The Vespiary

Site => Harm Reduction Resources => Topic started by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on August 30, 2015, 06:49:34 PM

Title: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on August 30, 2015, 06:49:34 PM
If it's ok in principle, for the government to say, you cannot consume drugs because it will do you harm, then why is it not also ok to make things like over-eating, for example, a crime/punishment and/or legal issue as well (which by the way, kills A LOT more people EVERY year than all illicit drugs combined), or skydiving, skiing, surfing, state's/parishes or territories with no helmet laws for motorcycles, etc., etc., this list could easily go on and on(you get the point).......

So where do you draw the line? Simply where one CHOOSES to draw the line, is that the criteria?

Well, by definition then, a drug war is not about harm reduction in ANY way.

What then, is the real intent of a drug war?

What actual purpose is being served?

Just a thought

It is not heroin, meth or cocaine that makes one an addict. It is the need to escape from a harsh reality.—SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: quicksilver on August 30, 2015, 08:40:50 PM
I sat here and pondered this for a few minutes, trying to think about it from a neutral standpoint. As an American, I see it from a couple different perspectives. A topic as broad as this can never be fully covered, as it spans from the individial's specific encounters to his or her lifestyle all the way to a national and eventually worldwide scope. The best one could do is draft a predictive model of models, which by working in the behavioral and economic realms, could be as much wrong as it could be right by erring in any aspect of the whole thing.

Of course there is the age-old argument that most drug traffic is in fact regulated by the CIA or whatever in the United States and thus most of the developed world and of course too-big-to-fail crime syndicates. The money being made stems from control, and in some instances it is more economically profitable for some things to be illegal instead of legal. Shifts in the market such as that of marijuana can maintain the profits for all (major [important]) parties involved by taking the right steps to change the legal status, and may even create a whole new level of profit short-term until it kind of comes back to where it was after some decades. Of course things like Oxycodone are controlled exclusively by Big Pharma and regualtion is to be expected once something else fun becomes legal.

As far as some harder drugs, well, for some, the physical and psychological health hazards are well-documented and known. Although it is a good case that man should have a right to choose how to live his life, laws such as these come into effect when it is necessary to prevent a lot of harm and justify the restriction on freedom. Obviously, laws can be stupid. No doubt. I kind of strayed from the economic part because I don't think it is the main reason at all, and also I don't know anything about economics, so nobody should really ready what I said and take it as completely accurate, but simply proposals to a big picture no one understands.

The main point I am thinking of is children. If there were no restrictions on drugs, they would undoubtedly be much more accessible to children. The simple widespread nature of the tobacco industry ensures people get hooked in adolescence. The 18 year old law is virtually a nonfactor (speaking from the U.S.), whereas harsh drug laws deter many (most?) from doing drugs. Those who do, typically do so not when they are early teenagers, but progress through say, tobacco as a gateway drug to weed which then is a gateway drug to more fun things. That simply takes time, so it delays these experiences until people are a bit more cognizant of their actions.

Also, although unfortunate, a stigma surrounds drug use and abuse, and although some studies may say otherwise, I'm sure with all things considered anti-drug programs and family upbringing instills a completely polarized view of drugs preventing many people from ever trying them. Those that do despite all of this either do so socially early on, or have to overcome predispositions by looking clearly at facts and making the informed decision to do so. These people have reached an age where they are able to deliberate and can do so responsibly, and are even so capable that they circumvent the drug laws and do so because their personal decided pleasure is not whimsical but involves risks they determined worth taking. Of course, this isn't all cut-and-dry. This is one big spectrum of ethical ambiguity, but generalizations are necessary to even touch on this matter.

If a significant percentage more of children were exposed to drugs at an early, impressionable,  and naive age, even a small percentage more really, the entire socioeconomic landscape of the nation and world would be impacted. Many who would have been good workers and brilliant minds would instead have their life paths changed dramatically. This then changes the construct of workforces, economies, etc. One would also have to examine where we came from.

