing by getting eaten by sharks? Certainly fewer (percentage-wise) than the number who suffer negative health effects because of bad trips on psilobycin, I would imagine. Indeed, we don't even understand the effects of psilobycin completely, but if it's like many other hallucinogens, then there are likely to be negative side effects.

The example may not have been the best but my point still stands IMO. People partake in extreme sports being fully aware of the risks, and its those risks that they get a buzz out of. In extreme sports the risks are obvious so you play within your limits and abilities. I don't think it is much different with hallucinogenic drugs, its just that the risks are less obvious, but they can be known. And they can be taught to people, so that people can make wise informed decisions about drugs and how to take them while minimizing the risks.

[amnesiac1984]

For that matter, how do you know what Bill from down the street is up to?

Well perhaps you live in a small community built on trust and respect and Bill might have been trading down the street for a long time. But I guess thats unlikely since we live a culture of fear and its safer to trust no-one. :p

[themadchemist]

The example may not have been the best but my point still stands IMO. People partake in extreme sports being fully aware of the risks, and its those risks that they get a buzz out of. In extreme sports the risks are obvious so you play within your limits and abilities. I don't think it is much different with hallucinogenic drugs, its just that the risks are less obvious, but they can be known. And they can be taught to people, so that people can make wise informed decisions about drugs and how to take them while minimizing the risks.

I would probably agree that this is the case for mushrooms. As I've said before, I believe that mushrooms should be legalized and regulated. However, I don't think that this is true for hallucinogens across the board. LSD, for example--The risks are too great to make that substance legal. Heroin is another drug that I'm very happy is illegal: It's addictive properties are too great to sanction its use.

[amnesiac1984]

I would probably agree that this is the case for mushrooms. As I've said before, I believe that mushrooms should be legalized and regulated. However, I don't think that this is true for hallucinogens across the board. LSD, for example--The risks are too great to make that substance legal. Heroin is another drug that I'm very happy is illegal: It's addictive properties are too great to sanction its use.

I'm in agreement with LSD and Heroin being illegal too. But I think other drugs that are more widely used should be legalised so that their use becomes safer and less supportive of crime (And the CIA) :p

[themadchemist]

I'm in agreement with LSD and Heroin being illegal too. But I think other drugs that are more widely used should be legalised so that their use becomes safer and less supportive of crime (And the CIA) :p

I don't think it's a question of how wide they are used. It is a question of relative health effects. Some drugs are dangerous enough that making them illegal is necessary, even if it pushes some people underground with their addiction. Other drugs are also unhealthy, but of significantly less harm. When sold illegally, these drugs promote gang violence, illicit transnational trading, support corrupt regimes, finance terrorism, and, importantly, serve as gateway drugs.

Why is marijuana a gateway drug, for example? It is not because it somehow readies you for using cocaine or some other substance. Rather, it is because Joe the Drug Dealer doesn't just sell marijuana, but he also sells coke, etc. Schmo the Drug User is thus exposed to other drugs and may experiment them with relative ease. Therefore, he might try coke once, then twice, then become a regular on that drug.

Marijuana, and perhaps mushrooms, as well, are comparatively mild. Both can still have long-term negative neurological effects and cause extreme lapses in judgment and reasoning ability on the short-term. However, if legalized, taxed, and regulated, use of these substances could 1) lose their novelty, 2) yield revenue to invest into substance abuse prevention programs, 3) be discouraged through financial disincentives, 4) yield more standardized and safer distribution mechanisms, 5) yield more standardized and safer products, and 6) be handled in a graded level, like alcohol is, instead of an all-or-nothing manner.

[amnesiac1984]

Again i am in agreement, however, I might perhaps add ecstasy to the list of that should be legalized. It may well be dangerous but I think it would be a lot safer if people could get standard types of pill and always knew what was in them. Lets face it, ecstasy is very widely used amongst clubbers and it can kill you if you don't know what your doing or you get a pill cut with rat poison.

[pseudobrit]

Again i am in agreement, however, I might perhaps add ecstasy to the list of that should be legalized. It may well be dangerous but I think it would be a lot safer if people could get standard types of pill and always knew what was in them. Lets face it, ecstasy is very widely used amongst clubbers and it can kill you if you don't know what your doing or you get a pill cut with rat poison.

