The "New Psychedelic Movement"

[austior]

It's a wonderful idea, its very noble, and we should try to get our opinions out to the mainstream, but I don't think we are even on the map as far as 'movements' go. We are an underground group that will likely stay underground for a long time to come. Get used to it.

I did not wish to define "movement" and "underground" to be mutually exclusive. This is obviously not so. Consider the freemason's influence in europe and early america, clearly both underground and a movement.

What I was trying to point out is that our "movement" has been underground almost as long as it's been in existence. We're so used to it that hardly anyone notices we are pushing through to the surface! If you think we have a choice in this, I urge you to re-read the Guardian article. While you're at it, skim some recent DEA microgram reports.

As I stated, our 'movement' is large enough to support a growing multitude of profitable commercial operations. Someone will take notice. As long as we are all doing relatively similar things (psychedelics) at about the same time (NOW), we will be persecuted as a movement, whether we like to be called that or not.

 

[austior]

Leary's philosophy of "turn on, tune in, drop out." is interesting but naive. Leary's "realizations" on psychedelics were so crystal clear he couldn't understand how anyone on LSD could not come to the same realizations. It was a similar mistake to that made in vietnam: "Given the choice, who would pick communism? After all, capitalism is the freest form of government!" Answer: "The peasants of south Vietnam."

Leary expected everyone who took psychedelics to make the same conclusions about society, to drop out, and to form a new utopian society by pure magic. Well, as it turns out, the conclusions one draws from psychedelic use are largely dependent on individual personality. Hence, leary's movement was in pieces from the beginning. The whole political left in the 1960's, called the "New Left" by some historians, suffered a similar fate. The different radical feminists, war protesters, poverty fighters, etc. found they had little in common and fragmented in the early 1970's. This yielded the eighties.

Let's put history aside; I'm more concerned about the future. If it is not clear to you that shit will go down in regards to the chemicals we have and will have access to, you are in the dark. I'm not talking about just scheduling specific compounds. No "normal person" will look twice when wide prosecutions using the analog act begin. The middle class conformists of the sixties saw no difference between lsd coke and speed, all were equally evil communist or other plots. Things are not that much different today. Your everyday joe or jane will see any commercial drug operation as preying on children and addicts. They are not going to differentiate hard to find companies that actually provide a valuable favor for select individuals. Already all of these "research chemicals" are being lumped with "ecstacy" in the media and government propaganda. No folks, I'm afraid the party, as it is currently happening, cannot last long.......

 

[gloggawogga]

I did not wish to define "movement" and "underground" to be mutually exclusive.

Who said they were??

What I was trying to point out is that our "movement" has been underground almost as long as it's been in existence. We're so used to it that hardly anyone notices we are pushing through to the surface! If you think we have a choice in this, I urge you to re-read the Guardian article. While you're at it, skim some recent DEA microgram reports.

I've read the Guardian article and the recent DEA microgram reports. What they show is that the research chemical scene is getting publicity, but publicity that is unfortunately negative. If anything, it means there will be a greater legal crackdown on these chemicals coming soon. I hardly consider that a successful "movement".

As I stated, our 'movement' is large enough to support a growing multitude of profitable commercial operations.

Demand for cocaine is large enough to support powerful cocaine cartels. Your point??

Someone will take notice.

Prosecutors will take notice.

As long as we are all doing relatively similar things (psychedelics) at about the same time (NOW), we will be persecuted as a movement, whether we like to be called that or not.

Law enforcement and the mainstream hardly consider us any sort of a movement. To them we are just a trend in criminal behaviour, not a movement.

 

[austior]

Gloggawogga, you're right in pointing out that if we are a 'movement', we are not so far a successful one. I thought I made it clear that was my opinion as well.

I's rather not get into an argument about whether we are a 'movement' or not. It depends on your definition of the word. When I say movement I mean any widely coordinated group of actions; surely we fit this bill.

Law enforcement and the mainstream hardly consider us any sort of a movement. To them we are just a trend in criminal behaviour, not a movement.

I disagree with this, though again it depends on semantics.
A 'trend in criminal behaviour' fits my definition for movement. But, further than this, I think government and law enforcement will have to consider us a political entity as well, if they wish to destroy our habits. All of us have either specific legal knowledge or access to this, in this sense we are far smarter than most radicals throughout history. In addition, whether you admit it or not, there are certain commonly held beliefs, ideologies, and agendas that unify us.

Actually, when attacking a group of individuals, be it communists, negros, or radical protestors, the government (in America) seems to grant them MORE unity than they deserve. For example, there were no organized communist plots within america in the middle of the century. Militant Black power groups are another example. People like H. Rap Brown and Malcom X paid little attention to eachother outside of their smallish movements, yet mainstream america was lumping all militant groups together.

