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: Neocon who wrote (77182)	4/7/2000 5:06:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

That depends on one's mindset. I am a very law-abiding sort ... and the knowledge that I am in felonious territory while exposing myself to a psychedelic would seriously degrade my "set", the state of mind needed to improve the odds of a worthwhile experience. It effectively keeps me out. I agree that there should be a barrier to entry, but it should be like the one that weeds out the bozos from skydiving or bungee jumping. I don't think prohibition is neede or desirable here ... simply education that these things are not toys. There is precious little dialog in today's media and more serious publications about psychedelics. And bluntly, there doesn't need to be, what with they're verboten. all the dialog has been pushed underground. (I correspond with a pioneer of psychedelic chemistry and pharmacology. In his words, the Analog Act of '86 and the preceding schedulings of mescaline, psilocybe and LSD into Schedule 1 have gutted any serious academic research. It's over.) So it's easy to continue promoting the idea, one I am unhappy with, that these drugs are too dangerous for decent folk. That's awful presumptuous of Uncle. Imo the ONLY way to give psychedelics any chance of a fair hearing is to undo prohibition, to move them down into Schedule 3 or gentler. Then they once again become legitimate therapy and research tools. But the chances of that happening - snowball, Miami, kind of thing. Look at how little headway the medicinal marijuana movement is having. Unless the Feds lighten up about weed, I see no indicator that any other "dangerous narcotic" would receive lenient review. Politics again - there's nothing in it for the DEA appointees to loosen controls, and tightening them is an easy sell "to protect the children". <sigh>

To: Neocon who wrote (77182)	4/8/2000 12:12:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Prohibition leads to increased price, criminal distribution, and creates an entire criminal subculture if a drug is popular enough to support it. You can see what happened during prohibition- the whole HUGE economy of illicit alcohol distribution was untaxed, unregulated, and violent. What a waste to society. Collect the taxes, make sure of the purity, and take the big money out of drugs. Without the price support of criminalization most drugs would be CHEAP. That reduces the profit motive for the seller- and surely takes out the need to whack old ladies for their social security money on the part of the buyer. Winos, for example, can beg on a street corner to get enough money for a bottle of whiskey- what if heroin and crack were that cheap?