In more developed nations, Christianity was the cornerstone of society and drug use was largely frowned upon. Propaganda surely enforced this. Also, a strong workforce was desired, family values were different and actually mattered, yada yada yada. The legislation is from a different time. There were like 1,000,000,000 people on this planet in like 1800, so the percentages potentially affected were much more significant in terms of importance to the world. Times are clearly changing, and the process of legalization across the board will be natural, set in motion by successful complete decriminalization in "test" countries so to speak. There is just inherently lag time for the process to begin let alone complete since there is so much involved.  Like hundreds of years potentially idk. Maybe not that long.

Essentially, although other things are unimpeded that are of higher risk for harm, they are at least regulated to the extent that one must have a working understanding of risks involved putting themselves (not others) at risk (a motorcyclist needs a permit, a skydiver needs instructing, and none are directed to kids). So personally I think it is in effect to MINIMZE (not eliminate) exposure to children who are incapable to make educated decisions to do drugs which could very well impact their entire life for better or for worse. The argument is for worse. The model in the information age with 7 billion people in the world is becomming obsolete and shifting to where legalization/regulation would be the most effective to keep the desired results consistent, but again a ton of things are involved and the shift will slide along the spectrum to compensate.

Sorry if my thoughts are disorganized. I just thought about it and these are my personal non-researched conclusions. It was just a meaty topic so I thought I'd start a-typin' and try to challenge myself to better understand why things are the way they are. I'm sure there is much more to it, including the fact that it is pure nonsense. But there are at least 2 sides to every story.

Feel free to say I'm wrong on all counts or whatever. But hey, who isn't excited for demand for MDMA to spike after weed legalization nationwide in the U.S. occurs? Markets can work for and against you. RIP neighborhood pot dealer. Or not. I truly don't know...

EDIT: I wasn't too clear on the whole precedent and shifting of cultural views. I'm of course not talking about the 1800's but it has been more of an exponential decline in those old ways of thinking through the mid 1900's to today,and we are hitting an upswing of intellect and information, and the common man is more independently informed rather than by family systems and social acceptance. This new age mindset is allowing the old taboos to become the new fads, and we are just at the crossroads of it, where acceptance is becoming the middle-ground. Ifthatmakesanysense.
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: likeiam on September 01, 2015, 12:55:24 AM
What actual purpose is being served?

try battling that one, now that's serious warfare
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: Lipbalm on September 01, 2015, 03:58:30 AM
When I got one finger up one hooker's ass and my tongue up another's is where I draw the line for a substance. If it's not making me do that then it's ok.... which is why there are some drugs I stay away from.
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 01, 2015, 04:47:00 AM
A basic premise of the ruling class of every society, is to keep the lower and middle classes fighting amongst ourselves, or otherwise distracted, so that they, the rich can run off with all the fucking money............fairly simple thing.... happens to work!! quite well actually

Whether its crack with the 80% black arrests.....or meth with the 80% white arrests...... and almost identical exaggerated social hysteria for the meth epidemic, that they used to get the public in a frenzy, by way of one of their all time best seller's,
illusion of perceived, but non-existent danger

These drugs weren't coincidentally the 2 random drugs that got demonized the most, they are a convenient means to an end, which is demonizing these drugs, allows them to focus law enforcement staff, resources, etc on both of these undesirable groups.....without being called into question for it.......

Cause get real, that's some of the most profiling , stereotyping, cherry picking discrimination since who knows when.......not to mention, embody's the very definition of "othering" (the not one of us mentality)

Take my word for it, I've resided in some state funded, state-catered, and fully state staffed resort getaways, the ones with very high barb-wire fences, and whose staff love to count.......on more than one occasion, and never for a mere weekend getaway; no unfortunately, these fine facilities require at least a 1 year stay to book a getaway with them

One watched violent charge, after pedophile, after manslaughter charge, after robbery 1st degree... all them charges routinely beat us non-violent drug offenders out the gate..... they seemed quite comfortable letting pedophiles out at least as fast as my possesion of controlled substance.....quite the spectacle, especially when they break into the repeat offender ranks of that same class of upstanding citizens, and portray equal amounts of couldn't give a fuck either way...

