TherapySessions

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]Pedantic? Ha, funniest thing I've heard all day. Really, what you said is pretty pedantic. If anything, SunfallE made a pretty valid statement not a pedantic one. You may be trying to debunk the ridiculous, but really some things you've said [I]are [/I]ridiculous. "Shall I put you into the same group as them?" SunfallE didn't say anything about addicts being losers, if I'm not mistaken. So really putting SunfallE into the generalization with me and EvaBlood wouldn't be right because nowhere did I see him call drug addicts [I]losers[/I]. And if you search inside the words, you'll find that Hollywood addiction is relevant to the case in point; drug [B]addiction[/B]. You contradicted yourself quite a few times throughout this whole thread, which sort of takes way from your argument.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] If you think that I have contradicted myself then refute my points individually. For starters, I haven't even been reffering to drug addiction. My whole argument is based on the fact that you said drugs were for losers and somebody else assumed that drug users only use them to escape their "filthly little lives". I think that has been pretty much the basis of everything I've said. It is an absolute statement and it is literally wrong because: [LIST] [*]Drugs are not for losers, some people that do drugs may be "losers" anyway but quite clearly *everyone* who does drugs is not a loser. Infact a lot of drug users lead very succesful, interesting and fun lives. Therefore that statement has been completely debunked. [*]Not everyone who does drugs uses them as an escape. Infact, everyone I know who uses drugs, including me have nothing to escape from, we quite simply love getting wrecked at the weekend for a wide variety of reasons. You can not possibly begin to comprehend my personal experience so please do not judge it. I most certainly do not lead a "filthy" life, some people do and may or may not use drugs. Statement debunked. [/LIST] I then made a generalisation, ironically considering the circumstances, that you probably haven't seen much of the world and are naive. All that said you obviously haven't been a part of the culture that I'm a part of and have false pretences concerning drug users. If you'd had my experience you'd think differently. It also does come across as naive to make absolute statements (I haven't made any, seriously). If you don't know what an absolute statement is, read up about it as I am absolutely certain that the points I am making are logically and realistically sound. I do not particularly concern myself with popular culture so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me about hollywood. I'd imagine that it's pretty similiar to anyone else doing whatever their chosen drug is, except they've got loads of cash and a big house. [quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]Pedantic? Ha, funniest thing I've heard all day. Really, what you said is pretty pedantic.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] I am not being pedantic. As a drug user, I took offence to you calling me a loser. It's the equivalent of prejudice against anyone, or saying that all people who are black are thieves. It would be wrong to say that as I'm sure you'd agree. It is literally wrong. Replace black/thieves with drugs/losers and you might see where I'm coming from.

