The more affective a drug, the more society rejects it?

[BenzosBudOrBooty]

I feel the more affective a drug is in terms of altering your thinking...the more society rejects it. Well that's how I'd like to think if it. Maybe alcohol is an exception because it's legal, but hallucinogens tend to change your thinking more than any other drug, and for that reason society seems to reject it more than any other drug. IMO hallucinogens are "affective" the most, in providing insight and expanded thinking and ego loss. All the things I'm trying to accomplish in doing drugs, which is why it's rejected the most. It changes you the most quite possibly. Well maybe I'm wrong but it's up there with opiates and cocaine which are about equally as rejected by society. But I feel us drug users tend to seek what the sober/alcohol drinking community rejects. We're looking for expanded thinking and changing our outlook while many people who only drink or stay sober are scared of exactly what we are seeking. Idk maybe I'm not making sense. I feel the people in charge are mind expanders but have their money interests invested in keeping these drugs ILLEGAL. I feel those people would have never made it to the top if they didn't expand their minds somewhat to a case of divergent thing. While it is the pawns, the sheep, the majority, the ordinary folk, the wives, that believe out of fear that alcohol should be the only legal drug.

The guys owning the tobacco and alcohol and pharmaceutical and government companies are really cocaine/weed/drinkers/maybe even acid trippers in the past, but they have all their money in keeping those things illegal. While it is Joe Smith who's kind of rough around the edges , or Stacy Street, wife of James Street, who truly deep down believes these things should be illegal.

I'm not sure, it's just this lady was really rude to me for no reason today. She was real rich, spoiled and pampered and I ran into her in the pharmacy and she just couldn't help but being rude to me and it got me thinking. She hated me because I was a drug user....even though I'm almost 6 months sober. She hated that I had expanded my mind... Oh well hell.

 

[Yeetbeat]

People are afraid of that which they don't understand; and the vague 'understanding' the general public has via the deluge of misinformation and blatant lies being fed to them by those you speak of in power (Big Pharma etc) perpetuate any fear they have of these substances by way of painting them in a bad light. Cannabis is a prime example....effective cure for cancer? Check. Easily profitable on the same level as cancer itself? LOLOLOL not even.

People will either form their own opinions through a little bit of easy research, or they'll happily ride upon the propaganda boat all the way down Bullshit River in blissful ignorance. I refuse to take the latter seriously, on any topic.

I fucking hate anyone who chooses to accept what they're told as truth without any question. Such people are a disease holding the rest of the human race back; not only on the drugs front but in many different ways.

 

[Crashing]

Yeah well, we are monkeys and this is what monkeys do:

http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.com/2008/08/monkey-story-experiment-involved-5.html

 

[One Thousand Words]

Cannabis is a prime example....effective cure for cancer? Check. Easily profitable on the same level as cancer itself? LOLOLOL not even.

.

Lets make a pact, if we both get cancer I get to be treated with chemotherapy drugs and you can extract anything half useful from cannabis.

Don't wait for me in heaven

 

[Ismene]

I don't think society thinks that deeply about making drugs illegal - if it gets you high then they think it must be banned. That's about as deeply as authorities think about these things.

 

[phenethylo J]

Drugs like mdma, marijuana, lsd, and opiates; which all have very positive life changing medical benefits also happen to be very popular. Which means there are bound to be lots of idiots giving them a bad name.

Like isemene said when it come right down to it many people are just against the concept of someone altering their state of mind weather it be for religious or strictly moral reasons.

 

[szuko000]

It is way more complicated then the idea that "a new way of thinking will cause a social change" I think what it boils down to is can individuals be responsible enough to have access to things that are detrimental to society? It is very easy for those of us who are responsible, educated, and know how to have a small amount of self control to say "it is totally unfair that this is illegal" but what we need to realize is we are but a small portion of the world.