I dunno. I'm averse to people having more access to methamphetamines. Decrim for small amounts, yes (pay a fine if caught). Dealers, no break. State-sold, no way.

Perhaps they should set up more of the testing stations outside raves to check for purity. Gov't run, but with absolute amnesty and no records.

[aloofman]

One thing I've noticed that's pretty consistent: people who like to -- how shall I put it -- "chemically alter their bodies for recreational purposes" come up with all sorts of reasoning to justify it. The simple fact is that they enjoy getting high. That's almost always the only reason. (Except for certain terminally ill people, that kind of thing.) They like getting high, that's why. And it's hard to talk them out of it.

This is entirely separate from some of the other reasons that authorities try to control these substances. Some of those reasons are good and socially beneficial. Some are based on good intentions and bad policies. But none of them will work unless they acknowledge the fact that people like to get high and a smaller subset of the population really likes to get high. There have always been people like that and there always will be.

[themadchemist]

One thing I've noticed that's pretty consistent: people who like to -- how shall I put it -- "chemically alter their bodies for recreational purposes" come up with all sorts of reasoning to justify it. The simple fact is that they enjoy getting high. That's almost always the only reason. (Except for certain terminally ill people, that kind of thing.) They like getting high, that's why. And it's hard to talk them out of it.

This is entirely separate from some of the other reasons that authorities try to control these substances. Some of those reasons are good and socially beneficial. Some are based on good intentions and bad policies. But none of them will work unless they acknowledge the fact that people like to get high and a smaller subset of the population really likes to get high. There have always been people like that and there always will be.

The key problem with your language here is that the term "like" suggests conscious, willful choice. However, many people are compelled to abuse substances (at least, after they begin) by an actual chemical addiction that is out of their control and apart from any preferences they may have.

[amnesiac1984]

The key problem with your language here is that the term "like" suggests conscious, willful choice. However, many people are compelled to abuse substances (at least, after they begin) by an actual chemical addiction that is out of their control and apart from any preferences they may have.

Many people may be compelled, and may well be true for the majority of coke users, but a lot of people do just like to get high, and why shouldn't they? The same way people like to get drunk, only people choose drugs often because they don't like the affect alcohol has on them.

[aloofman]

The key problem with your language here is that the term "like" suggests conscious, willful choice. However, many people are compelled to abuse substances (at least, after they begin) by an actual chemical addiction that is out of their control and apart from any preferences they may have.

Actually, by "like" I was not intending to suggest "conscious, willful choice." I was just saying they like to do it, as in, they WANT to do it. I make no judgments on where the boundary between uncontrollable addiction and repeated desire lies. If I substituted "like" with "want", would that be more appropriate?

[themadchemist]

Many people may be compelled, and may well be true for the majority of coke users, but a lot of people do just like to get high, and why shouldn't they? The same way people like to get drunk, only people choose drugs often because they don't like the affect alcohol has on them.

Then, let's terminate substance abuse prevention programs.

aloofman--Thanks for clarifying. I better understand your point now. However, I believe that your statement still exudes the sort of fatalistic attitude to substance abuse that discourages taking active steps to prevent people from wanting to ingest harmful substances and to help people recover from addiction to such substances.

[amnesiac1984]

Then, let's terminate substance abuse prevention programs.

aloofman--Thanks for clarifying. I better understand your point now. However, I believe that your statement still exudes the sort of fatalistic attitude to substance abuse that discourages taking active steps to prevent people from wanting to ingest harmful substances and to help people recover from addiction to such substances.

Maybe it is true that the world would be a better place if people didn't need to take drugs, but I think that if the world where a better place people wouldn't need to take drugs.

[themadchemist]

Maybe it is true that the world would be a better place if people didn't need to take drugs, but I think that if the world where a better place people wouldn't need to take drugs.

That's a weak argument. People don't need to take drugs illegally. That is, they don't need to take them until they become chemically-addicted. It is true that tough circumstances increase the likelihood of drug addiction. However, those circumstances do not necessitate drug usage. Using drugs is often a product of unfavorable situations and poor decision-making. There are always other options. We, as a society, need to work to make those options available, accessible, and known.