I'm not suggesting that the government or law enforcement will "Respect" us as a valid political movement, but they will label us as this for their own political reasons, namely killing many birds with one stone (aka analog act.)

Gloggawogga, my outlook is not so bleak as yours, but perhaps it should be. I am willing to sacrifice for the "cause", but is anyone else?

Peace.

 

[theghostofbillhicks]

maybe we can change ourselves instead of the world. Just my tuppence.

X

 

[gloggawogga]

A 'trend in criminal behaviour' fits my definition for movement.

You can define it that way if you wish. But that's not how the word is commonly used.

I think government and law enforcement will have to consider us a political entity as well, if they wish to destroy our habits.

They're not going to do that. They are going to schedule research chems or bust people under the analog act. The war on drugs won't destroy peoples habits, but that doesn't mean they are going recognize drug users as a political entity. Instead they convict drug users which takes away their right to vote.

All of us have either specific legal knowledge or access to this, in this sense we are far smarter than most radicals throughout history.

Specific legal knowledge or access to what?? How does it make us smarter than other radicals throughout history?? Many radicals throughout history have been sucsessfull in their causes. Maybe we should learn about these successful radicals in history and see the key to their success instead of simply tickling our egos claiming we are smarter than them.

Actually, when attacking a group of individuals, be it communists, negros, or radical protestors, the government (in America) seems to grant them MORE unity than they deserve. For example, there were no organized communist plots within america in the middle of the century. Militant Black power groups are another example. People like H. Rap Brown and Malcom X paid little attention to eachother outside of their smallish movements, yet mainstream america was lumping all militant groups together.

And the legal system lumps psychedelic users in with crack heads, murderers and rapists.

I'm not suggesting that the government or law enforcement will "Respect" us as a valid political movement, but they will label us as this for their own political reasons, namely killing many birds with one stone (aka analog act.)

They label us as a bunch of social deviants doing drugs, and I don't see any change on the horizon.

Sorry if that sounds to dismal, but thats what todays attitudes in society seem to be. Back in the 70's there was real talk in the media about legalizing weed, coke and shrooms. In the 80's that all went down the tubes when Reagan escalated the war on drugs. Every president since has continued that escalation. The prison system today is 4 times as big. Nobody back in the 70's would have predicted that.

 

[poisoned candy]

I think a clarification need to be made regarding the "drop out" part of Leary's famous quote. The implication is not neccesarily to drop out of school/work and become a hermit. Instead, what is meant is for one to drop out of the ego games and programmed roles that characterise society.

For example, one of the characteristics of the existing system is that people are exposed to a large amount of advertising and material values, and then encouraged to go out and work their lives away to support their habits of consumption. I was headed along this path not too long ago, headed for a business degree and the corporate sector, when a re-examination of values brought upon by psychedelics changed my priorities. I "dropped out" of my programmed beleif system meant to serve the economic status quo, even though I still attend university.

 

[austior]

They're not going to do that. They are going to schedule research chems or bust people under the analog act. The war on drugs won't destroy peoples habits, but that doesn't mean they are going recognize drug users as a political entity. Instead they convict drug users which takes away their right to vote.

Well, our country is not quite a dictatorship. Large scale, fuzzy use of irresponsible laws will require some political justification. There will be challenges to using the analog act in this way, by the ACLU, Cognitive Liberty, and other groups. Sure, their efforts may fail, but they must be politically dispensed with in some way. Due to the sophistication of these groups and certain rogue psychonauts, I believe the term 'movement' will inevitably get tossed around, rightly or wrongly. Time will tell this.

Specific legal knowledge or access to what?? How does it make us smarter than other radicals throughout history?? Many radicals throughout history have been sucsessfull in their causes. Maybe we should learn about these successful radicals in history and see the key to their success instead of simply tickling our egos claiming we are smarter than them.

We should see our predicament in as positive a light as possible, to increase our chances of 'survival.' Being labeled a 'movement' by the media and government would give us a VOICE. The strength of this voice, in regards to the greater part of society, will depend on what we have to say.

Now, I believe what we have to say makes a great deal of sense. In large part, the 'movement' can and does draw heavily on the findings of modern science. Putting myself above leary does not tickle my ego anymore than saying I'm better than charles manson. Not that leary was evil, but he was definitely on the left hand side of the bell curve in political and philosophical academics. In general, this was true of all the most radical leftist movements. Their marxist/relativist/whatever philosophies were weak. Our philosophy is much deeper and harder to define, but it does exist. It may or may not have the innate strength required to get things done.

