Poll: Should Hallucinogens be legal?

[chadachada123]

Drugs are a Crutch for those who can't deal with reality. If your mind can't be opened without foreign help then your mind probably isn't meant to be opened. If i were to tell you the only way we can truly call ourselves Sexually domineering to one side is to experience the deep lust and passion of both sides would you not think i am insane? Drugs may not have a physical addiction but they have mental addictions. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

How would you feel if someone said that video games are a crutch for those who can't deal with reality? Movies? Music? All art? All forms of entertainment?

Non-physically addicting drugs can be just as addictive mentally as video games, or gambling, or [X fun activity], too. People can die doing all of these, or throw their life away, and if done in a safe setting, all are perfectly healthy ways to enjoy life.

There is a huge difference between drug use and abuse, much like there is a huge difference between a gamer and a gaming addict.

I would ignore someone if they said that. I don't use Games to escape my life or see things differently. I play games to relax and enjoy them. When you do drugs you are causing damage to your body. No matter what, even if it is minuscule. When i play games i am not changing my synapses firing rate or causing damage to my body. That is the difference. Even though, yes you can cause damage, the same can be said about anything and everything on this planet.

You shouldn't just call them "drugs." You should specify which drugs and what you count as "damage" to your body.

I disagree that all recreational drugs damage a person's body, and that video games don't cause similar problems in a fair number of people. Playing games releases dopamine in your body, but can also raise stress levels, on top of being inactive in most games. If done safely, it won't harm you, like many drugs, but if done stupidly, it can very well harm you.

Just because you don't use games for escape doesn't mean that many other people don't. I certainly did at a different time in my life, and it was just as bad of a situation for me as it was for the standard pot-head, other than the fact that my name got higher and higher on a leaderboard while he got, well, nothing except hungry.

I may also ask out of curiosity, but what is your opinion of laughing gas or Novocaine for use in a doctor's/dentist's office, as opposed to using it recreationally but in a similar dose? I also ask what you think of people with OCD-related depression using shrooms in low doses, as it sends OCD into COMPLETE remission in a HUGE number of cases? I won't even bother getting into the positive medical effects of vaporized marijuana...when used in low doses and safely.

 

[thefrizzlefry]

There's no real reason for them to have been criminalized in the first place, so, yeah, they should be legal.
By the way, you guys should listen really closely for a second; I think y'all might actually be able to hear me beat this dead horse through the internet.

 

[Grell Sutcliff]

of course they should be legal but only if they are sold in government owned stores and you have to do the drug in the store so the people working there can make sure you don't get hurt and as a bonus since the government would be making money off of the drugs they could cut taxes.

Edit: this would also deal a massive blow to street gangs because they would no longer be able to make money off of the drugs.

 

[CodeOrange]

Oh what the hell. Yes, yes and yes, because we all know how much drugs haven't ruined lives.

And to all those people who say drugs are completely harmless, you're right! Years of scientific research quickly accessible from a simple google search isn't true. That's because you're special and God is real and if you stare at your hands long enough you WILL develop ESP abilities and become famous for just existing.

And drugs are needed to have fun, because we all know that television and the CBS have destroyed our children's imaginations, turning them into annoying, narcissistic, whiny adolescents.

So yes. Drugs should be legalized because one scientist, who probably illegally takes them in the first place wants to do it in the open and at a lower price, in the name of "research". Why don't we throw a newborn baby into a lightless cellar for 50 years while teaching him quantum physics and force feeding him hallucinogens, and with all his mental disabilities, maybe he could become the next Einstein!

 

[Kal-Adam]

Drugs are a Crutch for those who can't deal with reality.

Pff, reality can't be perceived by humans, not by their senses nor by the cultural filters we all have.

And even then, every person is accountable for himself. If anything should be illegal it might be weapons to kill humans, and those are legal in the US, everything else should be fair game imo.

Reality is a crutch for those who can't deal with Cthulhu.