[quote name='SunfallE'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="goldenrod"]lol Isn't that an oxymoron to say [I]What an[B] ill-conceived and apathetic[/B][/i] [[SIZE="1"]take note that's a *gasp* generalization![/SIZE]] [i]generalisation of what are most often [B]normal people[/B]. [/I] [[SIZE="1"]there's another one![/SIZE]] Followed up by: [I]To make a generalisation myself[/I] and then turnaround and say [I]Don't generalise entire groups of people[/I] Uh... [B]o_O [/B] You missed the whole point. ^_~ You started off by making more than one generalization to counter a previous generalization by presenting another one. And so on. lol I think its safe to say that making assumptions doesn't get one anywhere, and yet at the same time, remember, plenty of people have destroyed their lives, have done drugs because their lives were a mess. So there is some truth to that generalization whether people want to see it or not. If there wasn't any problems and people didn't do all those things there wouldn't be any push to keep them off the streets or to help people get over that addiction. And no offense, but I'm not likely to take your word for it that people who use drugs are mostly normal, since that too is an assumption. Something drives them to do it, whether it's peer pressure, stress or other stuff. Something that isn't necessarily normal. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] You quite clearly missed the irony, bless, which is why I specified that I was making a generalisation. I didn't generalise a whole group of people either, just two posters on an internet message board. To call two people ill-concieved and apathetic based on something that they said is not to make a mass generalisation, it's to make a judgment on something that they said (there is a clear difference). Of course a lot of drug users are normal people, to say that they are not is an absolute statement and completely wrong. Otherwise it would be to essentialy say that ALL drug users are abnormal, when doing drugs and normality are not mutually exclusive. Have you considered that people do drugs because they are fun, or find them interesting? Maybe they like the sensory alteration and enhancement of music? Maybe it's a part of the culture they are in. Shall I slot you into the same box as them? Hmmm, maybe you're actually just trying to be extremely pedantic. I'm the one trying to dispell ridiculous associations here. [quote name='SunfallE'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="goldenrod"][b]I think its safe to say that making assumptions doesn't get one anywhere[/b][/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] Thanks for agreeing with me. [quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]As well as not backseat modding either. Thank you. Also, generalizations are part and parcel of the misunderstanding about drugs in the first place, so to ask people to drop part of the whole argument around them is a bit unrealistic. Especially when people's opinion about them stem from those generalizations running around. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] I'm a glad that you're the moderator there, otherwise this would still be a very much one sided debate. [quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]Now what do you all think about drugs in Hollywood? Lyndsay Lohan got busted again and I've heard she's in rehab... again. whether she's in rehab or not, she still has to fix this. and tell me Therapysessions, are people in Hollywood really considered normal? Normal people are like you and me, we probably don't live in some big mansion and bugged by paparazzi nor do we star in movies and TV shows. So don't generalize addicts as normal people, because not all drug addicts are/were normal people. People in middle class or are poor usually are considered normal. Now people with money/fame/fortune are called famous/rich, not normal.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] I don't really care about Lyndsay Lohan, drugs in hollywood are the same as drugs anywhere else? Let people get on with it, I'd much rather people had personal freedom rather than to be looked down upon for a lifestyle choice. People in hollywood may or may not be considered "normal", I don't personally know them. Just because someone finds fame, does that render them odd (I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything btw?). Generalisations are usually considered to be negative and that's when they become problematic. I'd hardly say that saying a drug addict is not neccesarily abnormal (opposite of normal) is the type of "generalisation" people shouldn't be making. I am trying to defend these people that idividualy you know absolutely nothing about.

I'm not superstitious because I find it odd to believe in such ridiculous human made concepts. Which idiot decided that walking under a ladder was actually going to do anything to you, or that black cats had some otherworldly pact with the devil.

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"] That and some of them just might have seen someone self destruct from using drugs so it just might not be as naive as you're thinking TherapySessions, that too is an assumption.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [quote name='TherapySessions'] [b]To make a generalisation myself[/b], I'd say that these are very naive attitudes and that yous probably don't have much actual life experience. [/QUOTE] Either way, it is naive to automatically assume that just because you have experienced something first hand that it is prevailant within a WHOLE majority. Don't generalise entire groups of people, who you have had no interactions with, and you will always come across as being slightly more respectable.

In my opinion peoples right to do whatever they like with their own bodys completely overides anyones illogical want to try and stop or judge them.

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"] I think it's wrong. Drugs are for losers. And drugs make popular people losers.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [quote name='EvaBlood'][COLOR="Navy"] I never Done Them Never Will I Find It Pathedic That People Have To Escape There Fillthy Little Lifes And Mess Them Up Even More By Doing Drugs Or any other of there little scapegaots[/COLOR][/QUOTE] What an ill-conceived and apathetic generalisation of what are most often normal people. To make a generalisation myself, I'd say that these are very naive attitudes and that yous probably don't have much actual life experience. Also, to assume that all drug users do it to escape any "filthy lives" would be completely wrong.

[QUOTE=Fall]May be a difference... though think about it. [i]Why[/i] do they want to? ...[i]wanting[/i] to is just a decision, there's always a reason behind it. Whether people say there is or not, that reason can't always be so blatantly known, even to the user themselves. Some people might want to do drugs just to fit in, still a reason. They can't accept not being "cool"... Just 'cause everyone else is? They don't wanna be left out. Stupid little reasons that need to be covered up because someone can't handle them. Of course you're gonna [i]want[/i] to do drugs, otherwise we wouldn't have the prodlem illicit drugs are causing amoung us today in the first place. But there's gotta be something making you want to... And when you look further down the track, it becomes clearer and clearer that [i]that[/i] [i]something[/i] is related to not being able to accept something.[/QUOTE] All we have is constant sensory input and our perception of reality. It's only natural that some people would want to alter and explore that.

