lets help the government

[burn out]

There aint know fortune to made in ibogaine- what if your particular pharmaceutical company manufactrued oxycodone as well as an anti-addictive treatment? Not likely. The same argument applies when conspiracy theorists suggest that cancer/aids etc could be cured, but the money made in anti-viral and chemotherapy drugs is massively more then a possible one-shot cure. Sadly, thats capitalism. Also, money and tripping leave a bad taste in my mouth to be honest....

since when was this thread about ibogaine? by the way, if you click the ad for ibogaine therapy, the cost for one session is $4,700.

 

[IGNVS]

Dude, perhaps you shouldn't write these lettters. We are not all american. . I still can't believe the US thinks like that lol :D Anyway, as you were, I guess this thread is completely irrelevant to anyone not in the US, which makes me inclinced to shut it as it is more a regional discussion.

heh i knew you would say that.8) i knowww were not alllll american, but the dea ... wait no they have overseas departments, fuck. there global, so this is your problem too.

let me rephrase that, were all HUMAN. ... well.. at least. i think we are.

 

[swilow]

^BURNOUT- Threads about psychedelics. Take it easy thwarted god

also seeing as your being disagreeable t'wards me- $4700 is nothing if an addict is spending a couple of hundred a day on drugs. See what I'm saying? No. Oh well....

 

[burn out]

^BURNOUT- Threads about psychedelics. Take it easy thwarted god

also seeing as your being disagreeable t'wards me- $4700 is nothing if an addict is spending a couple of hundred a day on drugs. See what I'm saying? No. Oh well....

so ibogaine has a 100% success rate with no relapses?

but that's beside the point. when it was pointed out that psychedelics drugs could indeed be profitable, you deliberately ignored it and now you're bringing up ibogaine as if to attempt to bolster your original argument which already got shot down. why? the OP isn't asking for people to write to the govt about ibogaine, he's asking for all psychedelics, most of which are not ibogaine. i am trying trying to understand your point of view. you see me as being disagreeable.

 

[IGNVS]

well, no im actualy asking people to write about anything their heart desires.

all psychedelics would be extremly hard to argue, if you could direct your attention to drugs that are on their list of conserns that are not yet scheduled, ibogaine (due to its reaserch and medical potential), and dmt because of its completely nontoxic and endogenous properties.

its going to be alot more dificult than some letter writing, and will probably require some legal assistance in the future of this project. is there anyone out there with good connections in the legal feild, or anyone eles who is willing to devote some time to doing reaserch on the steps we need to take to bring attention to local and national levels. i see reality much like a lucid dream where anything is posible, it depends on what you put into it though. i am willing to do alot of work to try and change the schedualing of dmt, any help, even a point in the right direction or answers to small questions would be incredible.


upon further reaserch on the head of the dea i realized we indeed are dealing with psychotic individuals. i was reading an article on amt that said it was found to induce psychosis... no, no working for a depersonalized machine will induce psychosis. (depersonalization, isnt it funy that some of the negative effects they list include depersonalization when their talking about psychedelics... but they forget that life itself is psychedelic, and that what their doing to themselves is a drawn out version of a bad trip, hah, karma up the assss)

btw have any of you seen the movie Network? its about TV in the 70's and opinionated reporting. amazing peek into the way that bruocracy and inherantly fucked up systems destroy peoples lives. reminds me alot of how america is run, sadly.

 

[burn out]

well, no im actualy asking people to write about anything their heart desires.

all psychedelics would be extremly hard to argue, if you could direct your attention to drugs that are on their list of conserns that are not yet scheduled, ibogaine (due to its reaserch and medical potential), and dmt because of its completely nontoxic and endogenous properties.

i meant any psychedelic, not all. all i meant to say was no mention had been made of ibogaine.

 

[IGNVS]

i meant any psychedelic, not all. all i meant to say was no mention had been made of ibogaine.

it was mentioned when i asked everyone to look at this link :http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/dr...ern/index.html

their article on ibogaine is contradictory and grotesque. check it out.

http://www.maps.org/mmj/signonfinal.pdf look at this, and scroll down.. look at all those names from congress! thats what i want to end up with. a letter to the dea with a bunch of john handcocks on there!

could one of the mods clean up this thread a tad?

 

[tobala]

so ibogaine has a 100% success rate with no relapses?

Nope. Nothing does. But the success rate is probably a lot better than nonsense like NA. But we can't really know right now because to do a real study comparing the two modalities (on different addict populations, etc.) would be nearly impossible in the USA right now.

I guess this thread is completely irrelevant to anyone not in the US, which makes me inclinced to shut it as it is more a regional discussion.

YOU WOULDN'T!!! You cunting bastard! That would be totally UN-AMERIKAN!