[amnesiac1984]

That's a weak argument. People don't need to take drugs illegally. That is, they don't need to take them until they become chemically-addicted. It is true that tough circumstances increase the likelihood of drug addiction. However, those circumstances do not necessitate drug usage. Using drugs is often a product of unfavorable situations and poor decision-making. There are always other options. We, as a society, need to work to make those options available, accessible, and known.

You're misinterpreting my use of the word need. I say need but perhaps I should substitute it for want. But isn't want a kind of need?

The fact is we obviously disagree on fundamental issues with drugs in that I believe they can be good harmless fun if handled responsibly and you believe drug use is a product of 'poor decision-making'. Based on whose judgement is a decision 'poor'? My anarcho syndaclist tendencies simply don't allow for such judgements to be made by others. :p

[themadchemist]

You're misinterpreting my use of the word need. I say need but perhaps I should substitute it for want. But isn't want a kind of need?

Well, no. I want a Ferrari; I don't need it. When I begin doing things that have a high likelihood of harming me and others in order to obtain a Ferrari because I want it, that's irresponsible.


The fact is we obviously disagree on fundamental issues with drugs in that I believe they can be good harmless fun if handled responsibly and you believe drug use is a product of 'poor decision-making'.


No, I believe the irresponsible use of drugs is a product of poor decision-making. For many drugs, the threshold for irresponsible use is very low. For example, using heroin at all for recreational purposes, considering that it is highly addictive, is quite irresponsible. Using marijuana may be less so considering that it is significantly less toxic (but still toxic) and addictive.


Based on whose judgement is a decision 'poor'? My anarcho syndaclist tendencies simply don't allow for such judgements to be made by others. :p

I think that that is an oversimplification of the interconnectedness of society. Individuals have a responsibility to society that necessitates regulations for operations within society. First of all, a person's rights within a properly functioning society extends only to the point that he/she infringes on others' rights. Considering how much each person in society is linked to other people, one person's destructive behavior almost always affects other people.

In addition, society does have a certain responsibility to prevent its citizens from making grossly injurious decisions for themselves as part of society's responsibility to those citizens. Therefore, there are instances in which society is justified to regulate something even if such activity doesn't affect others. Because this is entering a very grey area, though, this sort of restriction should generally be saved only for matters of physical injury (such as that experienced in drug abuse).

Finally, without some sort of very basic set of guidelines within which to operate (and here I generalize beyond the debate of drugs--that is, drugs might not fall under this basic set of guidelines), society would be chaotic and inoperable.

[amnesiac1984]

Well, no. I want a Ferrari; I don't need it. When I begin doing things that have a high likelihood of harming me and others in order to obtain a Ferrari because I want it, that's irresponsible.

Thats the thing, you are automatically assuming that drug use has a high likelihood of harming others. There are lots of cases of this, true, but there are also millions of people taking drugs who simply aren't causing harm to others, this makes me think there is another factor at play, mainly peoples stupidity and lack of caring about the consequences of their actions. This is a much greater problem with society and is not restricted to drug users.


No, I believe the irresponsible use of drugs is a product of poor decision-making. For many drugs, the threshold for irresponsible use is very low. For example, using heroin at all for recreational purposes, considering that it is highly addictive, is quite irresponsible. Using marijuana may be less so considering that it is significantly less toxic (but still toxic) and addictive.

'Using drugs is often a product of unfavorable situations and poor decision-making.' Okay I took this to mean what it said, but yes I agree with you about heroin being irresponsible, but a heroin addict has got enough problems on his plate without being criminalized.



I think that that is an oversimplification of the interconnectedness of society. Individuals have a responsibility to society that necessitates regulations for operations within society. First of all, a person's rights within a properly functioning society extends only to the point that he/she infringes on others' rights. Considering how much each person in society is linked to other people, one person's destructive behavior almost always affects other people.

In addition, society does have a certain responsibility to prevent its citizens from making grossly injurious decisions for themselves as part of society's responsibility to those citizens. Therefore, there are instances in which society is justified to regulate something even if such activity doesn't affect others. Because this is entering a very grey area, though, this sort of restriction should generally be saved only for matters of physical injury (such as that experienced in drug abuse).

