User Controls
California to vote on legalizing magic hallucinagenic mushrooms
-
2017-09-04 at 3:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I'm trying to be civil here Bill Krozby, you're not on trial, I'm just asking you to please not copy paste full articles from other sites.
As for on-topic-ness, like almost everyone here I imagine, I fully support the legalization of classical psychedelics. They're comparatively very safe drugs, can be very enjoyable, and I think they have a lot of potential for positive facilitation of creative and intellectual endeavors.
I think I posted jokingly a while back that I was planning on sending out small packets containing a single dose of LSD analogue, a benzo, and instructions on responsible use to a bunch of mathematicians and seeing if anything comes of it. Stupid of course but I really do thing some of the people in our society who would stand to benefit the most from controlled use of psychedelics have the least access to them.
I support legalization but only with taxation, regulation, and education.
People should have to take a test on LSD if they want to be able to buy LSD. Basic pharmacology, dose, safety, emergency tips, etc. I also think doctors should be required patients on every prescription instead of just "Here, take this." My opinion extends to legal meth, heroin, and crack. -
2017-09-04 at 3:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 I support legalization but only with taxation, regulation, and education.
People should have to take a test on LSD if they want to be able to buy LSD. Basic pharmacology, dose, safety, emergency tips, etc. I also think doctors should be required patients on every prescription instead of just "Here, take this." My opinion extends to legal meth, heroin, and crack.
Sub_Mod here,
you're a faggot, people shouldn't have to take a test to buy lsd, they should just be able to either be given lsd or buy their own lsd on a free market.
I'm an independent so I believe in less goverment involvement and with less everything being government mandated and regulated.
You're a total cuck §m£ÂgØL.
You can take lsd or mushrooms and not understand pharmacology, I can see where they relate, but they don't go hand and hand with the experience.
That would be like me saying you can't take any drugs §m£ÂgØL because you're a man child that lives with his parents in his mid 20's, its a non-sequitur
You're talking out of your asshole again, I highly doubt you've taken a pharmacology class then took a psychedelic, but you're a cuck and you like the government dipping their hands into every aspect of your life.
Post last edited by Sub_Mod at 2017-09-04T15:53:00.312996+00:00 -
2017-09-04 at 3:48 PM UTCDoctors should take the drugs they prescribe? All of them?
I don't think that's the best idea. -
2017-09-04 at 3:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 I support legalization but only with taxation, regulation, and education.
People should have to take a test on LSD if they want to be able to buy LSD. Basic pharmacology, dose, safety, emergency tips, etc. I also think doctors should be required patients on every prescription instead of just "Here, take this." My opinion extends to legal meth, heroin, and crack.
You're a shit head bureaucrat -
2017-09-04 at 4:03 PM UTCIn school, I wrote an 8 page paper about a mushroom trip. The teacher then went on to tell that her sister took a mushroom and felt like her st OP machine was falling out.
Good ol days -
2017-09-04 at 4:06 PM UTC^MASHTARD!
-
2017-09-04 at 4:14 PM UTCShe pulled me aside and told me that she could get in trouble for giving it a passing grade, which led to the conversation about her sister.
Bish was tight though -
2017-09-04 at 4:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by mashlehash She pulled me aside and told me that she could get in trouble for giving it a passing grade, which led to the conversation about her sister.
That's just sad.
Well, at least she lied instead of telling you that your 8 page mongoloid mushroom scribbles aren't a real paper. -
2017-09-04 at 4:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny like almost everyone here I imagine,
why are all of your statements come with a built in disclaimer ????
everytime you say something you said them like their an inalienable fact but you keep putting in a phrase stating that you could be wrong.
r u trying to be a weasel or are you lacking confidence ???? -
2017-09-04 at 4:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sub_Mod Sub_Mod here,
you're a faggot, people shouldn't have to take a test to buy lsd, they should just be able to either be given lsd or buy their own lsd on a free market.
I'm an independent so I believe in less goverment involvement and with less everything being government mandated and regulated.
You're a total cuck §m£ÂgØL.
You can take lsd or mushrooms and not understand pharmacology, I can see where they relate, but they don't go hand and hand with the experience.