 

[solistus]

I only read the first few posts of this thread, but one thing that hadn't been brought up yet as of where I left off: money.

Most politicians who support drug prohibition probably don't have deep personal convictions about things like DMT. What they do have is quite a few lobbyists that would strongly oppose any change to the status quo regarding drug policy. To name a few: the prison lobby (nonviolent drug criminals are crucial to the rapid expansion of the prison industry and provide a nice pool of cheap labour for companies that use prison workers), the drug testing lobby (mostly made up of ex-drug czars and DEA agents), the DEA/ONDCP/etc. (lots of nice government jobs with benefits that exist solely because of prohibition), the pharmaceutical industry (cannabis, LSD, MDMA... so many new meds to compete with various pharmies)... The list goes on.

The point is, our government is almost exclusively run by money-grubbing realists, not strongly convicted idealists. Convincing them that a policy isn't right or good isn't very helpful. You have to threaten their money or their votes.

Even Obama, who has admitted to past drug use much more candidly than most politicians, won't go so far as to advocate legalisation or decriminalisation of anything. The best we've got from him so far is a pledge to end federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and dispensaries. This is progress, sure, but it's incremental reform. An all-out change in drug policy would take some major political or economic incentive, or an extremely improbable event like an anti-prohibition idealist somehow getting the AG appointment. As long as the US maintains prohibition, it will also continue pressuring the rest of the world to do likewise, so we aren't likely to see any huge breakthroughs anywhere in the so-called "Western world" anytime soon, I'm afraid. As unhelpful as "it won't work" comments may seem to you, withholding such comments when they are probably true would be even less helpful.

 

[tobala]

The other thing:

Many of the money-grubbing realists of today were the Flower-Power idealists of yesterday. Age takes its toll.

Won't happen to me, of course... :D

 

[burn out]

Nope. Nothing does. But the success rate is probably a lot better than nonsense like NA. But we can't really know right now because to do a real study comparing the two modalities (on different addict populations, etc.) would be nearly impossible in the USA right now.

last time i checked, NA was free so there is no point in comparing them since my point was simply that it could still be possible to make a profit from ibogaine therapy. especially so if the success rate wasn't 100%.

 

[FlyingSquirrel]

Is there a petition I can sign or a website I can go to, to protest?

 

[IGNVS]

um, kind of. its not that simple. theres alot of information in this thread if you care enough to check it out...

 

[tobala]

last time i checked, NA was free so there is no point in comparing them since my point was simply that it could still be possible to make a profit from ibogaine therapy. especially so if the success rate wasn't 100%.

Gotcha. I think there is some profit potential in ibogaine, but Big Pharmacy is no different than Big Dealer. Neither wants to see its client kick the habit--and so neither Big Pharmacy nor Big Dealer want to see ibogaine in the USA anytime soon.

Ibogaine's only chance is Big Do The Right Thing.

Which, in Amerika, means no chance at all...

 

[swilow]

so ibogaine has a 100% success rate with no relapses?

Um....I'd say no. But thats besides that point

but that's beside the point. when it was pointed out that psychedelics drugs could indeed be profitable, you deliberately ignored it and now you're bringing up ibogaine as if to attempt to bolster your original argument which already got shot down. why? the OP isn't asking for people to write to the govt about ibogaine, he's asking for all psychedelics, most of which are not ibogaine. i am trying trying to understand your point of view. you see me as being disagreeable.

Chill out friend of fire. I truly don't believe their is money to be made in psychedelic therapy, and as we are talking about legalising these things (hopefully) then they are certainly not going to be dispensed at headshops OR vending machines.... They will/would be hypothetically marketed and sold by the same pharmaceutical companies who currently flourish; the fact is that psychedelics such as LSD would have greater potential to alleviate deperssion then SSRI's for example- yet there is no ongoing profit in a treatment that would most likely not need constant, DAILY repetition. Thats the way the economy works, the mainstream economy at least, and thats what would happen if psychedelics enter the current system.

I'd prefer to undermine current governments by pointing out how unbearably flawed they are in allaspects of their human relations rather then simply their attitude to drugs, and not to governments themselves, but to the rest of the world who may not be looking and could affect the governments view. Whether psychedelics are legal or not, me and you will use them regardless- but the real issues affecting the world, things like third world debt and constant warfare won'tgo away until the entire sytem is changed. I can't see that happening, therefore I can't really see a mainstream place for psychedelics. Thus I don't think theres any point in writing to governments. They will not listen.

I don't feel my view was shot down at all; I think I didn't convey it correctly. I'm still not sure I have. But the best analogy I can and did make was with a cure for AIDS; if such a thing HAD been discovered do you think that many bussiness people are going to opt for an item that cannot and does not need constant reproduction and consumption (such as this 'cure'), or for something (anti-viral drugs) that do need to be consistently consumed to maintain health? It is not cynical to say that option two is almost defintely the one most business people would choose.