Finally, without some sort of very basic set of guidelines within which to operate (and here I generalize beyond the debate of drugs--that is, drugs might not fall under this basic set of guidelines), society would be chaotic and inoperable.

Yes society has a responsibility to its citizens but that responsibility should be acted out by caring communities and friends and family, not the iron fist of the law.

I'm not advocating life without rules, but these rules should be made by local small communities of supported citizens, and I mean like your block and maybe a few others around it should govern itself, not this isolated individualist mega global media culture with everyone obeying their TV that we live in now.

[themadchemist]

Thats the thing, you are automatically assuming that drug use has a high likelihood of harming others. There are lots of cases of this, true, but there are also millions of people taking drugs who simply aren't causing harm to others, this makes me think there is another factor at play, mainly peoples stupidity and lack of caring about the consequences of their actions. This is a much greater problem with society and is not restricted to drug users.


How do you know there are *millions* of people taking drugs and not harming anyone? Perhaps there are, I'm just not sure how you arrived at that estimate. And yes, stupidity and lack of caring are problematic, but considering that drugs induce lowered judgment ability, it seems like a dangerous slope with many people--Stupid people take drugs recklessly, the drugs cause more recklessness, which causes the use of more drugs, and this is how people OD.


'Using drugs is often a product of unfavorable situations and poor decision-making.' Okay I took this to mean what it said, but yes I agree with you about heroin being irresponsible, but a heroin addict has got enough problems on his plate without being criminalized.


But that doesn't mean you *don't* criminalize it. Ideally, we would send these addicts to substance abuse programs, but we don't always. However, a heroin dealer has more of a problem than just an addiction: He/she plays a fundamental role in the decadence of society and the harm of others; drug dealers are, in general, acting effectively as sociopaths.


Yes society has a responsibility to its citizens but that responsibility should be acted out by caring communities and friends and family, not the iron fist of the law.

I'm not advocating life without rules, but these rules should be made by local small communities of supported citizens, and I mean like your block and maybe a few others around it should govern itself, not this isolated individualist mega global media culture with everyone obeying their TV that we live in now.

What about when these things don't happen? We don't all live in small communes and we aren't going to. What about the millions of people who live in cold, harsh, impersonal cities? Community involvement is not going to be perfect, or even nearly so, and therefore the government has to step in.

[skunk]

What about when these things don't happen? We don't all live in small communes and we aren't going to. What about the millions of people who live in cold, harsh, impersonal cities?
A city is composed of people.
Community involvement is not going to be perfect, or even nearly so, and therefore the government has to step in.
A complete non-sequitur, I'm afraid: since when did government involvement make things more perfect?

[blackfox]

Well, I suppose we will just have to all get together, with a large and varied amount of psychotropic drugs and figure all this out. Empiricists Unite!

It is all in the name of science, after all.

[skunk]

Well, I suppose we will just have to all get together, with a large and varied amount of psychotropic drugs and figure all this out. Empiricists Unite!

It is all in the name of science, after all.
I'm on it... :D ;)

[amnesiac1984]

How do you know there are *millions* of people taking drugs and not harming anyone? Perhaps there are, I'm just not sure how you arrived at that estimate. And yes, stupidity and lack of caring are problematic, but considering that drugs induce lowered judgment ability, it seems like a dangerous slope with many people--Stupid people take drugs recklessly, the drugs cause more recklessness, which causes the use of more drugs, and this is how people OD.


I arrived at this figure by the fact that in the student community here in Bristol, there is a large set of people who do take drugs responsibly and without issue, judging by the number of cities like this around the world I would assume the number is probably somewhere in the millions. I mean its really not hard to be responsible, drugs are strong so you really don't need to take very many drugs to have a good time so people don't OD unless they are being stupid and don't know what they are doing, something which could be avoided with better drug education. In fact in this country they are trying to make information about drugs more available to the general public and hotlines and websites for advice about drugs are always advertised on popular radio/TV. Movies and the media paint a ridiculous picture of the drug world which really isn't a reflection on reality. But because of this people are quite scared of drugs so they are careful.

I don't think we really differ on the potential dangers of drugs, but I really think that the emphasis is on potential, and we know there are dangers because it does go wrong, but I'd be interested to know exactly how many people go to hospital with things related to popular drug use (ecstasy, coke mushrooms) compared to the millions who use them without problems.