[quote name='Red']What is moderation when it comes to drugs?[/quote] An entirely different answer every time?

[quote name='Sephiroth][COLOR=DarkRed']I used cannabis as an example because more people see it as a casual thing, or do you mean people can enjoy most drugs in moderation? If so then I strongly disagree[/COLOR][/quote] Well I didn't actually, but did you just say that people can't "enjoy" most drugs in moderation?

[QUOTE=Sephiroth][COLOR=DarkRed]If it's drugs then no, definately not. Even cannabis can have an effect on you through long term effects, even if it is in moderation. Alcohol is something thats different for everyone, it all depends on whether or not you can handle your drink, if you drink in moderation then it's abolutely fine, still fine even if you let loose once in a while, what isn't fine is what your behaviour is like after a certain limit. Can you trust yourself when your drunk? I used to go out drinking almost every weekend, I enjoyed myself and rarely ever did anything stupid (rarely being the key word :P ) but because of changes in circumstance over the years I've had to reduce it to maybe going out drinking once a month. As long as you don't abuse it, alcohol can be something thoroughly enjoyed[/COLOR][/QUOTE] You do realise that the same could be said for the majority of drugs?

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed']You seem to be arguing that LSD is safe [/COLOR][/quote] hmmmm that bit's getting tiresome now. If people are thick enough to drive while they're on drugs or get hammered all the time when they're about to give birth to a child I don't think it means that others should suffer at their stupidity and risk prison terms over what is essentially a victimless crime. If you think that's worth going to prison for, well that's your choice and the government is on your side. Personally I don't think it's worth destroying anyones life like that (I can pretty much predict your reply to that and it involves cars, driving and running babies over).

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]You seem to be good at only pointing out the positives of the drug instead of pointing out the potential problems, which are more likely to be the reason why it is not legal. Lets start here with the article you yourself linked to: [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD ]Wikipedia[/URL] [INDENT][B]Physical dangers[/B] Although LSD is generally considered nontoxic, it may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user susceptible to accidents and personal injury. [/INDENT] Not very promising when it?s not even being used for a medical reason. It?s one thing to accept danger when you have the possible payoff of good benefits. But to take something that impairs ones ability for no good reason is foolish.[/QUOTE] Not quite finished after all then? I have stated numerous times that drugs like LSD do not go without risks. I have never said that it was "safe" - it simply isn't for a lot of people as they do not have the mental capacity to deal with such an experience (anxiety, paranoia, predisposition to mental health problems). I used italics to stress the point that I was clarifying (LSD does not have direct physical effects on the human body which would pose a danger) and it is still going over your head repeatedly. I was stressing this point in reply to opinions nearer the begining of the thread. Glad we've got that out the way, hopefully you'll understand this time (do you always read so far between the lines). Suprisingly, problems arrising from bad judgment would be an indirect effect. Whether or not you think the risk is for good benefits is pretty much void, because it's not your experience that we're talking about. A lot of people who are not the down and out wife beaters that you no doubt think they are DO get something out of it, and thoroughly reap the benefits without anything impairing their ability. Deal with it. Maybe some people don't but you are in no position to generalise and decide what other people have personally experienced. LSD currently has no medical use on a large scale, however there is research being conducted in both the UK and the USA (links provided earlier). That said, whether or not it does, has little influence on whether or not I think it should be legalised, as the simple fact that I do not agree with other people prohibiting and controlling peoples personal choice (for what is essentially a victimless crime), in what is some kind of pitiful excuse to protect them at the risk of ironicly destroying their lives and landing them in prison is at all justified. After the "get what they deserve" attitude displayed a few pages earlier, I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of people don't agree but I really don't care and I'm not going to go into this as it will no doubt lead to more pages of bile from people appearing to misinterprite and twist my words (poor me). The part titled "problems" sounds like pretty standard harm reduction stuff to me, not sure what provoked you to mention how it's useless medically (again) at that point. It's a psychedelic, you've always got to be prepared for what could be a negative trip, they can sometimes be the ones where you learn the most. That is the nature of the psychedelic experience. hahaha well I don't see how tripping on a Friday would really stop you going to work the next monday. Why should it interfere with your job or looking after kids? People don't spend every day of the year with their kids do they? Operating heavy machinery aswell - yeah, there's no better thing to do on LSD than going to work and operating heavy machinery. Anyone who drives on drugs is an idiot - drugs do not make you want to drive cars, they don't turn you into an irrational withering idiot you know. A state of denial? Get over yourself, the only reason I bothered signing upto this forum was because I saw pages and of one sided bile concerning how disgracefull drugs were, then a seemingly outraged poster denying someones personal experience as absolute fact. Step outside your little box, it doesn't suprise me that someone as old as my mother who speaks to children on the internet and participates in anime RPG's has such an utterly narrow minded, condsending view on drug users who are able to function just aswell as they are.

