Someone speaks sense at last!
- Thread starter syke
- Start date
recently i have seen just how horrible what goes on "behind the scenes" can be.
i think if we all take a step back and look at it we would be abhored by the fact that our fav drug, MDMA, that which induces such love, peace, happiness and positive effects is still an illegal drug which hardened criminals and organised crime kill people over every day. these sorts of people couldn't give a shit about others and will go through whoever to obtain their profits which unfortunately we finance.
Here is my idea. we have heard all the for/against arguments, we know the whole bad pill problem and the lack of education wrt taking pills, i.e: the only 2 causes of MDMA related deaths.
and certainly the its "not like any other drug argument" is valid. i.e: has none of the social consequences of H, speed, coke, alcohol etc.
My proposal: it is only dreaming but its a shame it cannot be put up for debate:
MDMA as a pure drug is made available at pharmacies:
how: u must apply for a special INDIVIDUAL license. to get this u undergo a few initial tests.
1) physical test: must be in very good health, have a good diet etc
2) must be mentally stable, no people prone to depression, on other drugs etc
3) most importantly: pass an extensive education course; u need to be able to explain: what is serotonin, y drink water, y u can't go to the toilet much while on it, y u can't have it once a week, etc etc etc.
U r then allowed to purchase MDMA (120-150mg) OTC. it could be packaged with 5-HTP,
antioxidants, other supplements and an SSRI to minimise any damage.
and finally u can only exercise this priveledge say once every ~4 weeks, this would need to be researched and determined.
it is a novel idea and obviously a dream but i'd love someone to find all the things wrong with it, at least compared to all the things wrong with the current situation.
i think if we all take a step back and look at it we would be abhored by the fact that our fav drug, MDMA, that which induces such love, peace, happiness and positive effects is still an illegal drug which hardened criminals and organised crime kill people over every day. these sorts of people couldn't give a shit about others and will go through whoever to obtain their profits which unfortunately we finance.
Here is my idea. we have heard all the for/against arguments, we know the whole bad pill problem and the lack of education wrt taking pills, i.e: the only 2 causes of MDMA related deaths.
and certainly the its "not like any other drug argument" is valid. i.e: has none of the social consequences of H, speed, coke, alcohol etc.
My proposal: it is only dreaming but its a shame it cannot be put up for debate:
MDMA as a pure drug is made available at pharmacies:
how: u must apply for a special INDIVIDUAL license. to get this u undergo a few initial tests.
1) physical test: must be in very good health, have a good diet etc
2) must be mentally stable, no people prone to depression, on other drugs etc
3) most importantly: pass an extensive education course; u need to be able to explain: what is serotonin, y drink water, y u can't go to the toilet much while on it, y u can't have it once a week, etc etc etc.
U r then allowed to purchase MDMA (120-150mg) OTC. it could be packaged with 5-HTP,
antioxidants, other supplements and an SSRI to minimise any damage.
and finally u can only exercise this priveledge say once every ~4 weeks, this would need to be researched and determined.
it is a novel idea and obviously a dream but i'd love someone to find all the things wrong with it, at least compared to all the things wrong with the current situation.
Synaesthesia
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2000
- Messages
- 103
Tee hee... Let's see how well I can rant after a quiet weekend
I like the idea of government distribution as it means they get a slice of the pie thru taxes, so we are getting that win-win thing going on immediately. The personal testing could open a can of worms. If you fail the mental stability test, then maybe you should be institutionalised? Maybe you could score a rating, but that touches too close to elitism tests and Australians have traditionally shied from such issues (remember the multi-function polis?). Mind you I wouldn't mind a screening test to be allowed to use their products. I guess it's fair enough. It would incedently have to be followed up with routine physical and mental checks to ensure that I'm staying up to scratch. The problem is, who decides if I am sane or not? Society can't decide this for me. It's too crazy at the moment. Maybe it just needs to do some prioritisation, maybe it's abstracted a special kind of lunacy whereby one has to be a maniac to be considered sane. I don't think that's too far out of the question. Either way, the process of selection would be intricate, especially considering the government would pussyfoot and procrastinate around those social aspects that society at large fears most wrt this subject. Put simply, I reckon you'd have better luck collecting Austudy. I don't like the idea of government regulated doses either. It's too much like some post-apolcaliptic hollywood action thriller.