I am not saying that radicals have not been historically succesful (the french revolution, etc.), but this is partly true for the twentieth century. Most of the social/economic policy changes that grew out of 'sixties' movements were due to the labors of moderates such as MLK jr., Tom Hayden (Instrumental leader of SDS), and Cesar Chavez. The blunderings of more radical feminist and other movements tragically prevented the passage of good legislation such as the Equal Rights Amendment.

Now a certain radical feminism has been 'in vogue' since the sixties. Unfortunately, the leaders (very outspoken) of most of this have been irresposibly stubborn and naive. For example, in 1986, Susan Harding (radical feminist), published a book called "The science question" The book was fairly popular among feminists, though it is doubtful they read it all the way through! Harding criticized Newton's "Principia Mathematica" (undoubtably among the most seminal scientific works), saying it "might as well be called a 'Rape Manual.'"

There are scores of examples of stupid, petty radicals, but I will stop my list here. These are the people I'm saying we're smarter than. If you don't think you're more enlightened than Susan Harding, then I pity you.

GW, I do see your point. My/our cause, if it exists, may be completely hopeless. I don't yet know. But my reason for starting this thread was to see how many of us are willing to try. So far, one vote no, one yes (me)and a few maybes.......

 

[Kanaba]

Glogg, no offense of anything, but I think you may be a bit overly pessimistic about the way things are for our little "movement." There's some pretty intelligent people on this board, many of whom I'd guess will be the 'future leaders of america.' these people are psychedelic users, but they also possess keen intellects, and care about what's going on around them. That already puts us a step up from the baby boomers. I think reform in the area of marijuana is already on the way, and is pretty much inevitable. Look at the way the rest of the world or progressing... even many states in the west. Lots of them are pushing for decriminalization, or medical viability... and I don't think people will be listening to the bullshit for too much longer. All an American has to do to get a realistic perception of Pot is travel to Europe, and see how it integrates into society. The world is changing in favor of dope, and America can't lag behind for too much longer.

With psychedelics, I think change is possible, but it must happen from the bottom up. Lots of psychedelic users are pretty 'exclusive' in their groups, and are extremely skeptical of getting noobs involved with trip drugs. While this fear is well-reasoned and warranted, I don't think the progression of psychedelic drugs through society is possible if the people who do them the most don't open up a little. I think we're all FAR too skeptical of those 'outsiders' who would probably 'wig the fuck out if i hook them up." This is a bit arrogant and elitist on our parts... I mean, who are we to say that we're the only group of people who can handle psychedelic drugs? It's like saying the Blacks can't handle freedom, so we'll keep them in slavery. We'll never know how 'mass society' will respond to psychedelics until we make them more readily available . It's because of us that psychedelics never reach the 'mainstream'... I say, when somebody really wants to start something, brew several million hits of LSD and go on a campaign to distribute them across the world for dirt cheap, or free. Society can't really even consider psychedelics realistically, because they NEVER come into contact with them. So all the jocks out there, cheerleaders, youth group people, born again christians, wiggers, ROTC kids, ALL OF THEM.... we can't leave ANY of them out! A big psychedelic hug to all!!

P E A C E


-p.s.- if you want to forcefully inact change, you might want to consider psychedelic terrorism (the prom punch bowl, people)

 

[austior]

So all the jocks out there, cheerleaders, youth group people, born again christians, wiggers, ROTC kids, ALL OF THEM.... we can't leave ANY of them out! A big psychedelic hug to all!!

Thanks, Kanaba, for pointing this out. It will be essential, in my opinion, for us to realize that psychedelics are only one route to enlightenment, and not necessarily the best one. Leary and followers never really internalized this, and their "movement" suffered the consequences.

 

[poisoned candy]

BAHAHAHAH. Or along similar lines, maybe we should beleive the Gaurdian article and start distributing 5-meo-dmt as the "new ecstasy". NOT!

 

[gloggawogga]

There's some pretty intelligent people on this board, many of whom I'd guess will be the 'future leaders of america.' these people are psychedelic users, but they also possess keen intellects, and care about what's going on around them.

Back in the 60's and 70's many of us thought drugs would be legal by today, becuase our generation would be running the country. And look, for 8 years in the 90's we had a former pot smoker in the White House. Now we've got a former coke head White House. And I know of a few former psychedelic users that have sucsessful careers in the government. I suspect there are a few high up in the government too. Its not making a difference because it turned out the way the world works isn't the way we thought it did. The 'future leaders of america.' won't be advocating psychedelics because to do that in an election would be political suicide.

That already puts us a step up from the baby boomers.

