Poll: Should Hallucinogens be legal?

[Tanakh]

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?

Yeah, i guess i forgot the wonderful uses of an assault weapon besides killing and or maiming dudes; they make wonderful paperweights, are more fun to assemble than a rubik cube and can turn the lightbulb off without you getting off the bed!

Look, i get why we need guns, US military forces need em, police need em, but does the average citizen need a semiautomatic or automatic weapon to fight against the queen of England? Don't think so, and the criminality rate/murder rate/violence rate of the US seems higher than that of most developed countries.

 

[bloopblerp]

Also, When talking about legalizing drugs you shouldn't be thinking 'does it harm you?' because that obviously doesn't matter because most people drink alcohol and smoking, which basically damages every organ in your body. We should be saying 'does it harm you more than drinking and smoking?' and in almost every case you'll find it probably doesn't

does me taking a tab of LSD do more damage to me and put me in more danger than an average booze and cigarette filled night out?

Alcohol a drug that inhibits everyone of your skills with the exception being ones that involve pissing, that then makes you overconfident and in allot of cases aggressive. Its even advertised everywhere.

banning drugs these because they might be dangerous if taken by a spaz is a fucking huuuugee double standard. ban booze and smokes or shut up and let me smoke a joint on the weekend and take a tab of LSD when i see roger waters next year

 

[chadachada123]

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?

Yeah, i guess i forgot the wonderful uses of an assault weapon besides killing and or maiming dudes; they make wonderful paperweights, are more fun to assemble than a rubik cube and can turn the lightbulb off without you getting off the bed!

Look, i get why we need guns, US military forces need em, police need em, but does the average citizen need a semiautomatic or automatic weapon to fight against the queen of England? Don't think so, and the criminality rate/murder rate/violence rate of the US seems higher than that of most developed countries.

I don't trust a police officer to obey the law any more than I trust a common citizen to, and I don't think that giving one group not only better weapons but also essentially immunity from the law is a good idea.

Not to mention, why should a police officer (one already trained in hand-to-hand combat and ALSO equipped with other defense items) have the ability to protect himself against an armed agressor trying to kill him, but a girl walking home isn't allowed to have a weapon to defend herself with?

Especially confusing is why a police officer should be able to shoot-to-kill people that threaten him, yet a common citizen cannot.

As far as the violence/murder rate, I would recommend you look at Switzerland. They have a very high rate of assault weapon ownership, but very low gun crime and violent crime rates. On top of that, I would point out that the vast majority of gun owners that purchase their gun legally do not commit violent crimes, but rather those that obtain their guns ILLEGALLY that commit the majority of violent crimes. Especially so in urban areas. The gang problem in the US is far worse than most of (West) Europe and the UK, which has more to do with economic problems and social differences than with the availability of guns in itself.

 

[Chronologger]

I can't say much for any other hallucinogens, but me and my friends tried salvia for the first time a few months ago, and boy, does it make you trip BALLS.

I would go into detail about what I saw but that would take far too long, all I'm going to say is that my conscious mind had no control over what I was seeing, hearing or feeling even with my eyes wide open. Friends said I looked right through them as if they weren't even there and started talking in incomprehensible slow-mo style gibberish before I finally just fell backward through a plastic table in my back garden and remained motionless for about 5 minutes before coming back to reality.

While I was caught up in that experience, it's hard to explain the pure horror I could have sworn I was seeing before me with my very own eyes, but I'm sure it will suffice for me to say that I honestly thought for a moment that all of the reality we know had instantaneously been snatched away by some Godly, apocalyptic force of unfathomable proportions. I saw (what I thought was) the very last seconds of my reality (what I could see with my eyes) being TORN APART before me (by what looked like small, metal spires piercing through the image of what I was seeing), I'm not exaggerating this in the slightest, it was easily one of the most terrified states I've been in throughout my whole life. I ran into the kitchen and started eating and drinking food after my trip because I wasn't sure what was real and what wasn't..

Mind you, salvia is LEGAL.
Why?
I haven't got a single fucking clue, I guess the reasoning is that you're so fucking out-of-it when your tripping that you couldn't be any harm to anyone.

After hearing some other peoples experiences with it, I've heard that it induces hallucinations much more vivid and overwhelming than LSD or even Magic Mushrooms.