You can't have one body controlling the whole process. They make the shit, they would prefer to control us than govern us (it's easier afterall), and they dose it out. No thanks.
Apart from qualitiative physical and emotional tests to see if I can take the substance at all I wouldn't have the government do any decision making on the consumer side. It comes back to the current argument (as far as I'm concerned), and that is the government isn't there to create laws. Nor is it there to help the weak and sick, nor protect the innocent, nor punish the guilty. The government is there to carry out the will of the people - full stop. The privacy debates and freedom of speech campaigns show us that the people are strongly opposed to the governments regulating our information inputs and outputs. I believe the continued failure of the war on drugs shows that people don't want the government deciding our material inputs and outputs either. I would like to see - in no particular order here - our pollies get the health system right; reintroduce free education; reintroduce profitability for farming; clean up the police force and judiciary; provide adequate resources (or redirect current resources) to the police and find a way for humanity to continue in harmony with himself and with nature. Once they've got that shit right, then they can play nutritionist.
Who says they have to regulate any industries arising from the legalisation of drugs? They could leave that stuff up to us and give us credit for the ability to handle our own existences. They could say "We can't control this thing. We do not endorse it, but can at least provide you with what you are expecting. Thereafter, we can take no responsibility. It's your life. Fuck it up in this manner and you only have yourself to blame. We warned you." No mixed signals. No cloak and dagger. Most importantly, no failsafes for the stupid roller. Finally we would have a set of laws that rather than protect morons reward common sense and knowledge. It also puts pressure back onto the individual in two crucially important areas: responsibility and accountability. These fundamentals of life are becomming so woefully non-existant amongst the seething masses and it is the governments' continued pandering to imbeciles that nurtures this trend. And if that's not enuff fer ya, here's a good religious reason for you too. God gave us free will. Our governments take it away. The government's stripping us of free will is therefore in direct conflict with God's will. Hence, the law is the devil's work. Like that? I thought it was kinda cute too. The legislature would therefore be Satan's general's and little Johnny Howard is currently playing Lucifer's host.
But I digress.
I want to live my life. Having seen the sorts of existances that our law makers enjoy, I have to say that they know next to nothing about how to LIVE one's life. Hence they can shut the fuck up and stop trying to control mine. I want to make my own mistakes. I want to learn my own lessons. I don't want a bunch of beurocrats to be my nanny. I go to the polls to decide who will best carry out my wishes, not who will control me best. It's my blood and I'll feed it, poison it and spill it where, when and how I choose.
So ner.
I like the idea of government distribution as it means they get a slice of the pie thru taxes, so we are getting that win-win thing going on immediately. The personal testing could open a can of worms. If you fail the mental stability test, then maybe you should be institutionalised? Maybe you could score a rating, but that touches too close to elitism tests and Australians have traditionally shied from such issues (remember the multi-function polis?). Mind you I wouldn't mind a screening test to be allowed to use their products. I guess it's fair enough. It would incedently have to be followed up with routine physical and mental checks to ensure that I'm staying up to scratch. The problem is, who decides if I am sane or not? Society can't decide this for me. It's too crazy at the moment. Maybe it just needs to do some prioritisation, maybe it's abstracted a special kind of lunacy whereby one has to be a maniac to be considered sane. I don't think that's too far out of the question. Either way, the process of selection would be intricate, especially considering the government would pussyfoot and procrastinate around those social aspects that society at large fears most wrt this subject. Put simply, I reckon you'd have better luck collecting Austudy. I don't like the idea of government regulated doses either. It's too much like some post-apolcaliptic hollywood action thriller.
You can't have one body controlling the whole process. They make the shit, they would prefer to control us than govern us (it's easier afterall), and they dose it out. No thanks.
Apart from qualitiative physical and emotional tests to see if I can take the substance at all I wouldn't have the government do any decision making on the consumer side. It comes back to the current argument (as far as I'm concerned), and that is the government isn't there to create laws. Nor is it there to help the weak and sick, nor protect the innocent, nor punish the guilty. The government is there to carry out the will of the people - full stop. The privacy debates and freedom of speech campaigns show us that the people are strongly opposed to the governments regulating our information inputs and outputs. I believe the continued failure of the war on drugs shows that people don't want the government deciding our material inputs and outputs either. I would like to see - in no particular order here - our pollies get the health system right; reintroduce free education; reintroduce profitability for farming; clean up the police force and judiciary; provide adequate resources (or redirect current resources) to the police and find a way for humanity to continue in harmony with himself and with nature. Once they've got that shit right, then they can play nutritionist.