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]TherapySessions you listed sites that you consider to be reputable, something that is still subjective, as you believe the facts they present are actually true. You are accusing Rachmaninoff of looking through rose tinted glasses when you yourself are doing the same thing. Instead of assuming others are lying, take the time to look up medical reports on the research done about the negative effects of illegal drugs, indifference already provided two links to that effect. You are consistently taking the stance of you are right and everyone else is wrong. Rachmaninoff does not need to disprove what you are saying; any kid with a simple search on the Internet can find information that contradicts what you are saying. Only instead of insisting on arguing he wisely saw that the two of you disagree and left it at that. [/QUOTE] Like I've already said, erowid is the largest resource of non-bias drug information on the internet, believe me there is nothing so extensive and it is well respected amongst drug communities all around the internet and also amongst professionals in the outside world. It provides correct doseage information, details of substance deaths, lists of positive, neutral and negative effects, LD50's (percentage at which most people die) and provides warnings if required whilst keeping a focus on harm reduction. If you think that something important is missing, why don't you contact them and get it added seeing as users can submit whatever they like. Can you point me in the direction of a more useful resource? Maps provides research done by liscenced scientists into neurological and physical effects of certain drugs and again is arguably the largest resource on the internet in this particular field. The links that indifference provided did nothing to disprove anything that I said, infact it was completely non-related. What does someone being stupid enough to do drugs then drive a car have to do with any of the points that I have made? Also "any kid" can disprove what points I made exactly? Which in particular - and why don't you? From that website, seeing as I've been talking about drugs like LSD in particular: "One study showed that the pure form of LSD (administered under medical supervision) did not cause any fetal abnormalities or an increased risk of miscarriage. However, there have been reports of congenital abnormalities in the babies of women who use LSD and other drugs. Whether these can be directly attributed to the drugs is uncertain because most women who use LSD or amphetamines also use alcohol, other drugs, or smoke - therefore studies vary in the effects they report. Use of more than one recreational drug, however, seems to increase the risk of birth defects" So basically they found that it had no effect on children whatsoever, however people that did drugs that are KNOWN to cause birth defects and also happened to do LSD gave birth to a child with a birth defect. What a suprise. However, this is irrelevant to any of the points that I have made, what's people being thick enough to take drugs when driving or pregnant got to do with anything? The reason I am taking the stance that I am right and (most of you) are wrong is because none of you have been able to contradict a single point I've made. I've also backed up what I've said with links (and errr yes thanks, I research drugs quite often), yet people refuse to believe that someone might actually be telling the truth. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]You keep saying psychedelic drugs are safe, why don?t you tell us which drugs are and give us some actual medical facts instead of linking to a page full of people who have used LSD telling us how much it ?Opened up my mind and heart to the world.? Hardly what one would consider scientific proof that such things are not harmful. Or a creditable source of information for that matter either. Take the rose tinted glasses off your own eyes hun and start researching instead of giving us the stance that it causes spiritual experiences or changes someone for the better. Or saying it is beneficial for the medial field when you yourself are not a doctor. It?s pointless to debate something with someone who keeps insisting news reports are full of nothing but misinformation and lies. You have already decided that you are correct. And I see