What surprises me the most is that we have accepted sugar, alcohol, cigarettes and a ton of mass manufactured food which are harming us. I am struggling with high blood glucose for 12 years. Yet, the substance which I can grow in my* own backyard and may actually not be as harmful is just brainwashed out of my limits.
edits: you to me
Some people’s conception of “normal people” is people at a church ice cream social.
Different perspectives, I think.
Years back, my friend’s parents asked me to stage an intervention for him after they found out he regularly took LSD. He was 19 at the time.
In the time since, my views have changed dramatically on these substances, and I'd like to try more of them. However, my personal moral compass prevents me from using substances outside of a legally permissible setting, at least at present - and that's something I'm fine with.
Ultimately, the taboo side of things is something the individual has to grapple with on their own. I can only commiserate with your frustrations, not help overcome them unfortunately. My only other advice would be to use any substance only to amplify good vibes, never to cope with bad ones.
If all you do is chase a lost feeling, you're missing out on what's in front of you now.
> However, my personal moral compass prevents me from using substances outside of a legally permissible setting, at least at present - and that's something I'm fine with.
What on Earth do laws have to do with morals?
with this stupidity, maybe you should try eating list of 20 deadly plants and see how it goes?
"ownership" means "edible/nose-able"... maybe you should try eating your car?
It's not always the best use, but that's definitely allowed. It's one of the main uses of herbs.
> with this stupidity, maybe you should try eating list of 20 deadly plants and see how it goes?
If you're eating an amount that doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?
And the reason to possibly intervene would be someone stockpiling dangerous amounts. Not for enjoying plants wrong.
> maybe you should try eating your car?
It would be ridiculous to make that illegal, wouldn't it?
That God fella sure is strange.
The 5HT2A tolerance is acute such that you need exponential dosing on consecutive days to achieve equivalent effects.
Some psychedelics like NBOMe are such strong agonists the tolerance duration is 1-2 weeks.
For "standard" psychedelics it's closer to 3-4 days.
Even at the height of my psychedelic-head phase I was using twice a week, and not by choice.
It is often argued that some of generally illegal substances like marijuana is only toxic to comparable extents as legal substances, but there are observations that it seem to trigger some types of megalomaniac schizophrenia, so the fence probably has reasons to be there, I think.
No. I feel QUITE certain that the distinction is based on whether or not the substance has a history of a few generations of widespread use among western Europeans ("white people").
Clearly God did not mean “use” as “in turn into rope and strangle other people” (violating other commandments) but nowhere does God say herbs can’t be used for medicine or wine can’t be used for its intoxicating effects, (within some reasonable degree of moderation.)
There's a whole section of moral philosophy dedicated to whether it's morally right to subsequently go after the people who reported their neighbours. They knew they were sentencing their victims to imprisonment or death, but did so 'lawfully'. Ex post facto laws are an interesting moral conundrum.
Also laws sometimes don't actually reflect society as the process gets hijacked by companies, the billionaires controlling the media or vocal minorities (usually religious vocal minorities).
I also dosed twice a week for a few months in my early 20s
If many people feel like the laws do not represent their morality, that's generally a problem, and will result in either change in the laws, or change in government altogether. They are quite intrinsically linked.
This mindset hard to even wrap my mind around. Total nonsense.
As for surveillance/war, although they have been supported by large chunks of the population in the past, I would say democracy aims to reflect the views of the majority. But it's also not magic, it's a fixed system -- a complicated system, but just a system. You vote for the person/party that best reflects your views. It seems quite a bit more likely to be a reflection of the people than other forms of government where the people tend to have less of a say, but not necessarily of course.