Who says they have to regulate any industries arising from the legalisation of drugs? They could leave that stuff up to us and give us credit for the ability to handle our own existences. They could say "We can't control this thing. We do not endorse it, but can at least provide you with what you are expecting. Thereafter, we can take no responsibility. It's your life. Fuck it up in this manner and you only have yourself to blame. We warned you." No mixed signals. No cloak and dagger. Most importantly, no failsafes for the stupid roller. Finally we would have a set of laws that rather than protect morons reward common sense and knowledge. It also puts pressure back onto the individual in two crucially important areas: responsibility and accountability. These fundamentals of life are becomming so woefully non-existant amongst the seething masses and it is the governments' continued pandering to imbeciles that nurtures this trend. And if that's not enuff fer ya, here's a good religious reason for you too. God gave us free will. Our governments take it away. The government's stripping us of free will is therefore in direct conflict with God's will. Hence, the law is the devil's work. Like that? I thought it was kinda cute too. The legislature would therefore be Satan's general's and little Johnny Howard is currently playing Lucifer's host.
But I digress.
I want to live my life. Having seen the sorts of existances that our law makers enjoy, I have to say that they know next to nothing about how to LIVE one's life. Hence they can shut the fuck up and stop trying to control mine. I want to make my own mistakes. I want to learn my own lessons. I don't want a bunch of beurocrats to be my nanny. I go to the polls to decide who will best carry out my wishes, not who will control me best. It's my blood and I'll feed it, poison it and spill it where, when and how I choose.
So ner.
1) physical test: must be in very good health, have a good diet etc
^^
Biscuit: bit on the discrimination side dont you think?
Why should *YOU* (perhaps a healthy and good diet person) be allowed, and a person with not such a good diet perhaps slightly over-weight (already ppl are going to assume he/she aren't healthy) *NOT* allowed to purchase?
Mr.Klownz.
^^
Biscuit: bit on the discrimination side dont you think?
Why should *YOU* (perhaps a healthy and good diet person) be allowed, and a person with not such a good diet perhaps slightly over-weight (already ppl are going to assume he/she aren't healthy) *NOT* allowed to purchase?
Mr.Klownz.
tranquilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2000
- Messages
- 1,077
In response to enchanted I'd just like to say that my point was more that taxable goods reach a level of taxation whereby the convenience of buying them at a shop etc is outweighed by the saving purchasing them illegally. The gross price does not control demand merely drives consumers to break the law. If legalisation of a drug were passed then the tax levied would be high but it wouldn't force people to buy illicitly. If a pharmacentical company produced xtc the mark up would be phenomenal, the tax would be huge and you'd still be paying less for quality/dosage assured pills.
And people will pay taxes on just about anything as long as they think they will be spent in the correct way. I kinda agree with Synaesthesia's comments above but am not sure about govts role being to carry out the will of the people. Most of the 'people' haven't got a clue what their will is and look to be lead. A war on drugs feels good to the 'moral majority' and we wont stop it by adversarial means. We have to understand where everyone is coming from in this debate, co-operate with each other and others and change attitudes through education.
er...that's it
And people will pay taxes on just about anything as long as they think they will be spent in the correct way. I kinda agree with Synaesthesia's comments above but am not sure about govts role being to carry out the will of the people. Most of the 'people' haven't got a clue what their will is and look to be lead. A war on drugs feels good to the 'moral majority' and we wont stop it by adversarial means. We have to understand where everyone is coming from in this debate, co-operate with each other and others and change attitudes through education.
er...that's it
biscuit,
i've was depressed when i first started using e (and i was on ssri's too).
it opened my mind up to a different way of thinking.....which was something which at the time would have taken a month or so of therapy. i would definitely argue that mdma has significant therapeutic potential. in fact it was used by therapists in low doses back in the 70s.
i've was depressed when i first started using e (and i was on ssri's too).