Rachmaninoff?s point in that it?s a waste of time to even debate this. [/QUOTE] Actually I said that [I]some[/I] psychedelics were [I]physically[/I] safe in terms of direct effects but that they do not come without their risks. Also, the link inwhich people were talking about how LSD "opened up their mind and heart to the world" was quite clearly a link in reponse to a member of this forum denying someone elses subjective experience inwhich they said LSD changed them for the better, it had nothing to do with "proving that such things were not harmful". Where did you get that idea from? So with respect to that: LSD is nontoxic to the human body. Nobody has ever died from physical complications as a result of LSD even considering people have taken massive doses. References: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD[/url] [QUOTE]Although LSD is generally [b]considered nontoxic[/b], it may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user susceptible to accidents and personal injury.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/faq.htm#01[/url] [QUOTE]LSD is one of the least toxic chemicals known to man. It is less poisonous than aspirin and vitamin C.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.chemsoc.org/ExemplarChem/entries/2004/bristol_rosling/My%20Webs/LSD.HTM[/url] (University of Bristol) [QUOTE]Lysergic acid diethylamide, more commonly known as LSD, is a non-toxic, non-addictive molecule which mimics serotonin in the brain.[/QUOTE] I could find pretty much similiar stuff for Mescaline, DMT, Psilocybin mushrooms etc I do not need to be a doctor to say whether or not something could be beneficial in the medical field, considering doctors are saying it and doing the research themselves. A lot of drug related news reports are full of misinformation but I don't see what that has at all to do with debating with me seeing as one person has linked to one non-related news report that made a pretty common sense statement. Why would it matter seeing as absolutely no other news reports have been linked to and I wasn't denying the glaring obviousness of the one that was. [quote name='NIKI12345']Thats what I tried to say and I knew that not everybody would be givng highfives because you can't do that to people if your on the computer.[/quote] That is absolute sarcasm of the highest order. Well done. Do people not actively encourage serious debates on this site then? It's not as if the first couple of pages of this thread had a lot of substance. No offence, like. [CENTER]---------------------[/CENTER] [quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed'] One can hardly take the word of someone taking a drug and saying how it made them feel as any form of scientific or reliable source for proving such drugs are harmless. [/COLOR][/quote] errr right, but I've been over this a few times now as I never said it did. If you read the post in which I posted that link, I clearly said that it was provided to the contrary of someone stating drugs like LSD couldn't change people for the better. It had nothing to do with how harmful it can be, I've covered that in other posts. [QUOTE=indifference][COLOR=DarkRed] It wasn?t a compliment, but rather a stark reminder that if the drugs were so harmless, they wouldn?t need to search for information on how to treat idiots who haven?t a clue as to what they are doing when they experiment with illegal substances or legal ones for that matter. Which is why so many of them are illegal in the first place, as most people do not have the training or knowledge needed to safely use them. And just reading about it on a site doesn?t cut it.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Drug use can be far from harmless when in the wrong hands, there is always a risk, however websites like erowid when used properly as a cornerpoint for people to research their doses and know of any possible complications and interactions is a huge step in the right direction for harm reduction. If drug use was completly safe half of erowid wouldn't need to exist. [INDENT][SIZE=1][COLOR=RoyalBlue][B]TherapySessions[/B], I've merged your two posts together, if you wish to add more simply use the edit button located in the lower right hand corner of your post, do not double post. If you have any questions feel free to pm myself or another member of the staff. ~SunfallE[/COLOR][/SIZE][/INDENT]

