deleted

ok.

*breaths slowly*

Mr. Khronix, I could not disagree with that paragraph more. You say that DMT should not be completely legal because most people won't use it for spiritual purposes but rather for fun and trip balls.

First of all, if you do your research correctly you will find that, actually, most people use DMT with the purpose of exploring the mind and also to see what the experience offers. Its actually the minority who use DMT for fun (if that is even possible). But, that point aside:

1) It's not of your business to judge how people approach whatever drug they want to put in their body. Who gave you authorization to say which drug should be used under a spiritual context (whatever the ____ that means)? I don't care if shamans think they are being spiritual or not. That's not my business. If I want to insert DMT up my ass while I'm jumping off a plane and record it on film that, sir, is my business. Honestly, I'm tired of hearing people say that psychedelic drug use should necessarily be related to spiritual crap or if that is not the case it should remain illegal.

2) It's ok if you feel that Salvia and DMT and whatever should be used in a spiritual context, but always remember that different people have different views about life, the divinity and the psychedelic experience. You actually come across, in my opinion, very similar to those religious nuts that go around preaching Jesus or Mohammed like if that's the only way or otherwise one is wrong.


It's the most annoying thing to hear people saying that "people are not prepared for x or y", like if you knew what would happen for sure. Let me tell you one thing: DMT and all other psychedelics, and also all drugs, should be fully legalized tomorrow because:

1) It's not the government's or church's business to decide what an individual can or cannot do with their own mind.

2) Keeping drugs illegal only creates a black market that is full of corruption, uncertainty and irresponsibility.

and

3) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPERIENCE NATURE WHATEVER WAY THEY FUCKING WANT.


So stop pushing your spiritual trip on the legalization of a substance that should be FOR ALL and used for whatever reason the user decides to use it. And if you want me to be perfectly honest, I'm very glad teenagers smoking salvia post their videos tripping balls on it on Youtube... that shows that there is hope for diversity of thought and that we psychedelic users are not all new agy spiritual woopidoos.

DMT should be completely legal. Right now.

....................

Have you read this aloud to yourself? Maybe I was biased from the beginning, as the title of this thread is "Essay I have wrote for my Biomedical Ethics course", but if I was your professor and you submitted this to me I would have stopped after the first paragraph and given you an incomplete and a chance to re-write this thing. Hell, if I was peer-reviewing this paper my first words to you would be "Buddy, this needs some serious proof-reading."

I respect this viewpoint very much, as this was basically my life philosophy until I wrote this paper. I too believe that it should ultimately be up to the individual to choose what he does with his own life (and realistically it is that way already as you can do whatever you want but you often will have to suffer consequences for your actions). In my view of a perfect world, there would be no government or any restrictions and you could do whatever you wanted. The problem is that this would never work in today's western society as we don't live in a perfect world filled with intelligent beings who can use drugs responsibly. I would love for the world to work this way, but I was writing this paper with more intent as to what actually has potential to work today. It is very possible that the government picks up the pace with research into medical benefits and the mind and could bring psychedelics down from Schedule I to something more reasonable, although this obviously won't happen very soon. On the other hand, we clearly aren't going to just see every drug completely legalized and live happily ever after.




While I agree that generally it shouldn't be anyone else's business to decide what you can and can't do with your mind, I believe that there has to be some limits placed at a certain point. What you're basically saying is that it shouldn't be anyone's business if you decide to take 20 shots of liquor and get in a car to drive somewhere. If you crash into a tree and die then I agree that it's your own business. You took a risk and you suffer your own consequences. But if you end up crashing into another vehicle and take the lives of multiple other human beings, it is no longer "your own business". In the perfect world, people would just not do things like drinking and driving, but this obviously isn't the case in our society and we need to have some limits on what we are allowed to do.