it opened my mind up to a different way of thinking.....which was something which at the time would have taken a month or so of therapy. i would definitely argue that mdma has significant therapeutic potential. in fact it was used by therapists in low doses back in the 70s.
ok points taken.
about the good health thing, i really meant issues such as heart probs/ blood pressure etc. i.e: people who if they took MDMA and perhaps would never consider it unless it was legal suddenly dropping dead due to heart attack etc, like i am sure my dad would.
about the diet i meant people that do eat, i don't care what they eat it can be unhealthy as long as it is something, not these people who have loads of drugs but think they can do it without little or no food intake.
well perhaps i don't know enough about the depression aspect and yes a number of psychiatrists want MDMA made available for theraputic use but at the same time something that is so psychologically powerful needs to have some control.
To be honest i just proposed those tests as a way of making the legalisation seem more likely. synthaesia's post i TOTALLY agree with but lets face it its never gonna happen.
i proposed the limit idea again as it is a condition which would make legalisation out there more likely..unfortunately people may not have the self control as u or i and if it were made legal then down the track many people would have horrific serotonin/brain related disorders and put quite a burden on the health system etc. lets face there would be many who would use it 2 times a week if it was made available without the restrictions.
about the good health thing, i really meant issues such as heart probs/ blood pressure etc. i.e: people who if they took MDMA and perhaps would never consider it unless it was legal suddenly dropping dead due to heart attack etc, like i am sure my dad would.
about the diet i meant people that do eat, i don't care what they eat it can be unhealthy as long as it is something, not these people who have loads of drugs but think they can do it without little or no food intake.
well perhaps i don't know enough about the depression aspect and yes a number of psychiatrists want MDMA made available for theraputic use but at the same time something that is so psychologically powerful needs to have some control.
To be honest i just proposed those tests as a way of making the legalisation seem more likely. synthaesia's post i TOTALLY agree with but lets face it its never gonna happen.
i proposed the limit idea again as it is a condition which would make legalisation out there more likely..unfortunately people may not have the self control as u or i and if it were made legal then down the track many people would have horrific serotonin/brain related disorders and put quite a burden on the health system etc. lets face there would be many who would use it 2 times a week if it was made available without the restrictions.
syke
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2000
- Messages
- 389
Zoinks sent me this URL from MAPs. It's more US-oriented but should be interesting nonetheless. http://www.mapinc.org/17ques.htm
------------------
Like a flood,Thru my blood;
In my vein,To my brain;
Feel it coursing right thru me;
Oh my GOD its ECSTASY!
------------------
Like a flood,Thru my blood;
In my vein,To my brain;
Feel it coursing right thru me;
Oh my GOD its ECSTASY!
Synaesthesia
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2000
- Messages
- 103
Biscuit: Great minds think alike
The way in which you dismissed the arguments with "it's never gonna happen" is one of the problems with drugs. As long as we keep getting over-governed, we don't have to think for ourselves. We believe that we can't govern ourselves after a while. We continue to rely on the government to put further failsafes to protect us against our own stupidity. We have to wake up and start accepting the consequences of our own actions. This is one of the principles of growth and maturity not just to the individual, but to society as a whole. Until humanity stops being mothered, it will never evolve beyond a certain point. Legalisation isn't just about changing the law, it's about shifting community values - radically in the sense that for it to work, a great deal of trust, responsibility and belief has to be transferred back to the individual. We trust the government with our futures at the moment, but it won't trust us with our own. That's fucked. Who the hell do they think they are?
The way in which you dismissed the arguments with "it's never gonna happen" is one of the problems with drugs. As long as we keep getting over-governed, we don't have to think for ourselves. We believe that we can't govern ourselves after a while. We continue to rely on the government to put further failsafes to protect us against our own stupidity. We have to wake up and start accepting the consequences of our own actions. This is one of the principles of growth and maturity not just to the individual, but to society as a whole. Until humanity stops being mothered, it will never evolve beyond a certain point. Legalisation isn't just about changing the law, it's about shifting community values - radically in the sense that for it to work, a great deal of trust, responsibility and belief has to be transferred back to the individual. We trust the government with our futures at the moment, but it won't trust us with our own. That's fucked. Who the hell do they think they are?