The real fuckups in a society weed themselves out .....anyone  that disregards your own self and well being and needed balance in your own life , as well as everyone and everything around the point of either causing yourself, others, or both, any kind of consistent and repeated harm, and without regard, eliminates themselvelves via the age old chart topper~self destruction.....such is never a matter of if.....merely a matter of when, and much more so than the obvious other universal applications of that same not if, but when, principle

Whether its un-moderated drug use, simple stress; a man's better half with a knife, gun, or poison, & a bottle of prozac for the blues and some notions of you getting the old rocks off elsewhere; unhealthily eating oneself into a grave; or as something as simple as a disregard to the need of overall balance in one's life, who doesn't even use drugs, or drink or smoke heavy, average person, that makes no effort to eat a balanced occasional or otherwise healthy meal, doesn't drink water, but instead coke and/or coffee all day every day, get's very little physical activity and no exercise, does not bother with supplements or health conscientiousness in any preventative though process.... that person's risk of developing pancreatic cancer alone, is 80 or so % higher, ONLY because they drink all that fucking coke and no water......

So along these lines, we can hand out blame that is much more deserving and unable to be used safely in any setting, safely, compared to these "hardest 4 drugs" that CAN, actually be used safely and without risk of any freakout or bad experience otherwise, if one simply is mindful to the factors and control variables that make such consistent safety a reality for these "hard" drugs, that they claim that is not even debatable........

As seemingly harmless as having pathological profiles as research focus may somewhat be, when evaluating these drugs....... and even considering how justified it may be in one regard(reporting harms), the unmentioned side note of that focus, is that the same pathology focus of the research skews the hell out of the data that we get fed and have all things associated with drugs and us based off of, and it's never called into account or even implicated for being a very, very big difference between the facts being an entirely different result reported as truth for this drug, meth for example, than if the the pathological profile is still a priority, but properly differentiating from the numbers that actually correlate to the real world, and typical use of the drug......not some exaggerated and isolated incident's numbers, which are almost always going to vary quite noticeably from the standard and more generally applicable numbers that are not even regarded as it pertains to us in any way

All we ever get reported as fact, truth, and standard, across the board for meth, for example, are those numbers that were produced reflecting the isolated and more extreme circumstances, which does happen, and I'm not trying to say otherwise, but that's a smaller percentage and inconsistent truth to universally apply as truth , on other use brackets that it is not applied to reflect nor account for across the board for that entirely different user setting, and entirely different parameters, which make is......

it's in more than just police's interest to continue saying that these drugs are bad, meaning all too quick will we point a finger at ol johnny law aka scumbag, but we seem to forget that the scientific community gains much from that same drug attitude, of keeping up the view that these drugs only have a pathological profile to base facts way of funding, it's increased progressively, while these drugs are still in limbo and essentially, still referred to and thought of as evil the fview still abounding as truth,

Stress with out mindframe will put me, you, and any other non-super human entity in a grave as quick or quicker than any other natural cause
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: Lipbalm on September 01, 2015, 05:58:45 PM
I propose a no posting while high rule.
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: hitoame on September 01, 2015, 07:08:16 PM
Lipbalm, we would miss out on all those good hive posts if that were such.  8)
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 01, 2015, 07:22:10 PM
certainly food for thought there Lipbalm

One cannot deny the soundness of sheer logic, certainly after reading one's own nonsense  :o
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 01, 2015, 07:28:31 PM
But high or not, one does challenge any of you ladies & gents to refute actual facts like 80 - 90 percent of the U.S.'s drug users not being addicted, nor having any form of addiction, and the majority of them leading productive lives and taking care of their families, etc........sources and all; preferably leaving out those sources that are sometimes conveniently just quoted as standards of truth, without nary a thought to include such facts, that the establishment that produced and funded them, has agenda's like pathology, and how these agenda's skew the hell out the data they provide, and report as facts.......and have no place even being called facts, without including such information with these alleged 'sources'.......