Personally I think hallucinogens should be illegal, or just very highly regulated and can only be used under specific safety measures, anywhere else, and it becomes a risk to you and others around you.

 

[bloopblerp]

Why should the cop have a gun and not me
Why should the pilot be able to fly and not me
Why can the doctor prescribe drugs and not me

Because they are trained professionals and you are just some guy born in a country with worryingly relaxed gun laws

 

[Cowabungaa]

Only if they're proven to be non-addictive and relatively safe, and only then they should only be sold by licensed shops who know their shit.

People can do wacky shit when they're tripping out of their balls, and while I'm totally cool if someone does that in their own home I wouldn't want them to seriously endanger themselves and more importantly someone else.

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?

There's a difference between "can kill" and "being designed to inflict serious injury or even death as effectively as possible." And guess under which catagory most firearms fall. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[chadachada123]

Why should the cop have a gun and not me
Why should the pilot be able to fly and not me
Why can the doctor prescribe drugs and not me

Because they are trained professionals and you are just some guy born in a country with worryingly relaxed gun laws

Are you comparing a pilot or doctor's training to a police officer's? Cops have hardly more than a basic firearms training as far as guns go, and there really isn't anything special to learn as far as firearms go to make one as qualified to fire one as a police officer (other than learning the specific laws regarding carrying in your town/state).

Most police training is not spent on firearms in itself, herp derp, and you are also assuming that I think that people should be able to carry without any training whatsoever, which may not be the case. A person with training, say, in a Concealed Carry class, is just as qualified to carry as a police officer, and should have the same right to DEFEND THEIR OWN LIFE as a police officer.

Perhaps you also don't understand that for small, weak, or frail people, a firearm is the only thing that can put them on the same level as a large or strong aggressor, the only thing that can give them a fair shot at saving with their life intact. Especially so if there are multiple aggressors.

Why are we even discussing this? A person should have the right to own or do what they want, in their own home, so long as they aren't harming others and all parties are consenting. This isn't a hard concept, and in my opinion it applies to guns as well as drugs (and also applies to suicide and goddamn harrier jets).

 

[Tanakh]

I don't trust a police officer to obey the law any more than I trust a common citizen to, and I don't think that giving one group not only better weapons but also essentially immunity from the law is a good idea.

Not to mention, why should a police officer (one already trained in hand-to-hand combat and ALSO equipped with other defense items) have the ability to protect himself against an armed agressor trying to kill him, but a girl walking home isn't allowed to have a weapon to defend herself with?

Especially confusing is why a police officer should be able to shoot-to-kill people that threaten him, yet a common citizen cannot.

As far as the violence/murder rate, I would recommend you look at Switzerland. They have a very high rate of assault weapon ownership, but very low gun crime and violent crime rates. On top of that, I would point out that the vast majority of gun owners that purchase their gun legally do not commit violent crimes, but rather those that obtain their guns ILLEGALLY that commit the majority of violent crimes. Especially so in urban areas. The gang problem in the US is far worse than most of (West) Europe and the UK, which has more to do with economic problems and social differences than with the availability of guns in itself.

Well, I guess USA have a problem with their cops then. If you had national health problem, which would make more sense, improve your doctors or let any citizen to prescribe medicine?

About the girl walking alone home? Well, it sucks, but how is the weapon going to help? Any half decent criminal who isn't brain dead and has internet access will be able to disarm her and then do whatever he had planned.

And Switzerland? It does seem to have a firearm problem you know? See this http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Germany/Switzerland/Crime
Germany has 110% more crime than Switzerland, yet Switzerland has 100% more murders by firearms, that is, if they had the same amount of crime, the in Switzerland a random crime would be more than 4 times more likely to be a murder by firearm.

Not to mention that you are arming the Mexican cartels, and i think we both agree that is a bad idea.

 

[b3nn3tt]

-snip-Original Post-snip-

I think that hallucinogens, like all other drugs, should be legalised, as they would be better regulated and safer than is the current case, and people should be able to ingest whatever substances they like into their own body; providing of course that they don't endanger anyone else e.g. driving under the influence.