[Peterkro]

Article in todays Grauiniad for those that haven't seen it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,1418086,00.html
Colossal waste of time and money if you ask me. Not that anyone would!

[themadchemist]

I arrived at this figure by the fact that in the student community here in Bristol, there is a large set of people who do take drugs responsibly and without issue, judging by the number of cities like this around the world I would assume the number is probably somewhere in the millions. I mean its really not hard to be responsible, drugs are strong so you really don't need to take very many drugs to have a good time so people don't OD unless they are being stupid and don't know what they are doing, something which could be avoided with better drug education. In fact in this country they are trying to make information about drugs more available to the general public and hotlines and websites for advice about drugs are always advertised on popular radio/TV. Movies and the media paint a ridiculous picture of the drug world which really isn't a reflection on reality. But because of this people are quite scared of drugs so they are careful.


How about when you do develop an addiction or even start to develop tolerance? You need more and more to get high, but while the "positive" emotional effects are harder to achieve, the toxic effects on the body just scale up with quantity consumed. It seems pretty easy, then, with addictive substances and those to which one develops tolerance, to overdose.

Most drugs are also expensive habits. While individuals have total authority over how they choose to spend their money, I have to wonder whether this is one of those habits (like gambling) by which people hurt themselves through overspending. Moreover, when people can no longer finance the habit, they sometimes to turn to stealing, or worse, dealing the drugs, themselves. Please don't tell me this very rare, because it really is not too uncommon...After all, there is a large number of drug dealers out there.


I don't think we really differ on the potential dangers of drugs, but I really think that the emphasis is on potential, and we know there are dangers because it does go wrong, but I'd be interested to know exactly how many people go to hospital with things related to popular drug use (ecstasy, coke mushrooms) compared to the millions who use them without problems.

I think that you are too narrowly defining problems. My point is that consistent use of these drugs can have physiological, psychological, and sociological effects that can't be measured in hospital visits or other clearly visible problems. Strained relations with family members, reduced productivity on the job, decreased interest in activities not related to drug use, depression, anxiety, effects to organs, and more, may take months or years to develop to a noticeable point, but they exist and their effects only accumulate over time.

Here is a useful analogy. When the FDA evaluates drugs for medicinal use, it takes into account the ratio of the amount that will kill you to the amount that is maximally effective. You want this to be really high: That is, it takes a lot to kill you and very little to get a really great benefit.

If you extend this to populations of individuals who use recreational drugs, then you can say that in a pool of 100%, the drug is acceptable if extremely few people die (or are severely hurt) when compared to the number of who exhibit no negative effects. The acceptable threshold isn't good to bad 1:1 or even 99:1, it has to be really, really high to be acceptable. The threshold for drugs that treat very mild disorders is very high, and for a drug that treats nothing and only provides pleasure, the concentration ratio and the ratio of the effects on the population should both be *extremely* favorable, because DRUG USE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LIVING.

I think applying the regulations of the FDA to recreational drugs could help sort out of some of this mess and provide quantifiable benchmarks as to how dangerous is too dangerous.

[Peterkro]

One word Thalidomide there are many others as well check out deaths by Drugs O.K.ed by FDA.

[themadchemist]

One word Thalidomide there are many others as well check out deaths by Drugs O.K.ed by FDA.

Thalidomide was approved prior to the era of the extensive clinical trials that are employed today.

And sure, people die after taking drugs approved by the FDA. Sometimes, this is because of improper administration of the drug; other times, it is an unknown reaction or a rare cross-reaction; and occasionally, it is by way of bad practice by the FDA.

But are you seriously going to argue that FDA regulations haven't saved thousands and thousands of lives, blocked the release of tons of dangerous therapies, and ensured the likely safety of countless drugs? Are you going to argue that FDA approval of controlled substances would detract from safety? Or even that the deaths from drugs that target disorders that are already fatal are more egregious from the perspective of harm done than the deaths from people's overindulgence in recreational drugs?

[themadchemist]

A city is composed of people.

Yes and I'm sure the social interaction that occurs in cities is just the same as that within close-knit communities. Not by a long shot.