come on with it  ;) sure and bring any drug bashers you know too, they always make for good entertainment, as well as more nonsense than even my high ass can produce, particularly when they bring their bibles wearing their sunday best

While you're at it, riddle me this........can the human body differentiate between adderall and methamphetamine when taken, like society does, just because of that methyl group attached to it?

preferably leaving out the obvious implications that a even a short bus could point out, such as the potency difference, that is accounted for in dose, when comparing the two

and one does mean real d-methamphetamine..... not some nasty ass, cut up street dope, that's funked up with the adulterants that are the only thing that merits all the lies and misconceptions that surround meth
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: Zippy on September 01, 2015, 08:01:17 PM
80 - 90 percent of the U.S.'s drug users not being addicted, nor having any form of addiction, and the majority of them leading productive lives and taking care of their families

Do you have a source for this alleged fact?
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: Scarecrow on September 01, 2015, 08:07:27 PM
>actual facts like 80 - 90 percent of the U.S.'s drug users not being addicted, nor having any form of addiction
>actual facts like 80 - 90 percent of the U.S.'s drug users not being addicted
>actual facts like 80 - 90 percent of the U.S.'s drug users
>U.S.'s drug users
>drug users
>actual facts
>drug users
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 01, 2015, 08:12:57 PM
Actually i do there bubba, brb....and it's surprisingly not skewed by any failed to mention research focus like pathology

~~Start this at the 20:15 minute mark and take a couple minutes to actually listen, and you tell me, or hell listen to the whole'll learn alot more than just that 80 - 90 percent of drug users are not addicted, and lead normal, productive lives


hxxp://         (a lot of good information on this site)


~~There's a whole branch of behavioral science and history on drugs that has been worked out, but.........they don't share these things with the public......

~They've known these things..... these addiction facts......

~Believe it or not, this is not new information


Edit~~My apologies people, I was wrong, the actual numbers and studies show that Almost 80 percent of all consumers of illegal drugs consume drugs without problems.   htxxp://

“Nearly 80 per cent of all illegal drug users use drugs without problems such as addiction”

“Complex economic and social issues were reduced to criminal justice problems”

“I have to make sure I don't engage in conversations with people who don't abide by the rules of evidence.” CarlHart
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: Zippy on September 01, 2015, 08:57:33 PM
It has been my personal experience that, although the energy and focus can be appealing for a while (for example making sure all the light switches in all your rooms which are older & have the word 'Luminex' printed on the switch end, are cleaned with a pin, cloth and IPA) the effects of tweek long term lead to psychosis, a certain loss of perspective on matters in life big and small.  Indeed, if one stays up for long periods, 72 hours or more, the entire world seems shrouded in purple curtains.

But I digress.  Please continue to lay out your facts, as such.
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 01, 2015, 09:32:19 PM
no zippy, you are right, one is not refuting any matter of facts like you just stated ........
facts are facts, no amount of justifying or rationalizing will ever change that..... and i have absolutely no intention or want for them to....

I rather enjoy the focusing of my energy towards both promoting them, and circulating them....including the good, bad, and every degree in between..... because it is in these things that we begin to make progress that the great gifts we humans were given, have the potential of allowing us to be a part of.....instead of self-limiting ourselves with lies like are perpetuated about illicit drugs, and any other similarly regarded things in our society

I have no interest in the things our society deems harmful, and actually provides facts, truth, and evidence to support as being so....... because we are already making progress in these areas, by confronting the reality of them......
Quite the contrary on the other ones though

It is here that my true interest resides.....and not just drugs, that just happens to be one of major ones in that category of intentional misconceptions