I'm making that into a bumper sticker lol. The only problem with making "Killing tools" illegal is i can kill you with a rolled up magazine...so who is to say what can and can't be used as a weapon...Like Nail clippers on planes.

Exactly, besides, If a person really wants to kill another person, their going to do it, weapons just make the job more efficient

 

[CodeOrange]

Been listening to lectures by Terence Mckenna on Youtube. If you don't know who he is, He was one of those philosophers

Ah. This explains everything.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

The only problem I see with hallucinogens is how they can completely mess up your perceptions of what's real and what isn't. Somebody tripping on acid could run across the street because some giant milkshake monster is after them, and not realize that those cars now swerving into one another are very real and people are getting hurt. There is no logic for people having a bad trip, or sometimes even a good one, which is why there are laws to keep these substances out of sight.

The one case I would see mind-altering substances being allowed is in a designates area where you're only allowed to leave once you're back from your trip. At least that way the people can be watched for dangerous reactions and not accidentally harm strangers or themselves.

 

[katsumoto03]

Why should anyone have the right to prevent you from putting shit in your own body?

 

[Navvan]

Snip

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't the group that discovered or at least revolutionized our understanding of DNA - specifically the double-helix, on LSD at the time?

I disagree with both of you.

First Koro

There have been beneficial additions to mankind that are at least correlated with mind altering drug use. Art is the prime example, but philosophy has had a few moments as well. Also any mental health medication.

As far as science goes, I can't think of any examples were it directly helped and I doubt there are any. However a number of famous scientist have partake in various drug use, most famously Humphrey Davey's abuse of Nitric Oxide, so drug use doesn't instantly make you a bad scientist. I would agree though that it is entirely worthless in the pursuit of science.

Secondly chad

Drug use had nothing to do with the discovery of the helix structure. I've never even heard of the theory before, but as "Who actually discovered the structure of DNA" is often a semi-controversial topic I'm fairly confident in stating that drug use was not a significant factor.

I would have to say Koro is correct that drug use has had no beneficial impact when it comes to science. If it hampers discovery (use in off time obviously) is another thing. I would say that it does, but I have no evidence of that. My reasoning is the same that any hedonistic outlet hampers production. Of course drugs are known to be more addictive in either a psychological or physical sense, and that would cause further hampering than watching a movie as focusing on a task becomes more difficult.

Obviously that is excluding drugs like heroin and meth which clearly have negative impact.

 

[Korolev]

I mean, remember all those hippies in the 60's who got blazed on acid and hallucinogens, claiming that it would "Free" their mind and allow them to become "transcendental"? Where are they now? Have they become illustrious super-humans with a mind that can control the cosmos? The few hippies I've met from that period are on welfare checks! A lot of good that acid did them!

I'm not saying that acid will destroy your mind - in all probability, it won't. A few people do have EXTREMELY bad reactions to LSD, but for most people it's non-addictive and as far as we know, pretty harmless (well, at least no more harmful than beer).

But it won't help you achieve anything. Reality exists. Drugs don't "free your mind" - because reality isn't an illusion. If anything, it prevents you from thinking clearly and soberly on your situation.

We are a mass of neurons, axons and chemicals. That's what we are - we ARE our brain. We are a connection of synapses and chemical reactions and electrical activity. Drugs do nothing but distort that - they alter, not reality, but our perception of it.

Being on Acid is not more "illuminating" than being drunk. Personally, I think you have a right to be tripped up on acid or drunk out of your mind. And I also have the right to strongly disapprove of such activities. Go ahead - waste your mind. Run from reality. Lose control.

We'll see where it gets you.

I, on the other hand, work in lab. I handle dangerous chemicals almost every day (Ethidium Bromide, Chloroform, Hydrochloric Acid, etc). I have to analyse the results of experiments. I have to think carefully about how to improve said experiments, how to check for errors, and what the data from said experiments means.

And I can't be out-of-my-mind when I do those things.