However, I think that you reasoning behind why they should be legalised is a bit odd. I think that using hallucinogens to 'further our understanding of reality' sounds ridiculous. People could easily injure others if they perceived them as something dangerous and tried to defend themselves. Also, I don't think that anti-psychotics should really be used to counter the effect of hallucinogens, that's not their intended purpose.

 

[Phisi]

Interesting topic, I'll have to go with neither. I think that one should have access to those drugs if they desire as you only live once and it's your body you are potentially harming. However they should be regulated, if someone become like the crack addict stereotype, schizophrenic, homeless and violent and starts becoming a burden or harming other people then, well that would be in the opposite of my morals ("do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect anyone in a negative manner"). As for owning guns, flying planes etc. The law is a bit flawed in that aspect by instead of punishing wrong-dowers it restricts law abiding citizens with the aim of prevention. So a compromise must be made and I think the current system (At least in Australia) works fine for the most part (I could probably come up with some flaws but I doubt I could come up with a better solution and then I'd just be nitpicking), you have access to them if you are prepared to go through the procedures yet they still manage a reasonable level of prevention.

 

[Rawne1980]

Easy solution.

Stay awake for 7 days.

Not only will you start seeing wierd shit it's completely legal.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

No, people aren't responsible enough to handle hallucinogens.

 

[Communist partisan]

Yes of course, one step closer to 100% freedom.

 

[chadachada123]

Easy solution.

Stay awake for 7 days.

Not only will you start seeing wierd shit it's completely legal.

Although funny (and I did hallucinate once after 3 days without sleep, so I know that it works), sleep deprivation is SOOOO much more damaging to a person's body than marijuana or shrooms.

A fair point, too, since sleep deprivation is as damaging as alcohol intoxication (by which I mean, a night without sleep is as bad as driving around the legal limit) for driving ability, yet is legal. Seems there are some incongruities in our laws, eh?

 

[Esotera]

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

Whilst this wasn't strictly your point, the illegality of drugs is stopping a lot of important research; MDMA's usage in treatment of PTSD, psilocybin from shrooms for use in terminal cancer patients as a form of therapy.

Isn't carefully testing what these drugs can do, then deciding which action to take, better than just flat-out making them all illegal?

 

[CrazyMedic]

I think it should only be Salvia(Assuming Salvia is what I have heard it is never have tried it myself) and it should be done in government taxed parlors where they can restrict dosage and prevent people from harming others like sit you in a chair strap you in a chair give you a few hits let you fly then let you go on your way.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Drugs shouldn't be illegal like they are now. All it does is drive money into the hands of drug dealers and gangs, etc, and it doesn't actually stop people from taking them. You'd need to look objectively at the effects of each individual drug. A lot of drugs should be legal in a controlled way, IMO. Just blanket banning them is reckless.

 

[Togs]

No I dont think they should, they dont "free" your mind they just mess with your perceptions.
I do think that people should try them though, atl east Ive always wanted to.

 

[Kuranesno7]

Hate to break it to you, but citing the good Mr. McKenna is hardly sufficient evidence to say that hallucinogens should become more widely used. Don't get me wrong here, I'm familiar with Mr. McKenna, and he has some interesting hypotheses, but that's all they are. Hypotheses. He's an armchair philosopher, not a scientific wunderkind.

I do think that hallucinogens can, in the right context, have some psychologically beneficial uses. But they're hardly the only road to advancement of the species. And widespread regular use would be more likely to do damage than it would be to do good. Regular overindulgence in psychedelics can do some serious damage to your ability to function.

This is kind of why I said this was a thought, but I understand the point. They can do more harm than good, but what are the odds that in the long run the ingestion of mind-altering substances (proper ones, not legitimate poisons or some ecstacy knock-off) could do more good than harm?
"advancing the species" does sound retarded in retrospect, I just figured there's all sorts of horrible shit that's legal, what's the worst one that one more can do? would the downfall of civilization occur if we made certain cactus buds, mushrooms, a carefully made chemical, and a naturally occuring substance in the brain legal?
would the possibility of everyone feeling a certain experience of either gnosis or profound terror at least bring people together to talk about this crazy shit, be a possibly beneficial thing.
I'm probably talking out of my ass on this one, I just feel that all of this stuff has been given an unfair rap and that these substances can be of some use to humanity.