A complete non-sequitur, I'm afraid: since when did government involvement make things more perfect?

The point is that where the citizens cannot disseminate information, provide counseling, etc., the government can use its resources to encourage such activity. And unlike the citizenry, the government has a stick, which is useful sometimes in preventing the widespread use of the very worst of substances.

[mactastic]

It's not the same, but it's not completely dissimilar either. Cities function as a collection of districts, which are made up of neighborhoods, which are made up by smallish groups of people. Cities have a cold dispassionate side, but they also have many personal connections between the people who live there.

[themadchemist]

It's not the same, but it's not completely dissimilar either. Cities function as a collection of districts, which are made up of neighborhoods, which are made up by smallish groups of people. Cities have a cold dispassionate side, but they also have many personal connections between the people who live there.

This is true, but my point is that one cannot assume that families and friends can completely bear the responsibility of providing proper instruction to their youth and others. While there are many close, healthy groups of people, not everyone belongs to these groups...Many people have dysfunctional families or abusive ones; poor role models who may abuse drugs themselves; or communities in which the conditions are just so hard that people can only bother to take care of themselves. For these people, the government has to play a critical role in educating them and discouraging drug use because no one else will.

[mactastic]

This is true, but my point is that one cannot assume that families and friends cannot completely bear the responsibility of providing proper instruction to their youth and others.

Is this a mistaken double negative, or am I missing what you are saying? It seems to read that one can assume that families and friends can bear the responsibility etc etc.

While there are many close, healthy groups of people, not everyone belongs to these groups...Many people have dysfunctional families or abusive ones; poor role models who may abuse drugs themselves; or communities in which the conditions are just so hard that people can only bother to take care of themselves. For these people, the government has to play a critical role in educating them and discouraging drug use because no one else will.

Sure, but this happens in both small towns and cities. Small towns have their outcasts that few will hang around, and cities have their invisible members that no one knows. Only difference is that in a small town it's harder to not be noticed.

I've not been following this thread closely, so I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the city/town comparison, but I would note that meth has been a huge problem in rural areas, even where everyone knows each other. There's just more opportunity to mix stinky chemicals without others noticing. Hell you can brew just about anything downwind of a poultry ranch and no one would suspect a thing....

[themadchemist]

Is this a mistaken double negative, or am I missing what you are saying? It seems to read that one can assume that families and friends can bear the responsibility etc etc.


It's mistaken. Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it.


Sure, but this happens in both small towns and cities. Small towns have their outcasts that few will hang around, and cities have their invisible members that no one knows. Only difference is that in a small town it's harder to not be noticed.

I've not been following this thread closely, so I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the city/town comparison, but I would note that meth has been a huge problem in rural areas, even where everyone knows each other. There's just more opportunity to mix stinky chemicals without others noticing. Hell you can brew just about anything downwind of a poultry ranch and no one would suspect a thing....

Actually, this is all tangential. Someone said that communities should do all the work of discouraging kids from using drugs irresponsibly and I just said that it is often the case that communities are not close-knit enough to do that. I used cities as an example, but there are many, many other such examples. Your example of meth in rural areas is one. The real question is one of role models, a lack of which can be found all over the place.

[amnesiac1984]

It's mistaken. Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it.



Actually, this is all tangential. Someone said that communities should do all the work of discouraging kids from using drugs irresponsibly and I just said that it is often the case that communities are not close-knit enough to do that. I used cities as an example, but there are many, many other such examples. Your example of meth in rural areas is one. The real question is one of role models, a lack of which can be found all over the place.

There is the belief that the marketing industry has succeeded in isolating a lot communites in creating new markets under the guise of a rather vain kind of individualism. It's good for efficiency I suppose. But if money was spent promoting community spirit and culture in the way Afrika Bambata did. Maybe the communities will start to work better in the cities. The wrong kind of role models are perpetuated because they are "cool", but they are general devoid of any message or issues.


The point is that where the citizens cannot disseminate information, provide counseling, etc., the government can use its resources to encourage such activity. And unlike the citizenry, the government has a stick, which is useful sometimes in preventing the widespread use of the very worst of substances.

Put like that, it sounds quite scary actually, with the current state of democracy i wouldn't trust any government with a stick! :p