Look at the people working in the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) - they are uncovering the deepest secrets of nature. And they do it with sober, intelligent minds working hard with only their wits and imagination. And they've done more to uncover reality than all those loser hippies and their LSD blankets. What have THEY made? What have those hippies discovered? What contributions to science have they wrought with their buzzed minds?

NOTHING.

NOT. ONE. THING.

Keep your drugs. The scientists of this world are imaginative and intelligent enough to not need them.

EDIT: And yes I disapprove of alcohol as well. I don't drink alcohol. ANY alcohol, and I never will. I am always in control of my body and my perception of reality is never altered by any substance. Alter your mind, you alter yourself, and I have enough pride in who I am to never need or want to do that.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't the group that discovered or at least revolutionized our understanding of DNA - specifically the double-helix, on LSD at the time?

There is also a great many number of achievements done during a drunken rant/rage (Cracked.com did a great article on some of them), and great artistic advancements done while on drugs of various sorts.

While I am also a man of science, I recognize that some people are not cut out for science at all, but can be excellent at providing material for the artistic community. The next great game artist could get his character design or weapon design during some sort of high.

In any case, your point really seems to boil down to "if you're a scientist, you can't have fun, period, because no one is having fun while advancing science." I agree that people on the clock should not be incapacitated, but while in a recreational period I see no fundamental difference between enjoying, say, video games, and enjoying a non-damaging recreational drug like shrooms.

No. They weren't. Crick and Watson weren't on LSD at the time. They made their discoveries by analysing X-ray crystallography data. It took years and years of nothing but hard, hard work.

Look - I'm not saying that people shouldn't take LSD. As I've said - it's pretty much harmless. To a degree. Some people react very badly, but that is rare. It's certainly no more harmful than alcohol.

My rant was more against those who claim that drugs can "lift" your mind to new heights. They cannot. All hallucinogens can do is put on a good light show for you. They can't reveal what particles constitute the universe. They can't help you visualize the schematics for a new invention.

A few poets and artists have certainly been inspired by drugs and hallucinogens - in particular, there was a beautiful poem about Samarkand (or was it Shangri-La?) that was written by an English poet under the influence of Opium. Sadly, he was interrupted by a visiting friend and never got to finish it.

There's also a crucial difference between drugs and hallucinogens, and other forms of entertainment. With video games, I am not altering, in any significant way at any rate, by neural chemistry. If I took hallucinogens, I would be altering the very fundamental workings of my mind. And I won't do that. I will NEVER do that.

But I agree that others should be allowed to.

In reality, now that I calm down and think about it, I really have nothing against LSD users. I've met a few. They seemed to be alright sorts of people (a bit too eager to offer the stuff to me, no matter how many times I turned them down, but they weren't bad sorts of folks).

What I am against is this "Reality is an illusion, man!" Nonsense created by hippies and non-scientists who think that just because "the man" created something, it is intrinsically bad. Our scientific view of the world is NOT a cultural invention. If it was, planes wouldn't fly, your computer wouldn't work and the vaccine against smallpox would have failed. It also doesn't belong to "The Man" - women can be scientists just as much as anyone. In fact, my supervisor is a woman! And a brilliant scientist too!

But the hippies still have this conception that science is a "white man" thing, which is not only sexist (because women can be scientists) but also racist (because I've met plenty of non-white scientists in my life. In fact, I AM ONE (although I am half-white)). Science belongs to everyone and it WORKS.

Since science works, reality is present. Sure, some hippies will shout "QUANTUM, QUANTUM, QUANTUM" until they are blue in the face, but even Quantum Physics obeys mathematical laws and probabilities that we can manipulate. Reality exists. It is THERE.

My beef is with the drug users who claim otherwise - who claim that by not being on a chemical metabolite created by a MUSHROOM (of all things) you are somehow "trapped". This is nonsense of the HIGHEST order. Why would a mushroom metabolite "free" your mind?

