Phelps proven human after all.

[Zarathustra]

BTW, that joke about "capital letters to describe their profession" wasn't intended to disparage anyone's credentials . . . it was an in-joke with Ki (she does that, too). I'm a tad jealous of her masters degree.

[Ki]

BTW, that joke about "capital letters to describe their profession" wasn't intended to disparage anyone's credentials . . . it was an in-joke with Ki (she does that, too). I'm a tad jealous of her masters degree.

He's so mean to me.

[caamora]

Malik wrote:

Though most people who would use a capital letter to describe their profession might disagree ( ), I agree with R. Gordon Wasson that the original impetus for religion was caused by the revelatory, euphoric, transcendental experience early humans obtained by their chance encounters with hallucinagenic plants.

I don't know if you are referring to my capitalization of Historian or Christian. I capitalized Christian because I am using it as a noun. I capitalized Historian simply because I couldn't decide if it should have been capitalized or not.

Avatar wrote:

Malik, I don't think Caam was disputing the use of natural psychadelics by "witches," I think she was saying that their use of such wasn't a reason for hunting them down, and disputing that anti-drug legislation had a christian basis.

Thanks Av. You are correct.

But, I would still prefer to see something other than a Wikipedia quote for some evidence. Understand Malik, that I am not questioning what you say, I am just interested in where you get your information. I am also focusing on witchcraft as it pertains to Christianity in Middle Age/Renaissance Europe, not ancient paganism. I am fully aware that shamanism in many cultures used psychotropic (sp?) drugs to enhance their communion with the gods. Peyote anyone, heh.

In the era I am speaking of, the use of herbs/potions/talismans was common for healing - usually coupled with prayer - and these were used for centuries in Europe and I have no doubt that many of them altered a person's mental abilities. But, Av is correct that this was not the reason for hunting down 'witches' as it was for Christian reasons.

I would have to research when/if Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church, officially prohibited the use of these medicinal herbs.

[Mr. Broken]

This thread has taken on a completely new identity, what were we talking about again ?

[Avatar]

That's the beauty of our discussions. No way to tell before hand where they'll end up.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

Phelps has been doing the Olympic thing for several years now. He was well aware of Olympic policy towards the use of drugs. He was well aware of US and international law concerning the use of drugs. He was well aware of US corporation views on what image it wanted to project to it's consumers.

Knowing this, Phelps still decided to engage in pulling on a bong in a relatively public place. My sympathy meter just ain't gonna budge on this.
And frankly, I wouldn't feel any more sympathy for Phelps if they had found him passed out on the sidewalk after chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels either.

As to Drug laws....


As I've stated before, I think the Drug War is a silly waste of time, money, and effort as it's being done today. Study after study has agreed that treatment would be more efficacious, and cheaper.

Having said that, the Drug War is what it is, and whatever you, or I, or Michael Phelps things, it's the prevailing reality, and apparently, the one that the majority of the world believes is the way to go for now, otherwise enough people would have gotten together and had the laws changed.

[Zarathustra]

Caamora, no it was the "Historian" thing I was joking about (not "Christian," which is just good grammar). I thought you were trying to use an "argument by authority" approach (the authority being: you), and that this was a gentle way to do it. That's why I was teasing gently back.

I'm going to use the "I'm too lazy to do anymore research" cop-out, and just rely on the Wiki quotes and Avatar's interesting find.

RR, I don't feel sorry for multi-million dollar endorsed world-class athletes, either. I'm actually glad he got caught (and didn't face any legal consequences) so that we can start having positive role models who flout the drug laws.

Having said that, the Drug War is what it is, and whatever you, or I, or Michael Phelps things, it's the prevailing reality, and apparently, the one that the majority of the world believes is the way to go for now, otherwise enough people would have gotten together and had the laws changed.

But of course people could have said the same thing about slavery once upon a time. Sure, slavery seems a lot worse than the drug war, at first glance. But think about it: the majority is allowing the government to imprison people who choose to use natural plants to alter their consciousness. I'm not so sure that imprisoning is much better than enslaving. It's pretty close to the same thing. In both cases, you have your freedom forcibly taken away, just because you're a kind of person that the majority doesn't like.

Just because our laws justify locking up people who don't hurt anyone else, who grow plants that make you feel good, and the majority of the world believes this is okay, doesn't make it rational or moral. Or something to be dismissed with a shrug. It is a "prevailing reality" which is maintained by a propaganda campaign, aided by religious prejudice, and by demonizing people who use these drugs. Because moral norms for our society make it okay to view a person who uses drugs as a lower class, as irresponsible, as immoral, as dangerous, the propaganda issued by the government is able to take hold in the minds of the majority. We feel like it's okay to violate the freedom of these people because we don't like them. They are "druggies." They are "hippies." They are outcasts, unclean. This is a legal war upon a class of people, not a public health issue. (In fact, there was much less drug addiction when the drugs were legal.)