It is unfair that society bans drugs, but society does need to ban certain ones otherwise a lot of people will not be productive. Less productive people means society will experience strains it is not accustom to and they can cause serious issues. One outcome could be a lack of access to medical care simply because the strain caused by a drug using society. It doesnt have to be some kind of hippy uprising or pharmaceutical conspiracy.

 

[Yeetbeat]

Lets make a pact, if we both get cancer I get to be treated with chemotherapy drugs and you can extract anything half useful from cannabis.

Don't wait for me in heaven

While I can see my post should've been donned with a tinfoil hat, there's enough 'proof' of people curing their own cancer (mostly skin cancer) all over the net. Youtube is full of it. Believe it or not, but personally there's enough evidence for me to choose cannabis oil as a treatment over chemo any fucking day. TBH, I'd probably choose no treatment and a few months of enjoying life as much as I can before I went down the chemo route.

It's like sure, chemo killed the cancer cells.....only to almost guarantee you more cancer later in life as a result. It's like a painful extension of 'life'.

 

[Crashing]

Lets make a pact, if we both get cancer I get to be treated with chemotherapy drugs and you can extract anything half useful from cannabis.

Don't wait for me in heaven

You are preaching to the wrong group dude

 

[AA357]

I feel the more affective a drug is in terms of altering your thinking...the more society rejects it. Well that's how I'd like to think if it. Maybe alcohol is an exception because it's legal, but hallucinogens tend to change your thinking more than any other drug, and for that reason society seems to reject it more than any other drug.

Complete and utter BS.

What about crack or heroin? Are you suggesting that these drugs are more socially acceptable than LSD or mushrooms, just because they don't "change your thinking" as much?

Another thing: alcohol is only socially acceptable because humans have been drinking it ever since we populated Earth. I guarantee you, if alcohol had been discovered in this day and age it would be illegal.

 

[Kl519]

There is enough medical advancement at this point to "cure" cancer before it spreads, eg. stages 1 and 2. Once it does spread, no amount of surgery, chemo, weed or anything will stop it. And isn't weed only good for the treatment/prevention of some types of cancer, and not as an effective cure? Well, I'm not sure though.

The problem is that a lot of people do not know they have cancer until it's too late (stages 3 and 4).

Even if you do "cure" it, you must get checked up every 5 (I think) years or so to see if it came back. Not much of a cure then, right?

Everybody gets cancer, or at least gets some cancer cells created during cell replication, but usually the healthy cells will combat and destroy them. It's a ridiculous number; like 1 out of a trillion something divisions, a cancer cell is produced. People end up getting cancer when the body cannot eradicate the cancer cells anymore. Then if they spread to your organs through the lymph nodes, that's when pretty much everyone is screwed.

 

[Ismene]

It is unfair that society bans drugs, but society does need to ban certain ones otherwise a lot of people will not be productive. Less productive people means society will experience strains it is not accustom to and they can cause serious issues.

Depends which country you mean - obviously prohibition has turned large parts of South America into lawless territories locked in civil war for decades. Legalising drugs there could only be positive.

And the assumption you're making about rich countries is that people would use all illegal drugs in an addictive way that would ruin their jobs/lives. I'm not convinced that's true. A certain percentage of the population has the addictive gene - about 5% - they tend to use drugs or alcohol in a way that's detrimental to their lives. If heroin was legal tomorrow I personally wouldn't go out and inject myself every day because I don't have the addictive gene.

 

[Crashing]

Complete and utter BS.

What about crack or heroin? Are you suggesting that these drugs are more socially acceptable than LSD or mushrooms, just because they don't "change your thinking" as much?

Another thing: alcohol is only socially acceptable because humans have been drinking it ever since we populated Earth. I guarantee you, if alcohol had been discovered in this day and age it would be illegal.

It seems just as likely the first brews we were drinking had psychedelic and or stimulant plants and herbs in them, as well as some fermented fruit juices.

 

[Ismene]

^^

Not too sure how old psychedelic use is outside certain areas. Obviously if you bend down and pick up a mushroom in certain parts of Mexico they have 35 different types of psilocybin mushroom growing so it's odds on you'll eat a psychedelic one. That's not the case in any other part of the world.