I'm sorry I come across this way, and I really do wish that we could use psychedelics however we want. I'm not denying that it can be extremely fun to take mushrooms and just enjoy the visual side of the experience and not ever think any deep "meaning of life" thoughts. Not every person who uses heroin or amphetamines will end up stealing from people and lying to friends. There are "drug addicts" who carry on a very successful life and there are even cases where those drugs are what made their lives as good as it is. In most situations though, this isn't the case, and I really don't believe our world is ready for allowing drugs to be used for whatever reason people want.



Up until this point I generally could agree with many of your opinions and just had a different perspective on how they would alter our world. I completely disagree with this statement. Although ideally life would be so perfect if anyone could experience whatever they wanted, by no means is everyone born with the right to do whatever they want. The fact of the matter is that we don't occupy this world all by ourselves (unless you believe in solipsism in which case we do), and we need to find a way in which we can all peacefully live together while trying to maintain the highest level of freedom of what you do with your life. If "everyone has the right to experience nature whatever way they fucking want", then I assume you are okay with some random dude coming into your house right now as you read this and shooting you because he has the right to experience nature his own way.



First off, let me say I feel dumb for not catching my misuse of grammar in the title . I would assume I only made that mistake because I wrote this whole essay (about 7 double spaced MS word pages) along with another multiple page essay in the same day and proceeded to posting this after so I could gather some feedback, and I my brain felt like it was shutting itself down by that point. But without dwelling on the title, I don't quite understand what you mean by needing serious proof-reading. I've read over it multiple times and thought it was sounding really good by the time I posted it. I'm not taking any offense to your comment, but please do point out what you mean, as this is still my rough draft and I obviously don't believe this essay is anyway near perfect. Also, I have written two shorter essays before this with the same writing style and a similar life philosophy and I have received a 100% for both.

I would love any other feedback. I'm not so ignorant to believe I have the perfect idea of how the world works and what needs to be changed. I simply was required to write an essay for a class and so far this is what I have come up with as my own personal opinion of some changes that could potentially provide happiness to our society. I am sure that there are others who have plans that when executed properly would lead to much better outcomes, but from my current life experience, this is an overview of my current stance on the legalization of psychedelics.

I didn't even read the first sentence.
Buddy, you want to introduce yourself, not writing an essay about a topic which most of us has left behind for ages!

Just one example:

Ok, so when examining this sentence the first thing that is immediately apparent is that it's a run-on. "Since the beginning of history, there are numerous examples of spiritually healing drug use in many societies," should become your first sentence out of this jumble. Now look at the syntax of "Since the beginning of history {imperfect tense}, there are {present tense} numerous examples of spiritually healing drug use in many societies," it's really awkward (and your tenses do not agree). Now, I get that you need an intro, but this doesn't really read as an intro to me, more as filler, but that could be a personal thing.

Now, the second half of your run-on: "...and some of this continues today in areas such as the Amazon and the Oaxaca region of Mexico with substances such as the mystical brew known as Ayahuasca." This clearly stands on its own, but aside from that, it's a poor choice of words, in part (imo) because you already chose to use the weak words and passive voice of "there are numerous example of spiritually healing drug use in many societies...and some of this continues today" (again we have weird tense alignment in the sense that things that are cannot continue "to be", as they already "be" in the present).

I would say, "Since prehistoric times, there has been cross-cultural evidence of societies using entheogenic substances. While considered taboo by many modern societies, the use of these substances such as the Amazonian brew, Ayahuasca, continues today in areas of the Peruvian and Brazillian rainforests as well as the Oaxaca region of Mexico."

As I said, this is just one example (there are many more). 3.5 pages is not a long paper, imo, anything less than 5 pages (10 double spaced) should be perfect as far as spelling and grammar go (again, just my opinion, I do understand this is not your final draft). As to getting 100%s on papers, I will abstain from sharing my opinion of University academics, grade inflation, and overall antics of the University system (as I have spent my whole and nearly complete university career bitching about them).