 

[Damien]

Is there a petition I can sign or a website I can go to, to protest?

Here is the Activist Resources thread from DC.

 

[BJM]

Good talk IGNVS.

The archetype of the revolutionary is available to all of us.
I've spent 5 years bulding a business system that will eventually engineer 'living art' as a the front for a multibillion dollar timber exportation.

The system works like mycelium, starting with education of a sustinable human paradigm at the primary level and stemming into (and assimilating) all of Earths currently defunct and warring memes.
I blanked out 5 years go, and came to with a pen in my hand and plan to save the world. Mushrooms play a very big part in it all.

I was taught to stand up for what I believe in. The trick is getting others to take the tail from between their legs and do the same. So, I said 'f*ck it!, il just use the same technology that the government, religions and social engineers are using!'. Il just go ahead an engineer the brainless little consumers with a desire to love, and a will to heal.

Dont throw the ring into the fire. Wear that f*cker and conquer it!

 

[burn out]

Um....I'd say no. But thats besides that point



Chill out friend of fire. I truly don't believe their is money to be made in psychedelic therapy, and as we are talking about legalising these things (hopefully) then they are certainly not going to be dispensed at headshops OR vending machines.... They will/would be hypothetically marketed and sold by the same pharmaceutical companies who currently flourish; the fact is that psychedelics such as LSD would have greater potential to alleviate deperssion then SSRI's for example- yet there is no ongoing profit in a treatment that would most likely not need constant, DAILY repetition. Thats the way the economy works, the mainstream economy at least, and thats what would happen if psychedelics enter the current system.

i already outlined the model for ongoing profit. each psychedelic session lasts a long time and some patients return for as many as 50-60 sessions (as proven by the experiments with lsd psychotherapy in the 60s). plus if it catches on, it could draw a lot of potential new customers who aren't interested in more classical forms of psychotherapy or SSRIs.

I'd prefer to undermine current governments by pointing out how unbearably flawed they are in allaspects of their human relations rather then simply their attitude to drugs, and not to governments themselves, but to the rest of the world who may not be looking and could affect the governments view. Whether psychedelics are legal or not, me and you will use them regardless- but the real issues affecting the world, things like third world debt and constant warfare won'tgo away until the entire sytem is changed. I can't see that happening, therefore I can't really see a mainstream place for psychedelics. Thus I don't think theres any point in writing to governments. They will not listen.

i agree with you. i'm not writing any letters to the government.

I don't feel my view was shot down at all; I think I didn't convey it correctly. I'm still not sure I have. But the best analogy I can and did make was with a cure for AIDS; if such a thing HAD been discovered do you think that many bussiness people are going to opt for an item that cannot and does not need constant reproduction and consumption (such as this 'cure'), or for something (anti-viral drugs) that do need to be consistently consumed to maintain health? It is not cynical to say that option two is almost defintely the one most business people would choose.

if someone invented a cure for aids and chose to sell it, they would become a billionare overnight and put all the competition out of business.

 

[swilow]

if someone invented a cure for aids and chose to sell it, they would become a billionare overnight and put all the competition out of business.

Well, you misunderstand what capitalism is then. Its a system of reproduction and consumption. There is no place for cures, only maintenace. I'm not railing against capitalism, merely pointing out that in our current culture, psychedelics are unlikely to be legal in any way that users are going to appreciate. I don't think your seeing what I'm saying; but consider this- if someone found a cure for AIDS, big pharma who wield more power then we could believe (George W. H Bush on the board of Eli Lily anyone??) would either stomp it down, as any business is meant to a competeitior or they would buy it and likely shelve it in favour of the higher profit antivral drugs.

Do you honestly think pfizer, who fought so hard to supress documents regarding an aspect of SSRI's (suicidal ideation) would really want to cure a profitable disease like AIDS? If so, why? They are business people; thats what they do.

 

[burn out]

part of the nature of capitalism is also competition and if another company invented a product that had the potential to cure aids, then they could take away business from pfizer because their product or service would be superior.

take the example of antibiotics. when i was younger, i used to get bacterial infections and i would go to the doctor and get a prescription for an anti-biotic and it would "cure" the illness and that would be that. now if i had the choice between going to doctor A who would prescribe the antibiotic and cure me of the illness or doctor B who would simply prescribe drugs that suppressed the symptoms, surely i would choose doctor A, just like i did and most people do.

now i totally understand the concept of treating the symptoms being more profitable, but if the competition can offer something better, like a cure, then you're not going to make a profit only treating the symptoms when your competitors are offering up a cure.

i know more money goes toward researching treatments than cures because it's more profitable, but i don't go as far as to assert that it's impossible to make a profit with cures as illustrated by antibiotics.