There's ayahuasca I suppose - but again that's limited to certain parts of South America. Are there many other worthwhile psychedelics in the rest of the world?

 

[Crashing]

It just seems likely that we'd consume something on the Erowid list of psychoactive plants before or at least at the same time as drinking fermented juice. There's gotta be some type of psychedelic plant in almost every region, mushrooms or otherwise.

 

[adder]

Depends which country you mean - obviously prohibition has turned large parts of South America into lawless territories locked in civil war for decades. Legalising drugs there could only be positive.

And the assumption you're making about rich countries is that people would use all illegal drugs in an addictive way that would ruin their jobs/lives. I'm not convinced that's true. A certain percentage of the population has the addictive gene - about 5% - they tend to use drugs or alcohol in a way that's detrimental to their lives. If heroin was legal tomorrow I personally wouldn't go out and inject myself every day because I don't have the addictive gene.

It's a stupid convention to explain various stuff solely with genes. I'm wondering what would make you resort to heroin even though you supposedly don't have the addiction gene. Because clearly there is something that would make you hate everything around you so much that you'd either choose to end your misery with something giving you relief even if it was only temporary or to kill yourself, or to perform another "unhealthy" behaviour.

What I mean is I probably wouldn't have touched any opioids if certain stuff hadn't happened in my life. I could have been a productive member of the society and nobody would ever think I could have the addiction gene. Perhaps you simply ignore the same events that made me resort to taking drugs but how do we know if your behaviour is really the right one? Perhaps you do better dealing with the same events but how do we know if the conditions around you are the same as mine? It's never a drug ruining someone's life, drugs are rarely a cause, much more often they're only a result. There are always a lot of factors involved and the presence of drugs has the least impact, drugs can't impact your thinking before you take them and even when they impact your thinking when you take them, well, your reasoning under influence is much more caused by your past experiences. It seems so weirdly natural to judge an individual based on the fact that they don't comply with the rules that the majority recognise.

 

[psood0nym]

A plausible argument can be put forth that the prohibition of cannabis and the classical psychedelics in the Nixon era really was motivated largely by a fearful establishment associating the "liberating" effects of these drugs with threats to social order. If I'm remembering correctly the (partially Bluelight funded) documentary "Neurons to Nirvana" (on Netflix instant, etc.) includes an audio recording of ol' Dicky speaking about attacking cannabis in a manner that falls in line with this perspective, though the self-sabotaging "Tune in, turn on , drop out" credo didn't help matters either. With physically addictive drugs I think historical recollections of China's shiftless and strung out population at the height of the opium trade do more of the heavy lifting as far as societal rejection is concerned. And with today's designer drug bans I believe the chief instigators of prohibition are media outfits vying for ratings and relevance and politicians seeking an easy leg up on the ladder of power. The "fear of different perspectives" motivator is always at work in these things, but its prominence varies by degree according to the influence of a number of different concerns.

 

[perpetualdawn]

I believe that we users of psychedelics tend to have a flawed view of how the mainstream perceives psychedelics. We like to imagine that the mainstream is scared of the power of psychedelics to expand minds, that they're scared of some kind of revolution or "evolution in conciousness". We also like to imagine that the mainstream is afraid to open the closet and look under the rugs of the mind, in case they find something scary.

The mainstream perspective is a little simpler though. From the perspective of the conservative mainstream, taking a drug like LSD imposes a corruption on our true self. When you take a drug "you" are no longer you, because they see that a drug bends your mind to the point that you are no longer yourself. I think somewhere in the back of a lot of people's minds they are reminded of a sort of demonic possession, brought on by the drug. They want to ban drugs for the same reason that they'd probably want to ban spirit demons if there were such a thing.

But once you take a psychedelic drug, you find yourself to still be your self (until your ego dissolves haha), but looking through a different lense, and it becomes interesting to notice the parameters of your mind tweaked a bit. Taking psychedelics expands our definition of what the self can encompass.