That would be like me saying you can't take any drugs §m£ÂgØL because you're a man child that lives with his parents in his mid 20's, its a non-sequitur
You're talking out of your asshole again, I highly doubt you've taken a pharmacology class then took a psychedelic, but you're a cuck and you like the government dipping their hands into every aspect of your life.
Post last edited by Sub_Mod at 2017-09-04T15:53:00.312996+00:00
LOL nice alt, Bill Krozby. Little Texas worker. -
2017-09-04 at 4:55 PM UTC
-
2017-09-04 at 6:52 PM UTCSock puppet dijon mustard stained ass crook
-
2017-09-05 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader why are all of your statements come with a built in disclaimer ????
everytime you say something you said them like their an inalienable fact but you keep putting in a phrase stating that you could be wrong.
r u trying to be a weasel or are you lacking confidence ????
Yeah, it's a bad habit. No one likes being wrong so if you hedge on every statement you never have to be but that's kind of a shitty style of writing. But I mean if you say "everyone here things psychedelics should be legalized" you're just asking for one asshole to be like "well I don't think that". -
2017-09-05 at 10:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 I support legalization but only with taxation, regulation, and education.
People should have to take a test on LSD if they want to be able to buy LSD. Basic pharmacology, dose, safety, emergency tips, etc. I also think doctors should be required patients on every prescription instead of just "Here, take this." My opinion extends to legal meth, heroin, and crack.
Meh on the tax point, extracting more dollars to spend on killing arabs doesn't really get me excited. "Acid safety course" is kinda funny but probably a good idea. I'm not sure we can really extend the same argument to meth or heroin though. People who are well educated about the risks of addiction still get addicted to those substances. Maybe hypocritical of me since I do take some of those drugs, but ultimately I think restricting recreational use of highly addictive substances is reasonable policy, even if american drug-war style enforcement isn't the way to go about it. -
2017-09-06 at 12:48 AM UTCAmerica isn't the only country that needs to legalize drugs Lanny. You think they're not going to tax drugs if they're legal anyway? Lol. Plus your point is moot as the taxes would mostly be going to the state. It would pay for roads and schools and etc etc.
As far as meth and heroin goes, most users are uneducated as fuck. Most drug users are uneducated as fuck. I'm sure you could scare at least some people into it with an honest education program and not some DARE shit. I mean, we already know that educating people on the harms of cigarettes lowers the amount of smokers, why would it not work for other drugs? The issue is being TRUTHFUL.
Legalization, taxation, and education is the only way to keep people as safe as possible in their drug use. There is no "But people will still-" because it cannot possibly be any worse if we educate people. Things can only improve.
Restricting use of "highly addictive substances" is biased as fuck. Think of the risks of heroin addiction: Fentanyl and its analogues, infection, overdose. If you can ensure purity there's fentanyl and accidental overdose out the window. If you can teach proper technique and provide supplies then you can help people avoid infection. Just look at Denmarks heroin program.
It's pretty hypocritical to say we should ban some substances but not others, imo. -
2017-09-06 at 3:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 America isn't the only country that needs to legalize drugs Lanny.
The thread is supposedly about a ballot measure in california though...You think they're not going to tax drugs if they're legal anyway? Lol. Plus your point is moot as the taxes would mostly be going to the state. It would pay for roads and schools and etc etc.
I didn't say anything about what's going to happen, I'm just saying the argument "X increases the taxbase so X is good" is naive.As far as meth and heroin goes, most users are uneducated as fuck. Most drug users are uneducated as fuck.
And this is based on what? Probably uneducated in the sense of limited schooling but do you really think there's any significant portion of people taking these drugs that don't understand that they are addictive and have health consequences? Can you find significant numbers of people who don't know that chemical dependence is a thing?I mean, we already know that educating people on the harms of cigarettes lowers the amount of smokers, why would it not work for other drugs?
Well there's also the pervasive campaign of social shaming of smokers, general inconveniencing of anyone who smokes in seemingly any way possible, and huge price inflation that contribute. And further despite these things in tandem with education, people still smoke and die of lung disease.