"We cannot shape the world, without first understanding how the world shapes us"  University of London Student Module Assignment, based around Dr. Hart's book, High Price: A NeruoScientist's Journey of Self Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society(the book is downloadable in one of my posts in this thread), as well as his other book, which is actually an in-use text book for student drug education in our public education system(Drugs, Society, And Behavior) ..... downloadable in the same thread as High Price, in this thread
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 01, 2015, 10:32:23 PM
certainly didn't realize it when typing that a little while ago, but it seems as if I made a rather defining group of statements about myself.......   believe i'll have to coin that  ;D

"I rather enjoy the focusing of my energy towards both the promoting and circulating of facts ....including the good, bad, and every degree in between..... because it is in these things that we begin to make progress that the great gifts we humans were given, have the potential of allowing us to be a part of.....instead of self-limiting ourselves with lies like are perpetuated about illicit drugs, and any other similarly regarded things in our society
I have no interest in the things our society deems harmful, and actually provides facts, truth, and evidence to support as being so....... because we are already making progress in these areas, by confronting the reality of them......
Quite the contrary on the other ones though
It is here that my true interest resides.....and not just drugs, that just happens to be one of major ones in that category of intentional misconceptions in this day and age" ~~~me

imagine that, already a legend in my own mind, lol...............not for real, i actually take a little too much pride in my capacity for humility, though.....which is more than likely a flaw in itself, but none-the-less..........who knows, one does what one can  ;)
Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 02, 2015, 03:46:23 AM
You know what's sad is the fact that this data of the 80 - 90 % of people that use drugs are not addicted, has been known, but not shared, for over 40 years now(In the U.S. anyway, don't know about elsewhere )......

that's fucking disgraceful.....and can't nobody with any upbringing, classify it otherwise......or at least unless they use some kind of synonymous word, with at least a vaguely similar meaning to disgraceful [shockingly unacceptable]

Equally disgraceful are things like the demonizing of meth, when way back in 1971, researchers gave side by side, oral doses up to 30 mg of meth and amphetamine repetitively, verifying that they produce the same effects  =  well documented and verified information, yet when a public surge of use of it breaks out a few decades later, they act like their deaf and dumb to any facts or info on it, and subsequently some years after that, with the crack epidemic winding down....

....And things calming a bit..........they spin up a replacement epidemic with meth as the target, saying similar shit as when crack was wrongly implicated in 1986..... like meth has a unique pharmacological profile, and relaying this info by defining their use of unique pharmacological profile as being like no drug we've ever seen.....bullshit.....was bullshit then, and is bullshit wasn't and isn't with no more a unique pharmacological profile, in terms of their use of the phrase, than all the adderall and any other form of amphetamine i'm omitting, shuffled around and passed out like fucking breath mints

hence keeping the equivalent effect producing "breath mint", in widespread and complete legally controlled use for adhd, add, narcolepsy, obesity.........well i suppose the meth was too, via Desoxyn, but that's not the point, one can see the point here hopefully....

people don't know, if you tell them that the human body cannot differentiate between adderall and pure d-methamphetamine, they look at you like your fucking crazy, and you typically get responses like "NO IT'S NOT!!!!"   

effects monitored for differences ~~~(systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure,heart rate, temperature~~all important physiological measures= same effects)                                                   

then you got subjective effects,(euphoria , stimulator, alertness,etc.=same effects) They also let the participants choose between meth and amphetamine repeatedly, and self administer repeatedly preference toward meth

don't know the doses tried on the older of these runs in the 80's and 90's, but i do know the know the ones from the early 2000's..........  12 mg and 12 mg,  20 mg and 20 mg (that one might be 30, but i know its one of them), then 50 mg and 50 mg........ these apply for everything described above

bottom line is ........drug effects are predictable, if you know a few factors~~ dose, how much your taking, novice, frequent or infrequent user, tolerance, etc. .........we know that tolerance is a huge factor, and it's regarded as a bad thing.....bullshit

tolerance is a good thing......tolerance will be a reason someone does not overdose, or be too high, etc........yet it's instilled to be regarded as a bad thing ..... and taboo as the lies told about the drugs themselves........