[quote name='NIKI12345']TherapySessions you just can't be going around saying other people are wrong okay [/quote] Well you asked who disagrees with drinking and drugs, did you just expect everyone to punch the air and high five each other, saying how much they agree with you? I don't disagree with people using recreational drugs at all - that was my opinion, most of the other stuff was fact which I generally backed up with links to reputable sources, so in the interests of stopping the spread of misinformation, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell people that they are wrong. Can people have spiritual experiences on drugs? Yes Can drugs change people for the better? Yes Are psychedelics addictive? No Could they prove very beneficial in the medical field? Yes etc Rachmaninoff - that is because you asked for the evidence documented on the internet, which I provided. I did not form my ideas from that, they are contrived from personal experience inwhich the likes of MDMA and LSD have changed me and many people that I have met for the better. If you had evidence to the contrary of what I provided, then you would have contradicted it, therefore the onus is on you to disprove what I am saying. I'm not expecting you to suddenly jump for joy and rush round everyone know saying that someone on the internet has came up with a solution for all our problems, just consider that everything you read regarding drugs is not neccesarily true and that a reporter does not neccesarily have any idea what they are writing about. If you really wanted I could find examples of misinformation/complete and utter lies in news reports, but I can imagine it would be pretty futile for anyone that would rather look through their rose tinted glasses. Retribution - which points that he made are supported by the scientific community as fact? Would you like to compile a list? Also, which drugs in your opinion cause people to act violently whilst they are on them? Is this just an assumption that you have made for "drugs in general" or do you actually have some reputable evidence from the "scientific community" to support the "fact" that ordinarily non-violent people will lose their sense of judgement to the point of becoming irational and violent? The only drugs that you might have any sort of argument for are alcohol and cocaine - out of all the people I know that do drugs none of them have become violent while on them, as they are absolutely sound people anyway and lack of judgment has nothing to do with violent tendencies. The idea that drugs attract crime and prostitution is a complete cliche, although a hilarious one at that. What on earth makes you think that drugs would push people to such extremes, considering the majority of drug users are not addicted and holding down jobs? I'm sure that some people who are addicted to drugs would infact turn to these extremes, but I'd say that would depend on the lifestyle you lived and type of drugs you did. AzureWolf - The effects of LSD themselves do not stay with people forever, although the things that you can learn or experience can. If you are reffering to flashbacks, then flashbacks are something that can happen to anyone who has a traumatic experience and are not just confined to drugs (such as lsd). I believe that the controversy involving LSD flashbacks is attributed to the propaganda back in the 60's that stateed that LSD will stay in your spinal cord waiting to be triggered at any moment later in life, leading to a flashback. It is not true as LSD is thought to leave your body in a matter of hours. indifference - Erowid.org is possibly the largest non-bias drug resource on the planet, I have also heard of it being used by medical professionals (where did you hear this, just interested - do you work in the medical industry?), it's not at all suprising seeing as there is little else with that scale of information on various chemicals. It's a website which I'd imagine has saved many lives due to it's factual information and harm reduction mission. Something which government "down with the kids" style websites like talktofrank are not capable of (massive amounts of downright dangerous misinformation).