Recreational drug use does not make a person an "evil" person, provided they don't harm anyone while on the drug. Taking LSD shouldn't cause a person to end up in the slammer. As I've said, I'd legalize it. I'd legalize marijuana as well (despite never, EVER taking it).

But hallucinogens are not "gateways to the universe". That sort of new-age-ish "spirituality" gobbledegook nonsense IS nonsense.

Science has created Radios, Satellites, Microwaves, The Internet, DNA testing, cars, planes, jet engines, plastics, antibiotics, mobile phones, AC electricity, CDs, and thousands upon thousands of other things. The hippies haven't made jack all.

 

[chadachada123]

Oh what the hell. Yes, yes and yes, because we all know how much drugs haven't ruined lives.

And to all those people who say drugs are completely harmless, you're right! Years of scientific research quickly accessible from a simple google search isn't true. That's because you're special and God is real and if you stare at your hands long enough you WILL develop ESP abilities and become famous for just existing.

And drugs are needed to have fun, because we all know that television and the CBS have destroyed our children's imaginations, turning them into annoying, narcissistic, whiny adolescents.

So yes. Drugs should be legalized because one scientist, who probably illegally takes them in the first place wants to do it in the open and at a lower price, in the name of "research". Why don't we throw a newborn baby into a lightless cellar for 50 years while teaching him quantum physics and force feeding him hallucinogens, and with all his mental disabilities, maybe he could become the next Einstein!

They see me trolling...they fallacing...

No one here is saying that drugs are completely harmless, but it would be idiotic to say that all drugs are damaging, or that all drugs are the equivalent of heroin. Some drugs are as damaging as, say, eating a large donut. Unhealthy if done in extreme, but perfectly healthy in moderation. Some are actually beneficial in certain cases, as I have linked to already but can do again if you'd like.

No one is saying that drugs are needed to have fun, either, only that, if two sources of fun (drugs and TV) produce the same output (fun) with similar side effects (we'll say laziness and a small bit of unhealthiness), there is no reason to ban only one of them.

And nice job throwing in an ad-hominem towards the researcher in OP's post.

 

[chadachada123]

-snip-

Well then, we are in agreement. Drugs do not expand your mind, scientifically-speaking, but can help bring about various artistic "achievements" (define that as you will).

I would argue that Adderall, the medicine I am prescribed for school, most certainly helps others focus their mind and can help them achieve something in school, but I can't say that it would help a person DISCOVER something scientific.

-snip-

We are in agreement that drugs like these should be *at least* decriminalized, and I would agree that people with real problems (be it caused by drugs or video games or whatever) should have the ability to seek out the help they need without fear of landing in jail. People with crippling addictions or mental problems should not be treated as criminals, they should be treated as patients.

We seem to also agree that, physical effects aside, what a person does in their own house should not be of issue if the person(s) is(are) consenting.

I'm fine with the other points you've made, though I would like to reiterate that the study on shrooms (linked to in one of my posts) showed that 79% of students, two months later, both answered that they were happier and were answered by friends/family to be happier after taking shrooms. (I also know a common LSD user, and he seems like an alright guy. He came off as a jerk at first but I realize now that that's just his sense of humor. Also, he's a druggie, so yeah).

 

[KarlMonster]

Terence Mckenna ... he was one of those philosophers/quasi-scientists

Ohhhhhh!
Is this how the Philosopher's Stoned originated?

Reality is a crutch for those who can't deal with Cthulhu.

I'm making that into a bumper sticker lol.

I'll take two, please.

But seriously...
I'm a scientist, I'm open minded, and I really, really want to try hallucinogens.
I won't try to tell you there's a right or wrong answer - 'cause there isn't one.

Although with all this talk of restriction and regulations for everybody's safety, that gave me a great idea for a business. A private facility where people are properly fed*, and then supervised while they 'trip out'. Different indoor environments, maybe an enclosed arboretum. The problem would be that this would have to be prohibitively expensive, since medical staff would be necessary, and the facility would be unable to release anyone until the hallucinogen agent had run its course.