This example is quite misrepresentative of the issue clouds is raising. The state only has the right to interfere in personal affairs (including consciousness alteration) when those personal affairs effect or impinge upon others. You have no right to get into that car to begin with as your action does not solely jeopardize your life, but puts others at risks. You have the natural right to put any amount of any substance you want into your body. If this impacts others, the government has the societal right to enact consequences. With drunk or drugged driving, there is great potential for harm, so we preemptively criminalize such actions. There is much less potential for harm from the responsible use of substances (that's why they say "drink responsibly" ) and as such, their use should not be preemptively criminalized. If however you were to injure or kill someone while on a substance, that substance is not an excuse, you are responsible for your actions and the state has the right to take action against you.

Also, far more people die as a result of "drugs" being criminalized and the black market that creates than from drugged driving (and faaaaaaar more die as a result of drunk driving, so I don't see any rationale for keeping them illegal). Oh yea, and that says nothing about the families destroyed and traumatized by having paramilitary (that's SWAT and other special police forces) troops kick in their doors and take them to jail. Ever seen the way SWAT disregards the safety of women, children, and household pets? It's not a pretty sight.

Mr. Khronix,

You talk about consequences. For example, someone killing people while driving irresponsibly. What should happen to that someone that kills innocent people (even my family) is that he goes to jail. Drunk people killing innocents by crashing their car against them go to jail. The same should happen if the driver had LSD, THC, DMT, MDMA, Cocaine, Datura or whatever. The consequences should be the same for all. The crime that the driver committed is to kill the victims. He goes to jail.

Now, since you are mentioning this example in this context... I assume that you think that the rate of drugged drivers crashing their cars against trees and / or people would rise. I don't know if that is true, but I would bet that wouldn't be the case... actually, my predictions are that the overall consumption of alcohol (in responsible and irresponsible ways) would decrease. What do you think about that?

Oh and BTW, a lot of people are dying in my country (Mexico) just because drugs are illegal. So if you want to go to the "numbers" we can do that.

I don't believe anyone has the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot put in their own body. (Apart from eating other people of course, maybe other animals too depending on your ethics.)

I don't believe you can cite social consequences in order to infringe someone's human rights. A society built upon the infringement of inalienable rights is not a free society. The law should only prohibit those acts which would themselves infringe upon the rights of another individual (theft, attack, etc). The salvia problem had nothing to do with salvia itself- the problem was the irresponsibility of the people using it. And I'm not sure there was a problem really, just a lot of media hype. Anyway, I think the entheogens look after themselves, they scare away the disrespectful soon enough. Hardly any deaths occur from entheogen use, statistically its minimal, and those few tragedies that have happened and been hyped up out of all proportion by the media would I expect not have happened if the people involved had been responsible and properly educated, by the state, the suppliers, their companions and their own studies.

Check out some of the stuff said by Dr. Nutt, who was head of the UK government's scientists. He thought drugs should be regulated not criminalised, and gave a lot of interesting statistics, such as horseriding being far more dangerous than ecstacy use.

Yup, and how was he rewarded for his candor? He was sacked...nothing like the propagandistic control of information

OP: I think you've presented a valid viewpoint, and I'd like to thank you for sharing it with us here.

I am personally of the view that ALL drug prohibition should be ended - because the current framework clearly doesn't work, it criminalises huge swathes of society and provides profits for organised crime which rightfully should be in the hands of broader society - however, at the same time, I ma aware that this may not happen any time soon.

I am also of the view, which I know from previous threads is contentious, that psychedelics - natural or otherwise - are not necessarily beneficial for all people. This was a discussion we had here on the Nexus prior to the drafting of the health & safety guidelines that I believe all of us would subscribe to.

The power in particular of spice is not something to be trifled with, and it can change lives. The experience can be overwhelming, and I'm of the view that anyone who wants to go down this path will find it significantly shaped by the preparation and attitude with which they approach it. You will read many reports here, some from extremely competent and experienced psychonauts, where they have been traumatised by what they have seen. I don't think this is something that everyone could cope with - I think of my parents, my children, for example, and I would not introduce them to this.