[QUOTE=Rachmaninoff]Whether or not I am ignorant about said drugs is irrelevant. The ones who make them illegal know a hell of a lot more than I do. So yes I would deny them that experience since usually they are made illegal for a good reason. But that?s the whole point here, drugs like LSD are not something your doctor is going to prescribe for you, and what made you think I?d take anything just because my doctor ordered it? I?m sure I?m not the only patient who asks questions about just what the doctor wants me to take. And there are times, especially when painkillers are involved, where I opt for the less powerful ones since some of the stronger ones have very negative effects. Most of the people I know who haven?t taken them are open minded, empathetic people, and guess what? They didn?t need illegal drugs to get that way. [/QUOTE] I think that it's highly relevant actually, if you're expecting to put across a fair, none-bias argument that reflects your own oponion and not something that you simply expect to be true because you've heard the usual horror stories or read something in the media. Do you automatically trust anyone in a position to make these desicions and always think the right one has been made? and technically, in the UK at least, certain drugs have been classified due to a blanket legalisation that has made certain psychedelics which are of similiar chemical nature to drugs like MDMA or LSD Class A. No leniency has been made for drugs which are not toxic and can not physically harm you and are even very gentle on the mind. So in certain cases, the people who have made them illegal have shown a complete lack of disregard for whether or not these chemicals should infact be illegal, they have simply lumped them into one "high risk" group (at the risk of peoples freedoms and lives (slightly ironic), with no regard for drug harm reduction at all). You're right, LSD isn't something your doctor is going to prescribe to you now, due to the fact that it isn't an over the counter drug. However that's not to say that there hasn't been a great deal of research into these drugs by scientists and people in the medical profession - helping to cure conditions such as OCD, alcoholism, cluster headaches, Post Traumatic Stress and recent research in which terminal cancer patients have been given psychoactive mushrooms and MDMA. Related reading: [url]http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524881.400[/url] [url]http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,65025,00.html[/url] [url]http://www.maps.org/research[/url] Although this is getting slightly off the original topic, if you always look into the medication that your doctor prescribes then that is always a good thing, my point was that you said our bodies are not designed to work in that way, but whos to say seeing as our brains allow it and substances like this work by mimicking the natural receptors that are already inside our brains in a way that things like paracetamol and various other "taken for granted" medicines do not. Would you say that paracetamol is not designed to work that way so therefore we shouldn't use it? You say that you have taken pain killers, yet what are the chances that they were so closely related to the indigenous chemicals that exist inside our brains? I've already stated that being open minded or empathetic and taking drugs are not mutually exclusive. Are you denying that they can have that effect though? [QUOTE=Rachmaninoff] Oh, sorry, I guess since you think it?s propaganda, in spite of all the cases where doctors have dealt with druggies and documented the known side effects and problems, then we are pretty much done here since it seems you?ve already decided that the rest of us can?t think for themselves. I suppose the we might have seen others pretty much self-destruct their lives once they became addicted to illegal substances is irrelevant. (how ironic)[/QUOTE] Well yes actually a lot of the drug stories in the media are propaganda, a lot of media articles that come through are done by reporters with about as much knowledge about psychoactive drugs as you appear to have. It's not uncommon for articles to be full to the brim of untruths and misinformation. I did not decide that the rest of you "can't think for yourselves", I'm not going to make any assumptions about the rest of humanity just because I think that you in particular come across as slightly naive and mislead. I'd say that whether or not you have seen someone self-destruct their lives after becoming addicted to illegal substances is infact actually irrelevant, seeing as you were originally denying someones (psychedelic) drug induced [i]personal[/i] experience and [i]psychedelics[/i] are not addictive. I am not talking about opiates, benzos, amphetamines or anything like that so yes that would be wholey irrelevant as they are entirely different chemicals. How can you even try to argue a point when you are clearly so ignorant about the topic at hand. [QUOTE=Rachmaninoff]How about some data on the large amounts of people actively participating in humanitarian aid due to psychedelic drug use? Unless you are talking about the ones trying to help the actual druggies? Because I can easily think of organizations like the Mormon church who have millions of active members helping with humanitarian aid all with out the aid of any form of psychedelic drug. If you are trying to imply that psychedelic drug use makes people more inclined to be more humanitarian, I don?t buy it. [/QUOTE] I've already stated that they are not mutually excluse (re mormons)? Also, as I'm sure you can imagine, the national statistics office isn't exactly likely to have taken surveys on how many humanitarians have taken psychedelics, but just look at the hippie movement of the 60's or the left wing movments about now that are full of these type of people who advocate peoples right to take whatever substances they choose. A lot of psychedelic drug users are very left wing inclined and do a lot of work for charities or human rights groups but that's not to say that there is exactly going to be a mass of data on it. Naive attitudes like yours are why the are illegal, whether or not they should be is another argument alltogether. I am not denying anybodies right as that would involve me somehow singlehandedly making them legal again, I am just voicing my opinions on a public forum. However, I am being denied the right by my government to safely take whatever substance I choose to put into my own body. I am not saying that taking these substances go without risks (although direct lsd/psilocybin mushroom deaths? Would love to see the reports by the way?), but the benefits which you appear to deny even exist are very much real. How they have changed people, thanks to erowid submitted reports and an informative survey: [url]http://www.erowid.org/general/survey/survey_lsd8_quotes1.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=7835[/url] [url]http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=31950[/url] [url]http://de1.erowid.org/experiences/exp.phpquery=ID=42273.html[/url] and that's just a couple of reports I found after sifting through. Not to mention Native South American documented use of DMT and mescaline going back hundreds of years for healing and spiritual purposes. I don't particularly care whether or not you believe me about this, it's entirely upto you. I'll sum it up by saying that psychedelic drugs CAN change people for the better and people DO have spiritual experiences. When you break down your concept of reality and self, anything can happen inside your mind. These drugs do not come without risks, however toxicity and direct deaths as a result of overdose are not an issue for psilocybin mushroms, lsd, mescaline, dmt etc. They are not for everyone and it's entirely upto anyone whether or not they take that risk. Baron Samedi - Well I'm not exactly going to hold a ten minute silence, but I'd hold a certain amount of sympathy for anyone that lost their life. I certainly wouldn't think they deserved it just because they had an accident and overdosed or likewise with something that they chose to do. It would be a very cold attitude to have on for someones life.