environment is critically important in mediating drug effects.........all these things.......

you can control things like anxiety production factors which make big differences and are part of predicting effects and ensuring safety

you know what's NOT predictable..... police encounters.... that shits more dangerous than a drug that my fucking kids take, that I can teach them how to control the effects of and be safe on......its fact and logic, simple and plain..... drug effects are predictable  .............

adulterants and/or cuts are the only thing that ever warranted any of the unnecessary demonizing that has been intentionally used to implicate any drug that's use can be controlled

I'm all for safety and individual rights, in terms of someone getting harmed by a person on a drug that's effects are not able to be controlled, and won't bat an eye or cry by keeping THOSE drugs as controlled substances, but not EVERY other fucking one along with them.... that's just stupid or sold out, one of the two. And I don't know about you, but I don't think the vast majority who are in a position of say so on such things, along with most of our other supposed "leaders" in that sect of employment, are that stupid either, so that don't leave but the obvious alternative.....

like them saying to self......"let's see how much soft money I can collect in exchange for my core values" ...... or any other means of selling out and following the herd.....about like the U.S. here, ......poor fucking brainwashed ass voters actually think they making a difference..... this country was bought and paid for a long fucking time ago, that shit they shuffle around every 4 years=(hand mimic jacking one's dick and cumming) and keeping up the mirage that it actually means any more than dick, zilch, zero, nothing; and letting the illusion stand that any president in this country, will ever serve any other REAL purpose, other than a figure head/ focus point for the public, in terms of the meaningless information they actually release to the public......

never seen the point of all the prestige and notoriety attached to a fucking glorified p.r. rep, myself, but I suppose it's necessary to help maintain the illusion of freedom of choice, just like the elections to swap em out every 4 years, for a new public relations representative~~~~~ illusion of meaningless choice..... not too bad a story, gotta give em that.... and so simple...... silly nazi's, this is all they had to do to take over the world!!

politicians never have led, that i know of; sure as hell don't now, that much i know; and likely will not change in the future.....
they only care about voters.... none of them will ever brave the politics to make the needed changes, as long as these myths about drugs are allowed to remain what the public knows........ no incentive......

but..... when the script gets flipped on what the public knows about these drugs, it probably still won't hit home with em, and matter, but it will over time......... of coarse it's gonna take time for a good many to adjust from the brainwashing we all had for so long, but the sooner it get's introduced to em, the sooner they start their slow ass process of becoming at ease enough with the shit, for it to eventually become a normal subject......and not a taboo un-easyness and discomfort of a feeling, that comes natural to em, at the thought of even having to refer to one of the "hard" drugs, in any other way than bash fear of some stranger nearby that might judge them for being a supporter of such spread the message, anyway one can, hell ...i'm probably not doing dick, in terms of making any difference by ranting here, i know that, nothing of any real significance anyway, and impact....... but i'm gonna fucking try

i aint pointing no damn fingers and trying to obligate nobody or anything like that....just saying... take the fucking drugs out of the picture, and honestly think about what other possible aspects, that keeping drugs illegal can affect, in terms of our civil liberties and the general principle of LE being bucked back down to actually having to go through actual channels and procedures to violate our 4th amendment protection from search and seizure(well, in the U.S., not sure about other countries, sorry), when you say no to a search, and "probable cause" replies with "step out of the vehicle sir".....and nothing is even in plain view or smells of alcohol or any ACTUAL probable cause...... but the notion itself, gives them the leeway, to turn it into a matter of your word against theirs, if they so desire.......

