Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (77001)	4/6/2000 3:03:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>That movement died because it didn't work.< Respectfully disagree - that movement died because the press saw fit to lie about the dangers of psychedelics, and then the Federal government saw fit to restrict them as stringently as heroin. I maintain that psychedelics (a completely different class of drugs from the depressants - like alcohol or heroin) could have been tremendously salutary to our society if they hadn't morally horrified the churchgoers who held positions of power. Y'see, psychedelics were perceived as a sort of Antichrist. Unfairly imo. At the same time, psychedelics are not toys. They were widely used as such in the 60s and 70s, and our society never was given the chance to grow up with psychedelics and find mature, thoughtful ways to integrate them into our way of life. Either path (treating psychedelics as toys, or treating them as Satan incarnate) is out of balance. The ban of the hard drugs (heroin and cocaine) is imo a primarily financial burden. (With major secondary consequences on our national dialog regarding civil liberty.) But the comprehensive ban of psychedelics, which were never an engine of underworld profit, is a spiritual tragedy, an unrecognized pharmaceutical diaspora.

To: one_less who wrote (77001)	4/6/2000 3:11:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

brees, I did not say "risks." I said "consequences." Every action has effects on others. At what point does a society have the right to intervene in the life of the individual because there are effects on others of that individual's actions?