... or until C'thulu vouches for you.
I'll take him at his ephemeral words echoing through my brain.

 

[Sandernista]

I'm all for Acid, Mescaline/peyote, and shrooms being legalized. DMT? No.

 

[Dense_Electric]

weapons to kill humans, and those are legal in the US

Uh, no, they're not. I can only assume you're referring to firearms, in which case those are not "weapons to kill humans" until an individual uses (or intends to use) them as such. I could kill you with the pencil on my desk, and that would be a "weapon to kill [a] human" as well, are you going to suggest making those illegal next?

As for hallucinogens, I'm sort of split on that issue. Other drugs should absolutely be legal as it's not the government's business to be protecting people from themselves, but it's also possible that hallucinogens could be a direct threat to others on their own (meaning one wouldn't have to get in a car or something). I'd have to see some solid numbers first.

 

[luckybreak]

Before I say anything else I would like to say that i am against drugs. However, one thing I keep seeing is people saying that all the best scientist did not do drugs. please look here

The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High

Read more: Drug | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/search/search.php?sa=search&q=drug&page=3#ixzz1UQ770i2b

Again, totally against this.

 

[johnstamos]

Only if heavily regulated by doctors and mental health status is determined beforehand.

why?....

personally I think all drugs should be legal. Screwdrivers, Belt sandsers, scissors, nailguns and circular saws are all legal and stupid people die because of them all the time.
Drugs don't kill people, heroin doesn't make a junkie suck dick for a gram, coccaine doesn't make someone shoot a cop, people do these things, stupid people mind you but they're still people with free will. Drugs don't take away a persons free will so I really hope some time in the future everyone can stop blaming drugs for everything and remember that a drugged up junkie still has the same free will as sober willy does. There is no reason for drugs to be illegal other then the fact that it is just another way for governments to fuck with you and remind you how little freedom you have.
Also as long as alcohol remains legal there's no reason for any other mind altering chemical to remain illegal. Sure if everything is legal a few morons are going to die, but they're no different then belt sander and chainsaw accidents that thin the flock of morons down..

 

[CodeOrange]

snip

They see me trolling...they fallacing...

No one here is saying that drugs are completely harmless, but it would be idiotic to say that all drugs are damaging, or that all drugs are the equivalent of heroin. Some drugs are as damaging as, say, eating a large donut. Unhealthy if done in extreme, but perfectly healthy in moderation. Some are actually beneficial in certain cases, as I have linked to already but can do again if you'd like.

No one is saying that drugs are needed to have fun, either, only that, if two sources of fun (drugs and TV) produce the same output (fun) with similar side effects (we'll say laziness and a small bit of unhealthiness), there is no reason to ban only one of them.

And nice job throwing in an ad-hominem towards the researcher in OP's post.

My contention wasn't to refute the researcher due to his occupation alone, it was to point out the stupefyingly useless and rote arguments drug users and unintellectuals present towards the legalization of drugs.

Everyone knows that innovation is limited to the realms of the imagination. So lets just say we were to incorporate drugs that were developed to alter the standing perception of a person (in this case, through hallucinogens). Wouldn't it be easier to develop techniques, mechanisms or drugs that would allow anyone to achieve lucid dreaming, where they exist in a realm where their consciousness is already in an active state, however not bound to the constraints of logic?

That's the fallback with using drugs to enhance/revolutionize the human psyche. Let's just say that hallucinogens are conveniently completely harmless, excluding the episode where they're under the influence of the drug. Will the user be able to function logically while under the influence of drugs? Would the user be able to achieve a higher state of thinking, as opposed to being useless during that time period? Would the user's imagination be bound by the constraints of logic?

The answers to all of this is: it depends, due to too many extraneous factors. Really, humans should welcome being bound by the constraints of the imagination. Anyone who's studied psychology should know that the imagination (daydreaming) is theorized to give way to inspiration.