or next week i could be driving home from work and get pulled over for a illegal lane change or some stupid, similar bald ass excuse, and be harassed to the max, all in the name of drugs and their word over mine, (now of course Im not dumb enough to leave my house with anything i can't 100% dispose of in a crisis like that, but that's not the point, it's the principle) and your ass could be too at any time we out don't fool yourself with thinking this is limited to the issue of drugs, this shit effect many other aspects of our lives, directly and indirectly, like it or hate it , love it or leave it

might not ever be an issue for you from here on out, or for me......and you may be fine with that, but i'm not.........i'm not at ease with some douchebag that who knows if he hadn't got laid in a month of sundays, and just mad at the fucking world, and I have any probability of being a vent for his frustrations, or his misery loves company approach to dealing with lower class, white males....fuck that shit... not when i know there's better options, like the option of virtually fully or at least somewhat restoring the 4th Amendment protection that lower class, white males actually had before the meth epidemic, which I now know is literally complete fucking horse shit!

things like this effect other area of our lives besides being able to get high or whatever......yours and my civil liberties have been significantly reduced in areas not even related to drugs, because of drugs and the social hysteria's they've used to divert attention when they've made their moves over the years...... the secret's out...... don't sell out...... you only hurting yourself and future generations by doing so

and more than likely you don't even know about what civil liberties you've been doing without because of the drug myths used over the years.... hell i don't either, you know why? because we lived our whole lives without them! Many of them are things that hit the books when we wasn't old enough to piss in the toilet without painting the walls.... so we don't know, it's normal to us doing without them...... well i'm interested to find out exactly what they have taken away over the years, and intend on digging a little to find out, but regardless, it's not just the civil liberties they've taken in the name of stupid shit like drug myths, or just harassment, be it direct or indirectly related to drug's giving them a reason like probable cause, it's bigger than that man......

use your imagination, this shit matters, you know it, and i know it..........

Title: Re: Where do you draw the line?
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on September 02, 2015, 10:13:34 AM
Legalities, civil liberties, and other similar things aside, there are other very worthwhile reasons for all of us to put forth added effort to ensuring this information's circulation.....

Removing the mystery, taboo's, and myth's surrounding these drugs, opens the culture of this world up to new opportunities that would benefit, advance, and enrich all the things that both drew us to it in the first place, and keep us emerged in it.

Take a longer view......... I'm as guilty of the next, of being short-sided sometimes, and not doing it myself. But I make a conscious effort to kick myself in the ass, when I have those needed moments of emergence from that limited view we are all guilty of lulling ourselves into, sometimes....

Nobody tries to limit their view or be short-sided, it's a by-product of our reality.....there's no blame, implications, recourse or any other form of accountability in such things, it simply is what it is.......but ain't nobody gonna take the wheel for us, and take whatever detours we may encounter, that have the potential to get us to a destination quicker, easier, and any other number of advantages that such things include......

hell, for that matter, could be one of those detours that narrows up to a half a lane, damn near motorcycle width, and have police on every other block, all with axes to grind on anybody not conformed to their little ideal persona, but the end result actually becoming an eta(estimated time of arrival) within our lifetimes, is intriguing enough to have me re-route and take a shot.....

to me, the bridging of that gap between us and society, opens up doors that i wouldn't mind having access to.......
now, granted, decriminalization or legalization will take away the inherent mystery and lure that the laws, myths and taboo's have created for this world........ and even though this same magic drew us to it to start with, and inevitably takes some of the interest we have in it with it....luckily, many of us here are in it for the long haul, I do believe. and that being the case, i don't see such things just shaking us off like a bad case of fleas.....I know i won't be.....Any who agree with such observations, must at least see some value, in us brainstorming the most effective ways of better and quicker assisting this information to getting to the front lines for the masses

anyone see any harm in having such a discussion and/or thread ??      thoughts?? Would like to see of one's constituency is on board with such things though..... talk to me

and i must admit, i have a certain amount of disdain at the thought of us being mixed in with the masses, i ain't gonna lie, it's actually a rather repulsive thought, to a degree, when you ponder on it..... but i'm trying to keep the potential that repulsive merging offers, as the more important aspect at play here....... so it's a mixed bag for sure, but i definitely would choose the greater good of unknown potential, and the nauseated hesitancy that accompany's it, over staying at a snails pace of progression, but within my little comfort zone and not having to confront the gag reflex that merging with the masses triggers, no question about it......   what y'all think?