To be clear I'm not saying general drug education is a bad thing, I'm just saying it doesn't fix the fundamental social issue posed by highly addictive drugs, it at best mitigates part of it.Legalization, taxation, and education is the only way to keep people as safe as possible in their drug use. There is no "But people will still-" because it cannot possibly be any worse if we educate people. Things can only improve.
Eliminating the availability of potentially lethal drugs would also solve the issue of drug fatalities. "But it can't be done, look at the war on drugs!" yeah sure but legalization isn't happening any time soon either so clearly we're not talking about near term viable options here.Restricting use of "highly addictive substances" is biased as fuck. Think of the risks of heroin addiction: Fentanyl and its analogues, infection, overdose. If you can ensure purity there's fentanyl and accidental overdose out the window. If you can teach proper technique and provide supplies then you can help people avoid infection. Just look at Denmarks heroin program.
Lol, "biased as fuck", what exactly is the bias here?
Variable purity is not the exclusive cause of overdose, infection is a fairly minor issue to start with. The point is addiction itself is debilitating. It produces secondary crime (crime to support a habit, this doesn't go away if the habit itself is legal), long term health consequences, and inability to function in society (it doesn't matter if heroin is legal or not, you're not going to be able to do a job or look after yourself wile nodding).It's pretty hypocritical to say we should ban some substances but not others, imo.
How is that hypocritical? The properties of "substances" vary hugely. Like next are you going to tell me it's hypocritical to say we should jail some people but not others? -
2017-09-06 at 3:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny And this is based on what? Probably uneducated in the sense of limited schooling but do you really think there's any significant portion of people taking these drugs that don't understand that they are addictive and have health consequences? Can you find significant numbers of people who don't know that chemical dependence is a thing?
It's like you don't actually know any drug users. People are uneducated about drugs. Massively, massively uneducated. They know stuff like 'mixing downers is bad' but they couldn't tell you about why things like cocaethylene are bad. I once had to argue with somebody that bundy was not an opiate. I've heard people say that smoking weed cures cancer. Drug users are largely fucking stupid about their hobby. I don't know why you think addiction has anything to do with safety or why you think addiction is a bad thing. The end goal is not to stop people from using drugs, its to keep people safe. If people can be addicted and be safe what does it matter?Lol, "biased as fuck", what exactly is the bias here?
You are biased against drugs like meth and heroin. Like my god, those are the drugs which need proper regulation the most. Clearly you do not want people to be addicted for some puritanic reason.Variable purity is not the exclusive cause of overdose, infection is a fairly minor issue to start with. The point is addiction itself is debilitating. It produces secondary crime (crime to support a habit, this doesn't go away if the habit itself is legal), long term health consequences, and inability to function in society (it doesn't matter if heroin is legal or not, you're not going to be able to do a job or look after yourself wile nodding).
Lol what. Purity is definitely a major fucking issue of overdose and all you need to do is look at the opioid overdose statistics for the last 10 years to see that. Do you honestly think people would just accidentally overdose if they knew their dose? How many people overdose with alcohol alone? Do most people not simply stop drinking? People have their limits, and if they're able to know those limits they will stay within them most of the time.
Infection is not a minor issue. It is a major issue. Do you not remember when Semiazas got a major chunk of his flesh cut out because of an abscess? You know how many uneducated people are out there skin popping and other stupid shit? Or reusing needles? Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Your point that addiction is debilitating is null. It isn't. See: Denmark's heroin program. See: Millions of functional alcoholics. What's debilitating is using 100 dollars of heroin a day. It puts financial strain on addicts and they have to scramble just to support their habit instead of focusing on life. Or do you think people are just going to be so drugged up they can't actually do their job? Because if so - fucking lol. DARE really did a number on you, you massive drooling fucking piece of wad ass fuck fucking fuckeroo.
Anything I have not quoted is because it is too silly. Your argument is silly, and you propose no better solution. All you're trying to do is poke holes in reality, which is already full of enough holes. -
2017-09-06 at 4:57 AM UTCwhy do u queers keep saying bundy
-
2017-09-06 at 4:58 AM UTCand golum and his babies mother loves calling another drug 't-pain'
RIDICULOUS!! -
2017-09-06 at 4:59 AM UTCIt's a trigger word for dextromethorphan