Nope. It makes you just like the baby boomers were, young and idealistic.

 

[austior]

^^^

Young idealists are almost always a part of the big changes in history. In the hard sciences, it is often joked that anyone past their mid twenties no longer has a chance of making any big discoveries. If you study the history of physics, mathematics, or chemistry you'll see that this has more than a grain of truth. While there are exceptions, the statistical significance of youth as the most fertile period of discovery for scientists is strong.

That some young, idealistic radicals failed does not diminish the political standpoints of other youths/idealists. Actually, all people are idealistic, it's human nature to simplify reality, to find patterns. To say that idealism is a fallacy creates a paradox, since this view is itself an ideal!

It is often remarked among children of sixties liberalism that "Anyone who is not a socialist before they are 30 has no heart, and anyone who is not a capitalist after 30 has no brain." While this funny quip also contains more than a grain of truth, I suggest there may be a viable, more fundamental, and less cynical stance.

 

[Kanaba]

glogg, you wouldn't have psychedelics as part of your campaign agenda, of course, unless you're a complete fucking idiot. you do your shit once you're in office, and be real low-key and slow about it. and man, i can't believe the cynicism i'm hearing out of some people. it's nihilistic and defeatist to go on about how this movement lacks momentum, is going nowhere, is doomed to failure, blah blah... what the fuck man, that's like negating your purpose as a human (especially a human involved in this little 'movement"). if we all wanted to sit around and be super-skeptical and pessimistic about things, we wouldn't get ANYWHERE... well, maybe we would get pissed off at eachoter. i'm a pretty intelligent person to, and, if left to my own devices, of course i'll sit there and view everything in a cynical manner, and be pessimistic about the things even I am involved in... but i won't, because i've chosen to be a part of this little 'movement', and there's no way i'll beat myself over the head with the weight of a cynical worldview. i'm not denying any fact by saying my generation is going to be different from the baby boomers.... im not in denial of the 'obvious', or your explanation of the obvious (we're the exact same as the generation before us, and our movement is going anywhere)... i'm just a proponent of change, and sitting around shaking your head about a culture that YOU'RE A PART OF is just self-defeatist.

 

[Psilo707]

Our race is still slowly evolving into people who consume more drugs/substances than 'the day before'. We (the current generation) isn't generation X... we are generation Ecstasy... Whether legal or illegal, there is no denying that drug use is still on the increase in the overall scheme. There is no way to tell how the current generation of kids will be leading this country in 20-40 years. I believe we in fact WILL be more open to subjects like psychedelic research and decriminalization of obvious drugs which are going to be used no matter what.

Hard to predict though... really is.

 

[gloggawogga]

Young idealists are almost always a part of the big changes in history.

I don't mean to be criticizing youthfull idealism, but a little bit of reality checking helps too.

glogg, you wouldn't have psychedelics as part of your campaign agenda, of course, unless you're a complete fucking idiot. you do your shit once you're in office and be real low-key and slow about it.

When politicians get in office they support the finiancial support base that got them elected or they lose the finiancial support and don't get re-elected. Being low-key and slow isn't going to get a bill passed.

it's nihilistic and defeatist to go on about how this movement lacks momentum

It would be a bit of honesty to admit the direction your "movement" is going. Look at the rave act. Look at them cutting finiancial aid for people with drug bust records. Look at the new drugs being scheduled. Look at the growing size of the prison system, filled to brim with drug bust mandatory sentences that are worse than the sentences they give to rapists.

is doomed to failure

I never said any movement was doomed to failure. But if you can't admit where you are at the present moment your movement is doomed to failure.

i'm not denying any fact by saying my generation is going to be different from the baby boomers

Your generation today is far less politically active than the baby boomers were. By a wide margin. Tell me. What positive steps have you guys personally taken to get drugs accepted by the mainstream?? Have you even voted?? Written your elected officials?? Gone to any protests?? Supported any drug policy forums??

How many of you guys going to be willing to risk your careers to get drugs legalized when you are married and supporting children?? We'll have to wait and see for that. You'll say you will now, but when you really have children to support you'll think about it completely differently.

 

[austior]

Glog, I agree with you that extensive reality checking is in order. After all, many of us try as hard as possible to distance ourselves from reality through various means.

Your generation today is far less politically active than the baby boomers were. By a wide margin. Tell me. What positive steps have you guys personally taken to get drugs accepted by the mainstream?? Have you even voted?? Written your elected officials?? Gone to any protests?? Supported any drug policy forums??

How many of you guys going to be willing to risk your careers to get drugs legalized when you are married and supporting children?? We'll have to wait and see for that. You'll say you will now, but when you really have children to support you'll think about it completely differently.