However, clouds raises a valid point which is probably more relevant to this discussion - and that is the question of who decides who can and cannot partake; for myself, I think that is a decision for each individual to take, but one that should be taken with the utmost care, and after advice and support is in place.

Welcome to the Nexus, Khronix.

I really disagree with this. "cognitive stimulant use (such as adderall)" by adults can be a very useful tool. I do agree that these drugs probably shouldn't be given to children, for their brains are still developing and could be detrimental to their creativity. I would like to see your paper though.

Also a lot of people have stumbled on to the spiritual path or otherwise benefited accidentally from using psychedelics purely for fun. To restrict the use to only those people deemed to be "worthy" by some law or regulation is just wrong.

To say that our society isn't ready for the legalization of drugs is to ignore the fact that criminalization has caused far more problems than the drugs themselves. And it denies adults the right to control and explore their own consciousness.

Veering ever so slightly off-topic, it seems that the use of cognitive enhancers such as Adderal and Modafanil in adults are useful but there are down-sides.Subjectively it seems that those who use it for all but a relatively short period feel it actually begins to diminish creativity.

Which is one my points in my paper .


Question: Should it be acceptable to use cognitive-enhancing medications (traditionally used to treat ADHD) for enhanced performance in everyday life?

Use of cognitive-enhancing medications should not be acceptable for everyday use by the general population. Although utilizing these medications could initially improve peoples’ lives in a variety of ways and likely provide a great deal of happiness to those choosing to use them, the long-term effects would be disastrous to society and take away the beauty of life as we know it.

Since the beginning of time, we have been continuously evolving our living habits and daily activities and have created a culture that revolves around getting work done and doing whatever it takes to make our own personal lives better. Although this has lead to an enormous leap in the level of our technology and has allowed for us to learn a vast amount of information about our world, it has also been detrimental to our enjoyment of the short time we have to live. In today’s age of technology, we are working harder and harder to do what is necessary to get what we want, thinking that we will eventually find happiness when we “have it all”. We do this even though we know that we will never be truly satisfied no matter what we obtain or achieve, as the satisfaction is always temporary, and every desire we fulfill only creates a new desire, with this cycle continuing until our death. It’s this mentality that has been advancing our society in a direction in which we act like drones who constantly strive on doing anything we can to get what we want, repeatedly needing to be reminded that sometimes we need to just “stop and smell the roses”, as many of us never take the chance to really slow down and enjoy the very essence of being alive. Cognitive-enhancing stimulant drugs that improve focus and motivate us to work harder will only push this mindset further until we live like complete zombies, obsessed with work, and oblivious to our situation in life and the universe.

These medications are shown to have a trade-off, where they improve your focus and block out any distractions, but decrease your creativity and open-mindedness. This would be extremely detrimental to the natural way of life, turning everyone into closed-minded, work-obsessed elitist individuals acting like clones that all think alike. Diversity as we know it would be greatly diminished from our world and would take a lot of the beauty out of life and individuality. The lost creativity would also be extremely detrimental. What use is all the hard work if we cannot come up with new, novel ideas to advance the world? Most inventions and advancements in technology did not come along because someone kept repeating the same thought process faster and faster, but had an interesting new idea. These medications would also eliminate the very reason many of us want to work so hard in the first place. We generally have the freedom to do what we want with our lives, and part of the magnificence of life is knowing that we can shape our own future, as the harder we work the greater the reward. With everyone working at an equally intense level, many people would lose their reason to try so hard. Additionally, at some point the feeling of completing a very difficult task would lose its value, as one would know that they had to use artificial means to complete the task. The productivity we would gain by allowing universal use of cognitive-enhancing medications would not be worth the trade-off for the meaningfulness of life we would lose.