"Activist" strategy is only one route to political reform. Consider the passive politics of Ghandi. When the british taxed the Indians for salt, they did not crowd around the ship-yards chanting "We demand fair salt prices!", they simply walked to the coast and made their own. Radical activism is pretty much unique to the latter twentieth century. This is partly because radicals would have previously been much more likely to be shot or jailed. But, it is also, to a degree, because activists are annoying and pushy. It's hard to get society on your side while at the same time decrying most of society as evil or wrong, and this has been a flaw in many activist strategies.

That said, the overwhelming cynicism and apathy of our generation is real and tragic. This will indeed be a hindrance to our cause. But, these types of things (the general "moods" of our culture) tend to change rapidly. In other words, we may be on the brink of a new cycle of activism, be it public or underground.

 

[gloggawogga]

Passive activism can have some impact. I guess you could call people growing their own weed and getting high passive activism. However Ghandi's activism for India's independance involved much more than that, including man public non-violent protests and marches where people were regularly massacred by the British Army.

Radical activism is not unique to the 20th century. Look at the revolutionary war, the Boston Tea Party, or uprisings that occured under the Articles of Confederation. Look at the protests for a shorter work week and labor rights in the 1800's. Werever throughout history there have been uprisings, you can thank radical activists. For that matter, look at Christ. He was a radical activist.

I think in todays world you need all types of activism. Radical activists have way of inciting fear and surprise in those who run the current establishment. Passive activists make the establishment realize they have a lack of control. Both of these encourage the establishment to negotiate with the more conventional activists who are asking for the establishment to make compromises. In the 60's you had Malcom X calling for a rebellion on one hand, MLK with the non-violent marches on the other, and people working within the system to get civil rights laws passed. All three played a role in making change.

And I too think we may be on the brink of a new cycle of activism. Maybe. Right now it seems we're were we were at in the 50's. Back then it was the red scare and the Mcarthy hearings. Today is the war on terror and patriot act. But keeping on the subject of drugs, there are some good signs in Europe and Canada, i.e relaxation of pot laws and even talk of relaxation of ecstacy laws. There's still a long way to go even in many of these countries though. And in the US Congress voted more than 2 to 1 against medical pot, despite that according to polls 80% of the US public favors medical pot. It would seem there's very little democracy at work in the US, especially at the federal level.

But, my reality check question remains, what are *you* guys doing to support your movement, (besides just getting high)?? And were is the evidence that the movement is making any significan progress, especially in the US??

 

[Spyke]

OK...maybe I'm not on the same level as most of you are. I'm NOT thinking a movement in term of trying to legalize acid. In fact, as dangerous as drugs are, I'd have to say that it should stay illegal, just with lower penalties, but that is quite beside the point as I'm not in the position to make that decision.

When I refer to a new movement, I'm refering to the new way that young people are begining to think. Young people are actually begining to realize that all the money in the world will just make us more unhappy. That all the affirmative action in the world will only process more racism. etc...

One of my big ideals is that I don't consider myself "American"...I consider myself a human. And as gay as that may sound, if the entire world thought this way there would be no reason for wars or terrorism or corruption. Instead of trying to get more land and oil and bullshit, we'd be sharing with each other and worrying more about advancing our society than advancing our physical power.

Now bringing my rant back to psychadelics...the only reason that these drugs would be included in the movement is that most of the users of acid or other psych drugs think along these lines. Other than that, I do think the drugs should stay underground!

I'm not talking about changing the way people think about drugs, but the way people think about each other. There is a huge difference. Maybe that will clear somethings up for you Glogga?

 

[theghostofbillhicks]

Revolutions and movements attract power players and tend to be self-defeating when up against an immovable object (international drug laws).

For me, the game is to learn everything i can from the psychedelic experience and use that wisdom in everything i do. Historically we all know how the intelligent periphery of society has accessed higher realms with chemical assistance and come back to spread the fruit of Eden to the world through their work.

Poisened Candy is an excellent example of the way i see it; use the experience to change your reality for the better: seeing through the pointlessness of modern work ethics to create a personally fulfilling existence.

For the rest of the rat race, the psychedelic experience may not be right for them, and any movement would inevitably produce people taking things for the wrong reasons and then the paranoia and fear enter.

There seems to be nothing wrong with the current situation. The internet is a great way for likeminded people to hookup and evolve ideas. To clump us all together would be to misunderstand the idea of learning from these substances. The success of Erowid and the (sometimes) high level of discussion on here is enough to show the world and ourselves that what a lot of us experience is indeed meaningful and useful.

X