That's why it is FANTASTIC that we have such a positive role model showing us that drug users are not in fact lepers/outcast/unclean. They are not sub-human. They are people who have a strong drive to make free choices with their consciousness, despite laws which allow the majority to lock them away for doing so.

[Rawedge Rim]

Caamora, no it was the "Historian" thing I was joking about (not "Christian," which is just good grammar). I thought you were trying to use an "argument by authority" approach (the authority being: you), and that this was a gentle way to do it. That's why I was teasing gently back.

I'm going to use the "I'm too lazy to do anymore research" cop-out, and just rely on the Wiki quotes and Avatar's interesting find.

RR, I don't feel sorry for multi-million dollar endorsed world-class athletes, either. I'm actually glad he got caught (and didn't face any legal consequences) so that we can start having positive role models who flout the drug laws.

Having said that, the Drug War is what it is, and whatever you, or I, or Michael Phelps things, it's the prevailing reality, and apparently, the one that the majority of the world believes is the way to go for now, otherwise enough people would have gotten together and had the laws changed.

But of course people could have said the same thing about slavery once upon a time. Sure, slavery seems a lot worse than the drug war, at first glance. But think about it: the majority is allowing the government to imprison people who choose to use natural plants to alter their consciousness. I'm not so sure that imprisoning is much better than enslaving. It's pretty close to the same thing. In both cases, you have your freedom forcibly taken away, just because you're a kind of person that the majority doesn't like.

Just because our laws justify locking up people who don't hurt anyone else, who grow plants that make you feel good, and the majority of the world believes this is okay, doesn't make it rational or moral. Or something to be dismissed with a shrug. It is a "prevailing reality" which is maintained by a propaganda campaign, aided by religious prejudice, and by demonizing people who use these drugs. Because moral norms for our society make it okay to view a person who uses drugs as a lower class, as irresponsible, as immoral, as dangerous, the propaganda issued by the government is able to take hold in the minds of the majority. We feel like it's okay to violate the freedom of these people because we don't like them. They are "druggies." They are "hippies." They are outcasts, unclean. This is a legal war upon a class of people, not a public health issue. (In fact, there was much less drug addiction when the drugs were legal.)

That's why it is FANTASTIC that we have such a positive role model showing us that drug users are not in fact lepers/outcast/unclean. They are not sub-human. They are people who have a strong drive to make free choices with their consciousness, despite laws which allow the majority to lock them away for doing so.

The analogy holds up....only if you realize that "enough people got together and decided slavery was not a good thing." (Not to mention that the vast majority of the human race could not afford to own a slave, and therefore it really didn't negatively effect the vast majority of the human race to lose this ability to own slaves.)

The vast majority of the world's population oppose casual drug use, at least in this period of history. This may change, or it may get worse. Either way, this is the situation as it stands, and I don't think that Phelps was a positive role model. Had he been a positive role model, instead of being caught huffing a bong, he would be on the talk circuit, and appearing before congressional committee urging a reform in drug laws, not flouting them.

[Avatar]

I think it'll change. I think it's in the process of changing right now in fact. Certainly the stigma seems to be lessening in several, if not many, spheres of life.

As for that last, I'd agree it would make him a better role model. But I do think that sometimes flouting oppressive laws (especially ones so patently nonsensical) can be a positive thing in overcoming them.

It worked here with passive resistance against apartheid too.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

I think it'll change. I think it's in the process of changing right now in fact. Certainly the stigma seems to be lessening in several, if not many, spheres of life.

As for that last, I'd agree it would make him a better role model. But I do think that sometimes flouting oppressive laws (especially ones so patently nonsensical) can be a positive thing in overcoming them.

It worked here with passive resistance against apartheid too.

--A

But he didn't flout them for the purpose of proving a point, or for civil disobedience, he just got caught huffing a bong to get high.

[SoulBiter]

But he didn't flout them for the purpose of proving a point, or for civil disobedience, he just got caught huffing a bong to get high.

But isnt that what its for?

Sorry I couldnt resist.. carry on.

[The Dreaming]

Phelps has been doing the Olympic thing for several years now. He was well aware of Olympic policy towards the use of drugs. He was well aware of US and international law concerning the use of drugs. He was well aware of US corporation views on what image it wanted to project to it's consumers.

Knowing this, Phelps still decided to engage in pulling on a bong in a relatively public place. My sympathy meter just ain't gonna budge on this.
And frankly, I wouldn't feel any more sympathy for Phelps if they had found him passed out on the sidewalk after chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels either.

As to Drug laws....


As I've stated before, I think the Drug War is a silly waste of time, money, and effort as it's being done today. Study after study has agreed that treatment would be more efficacious, and cheaper.

Having said that, the Drug War is what it is, and whatever you, or I, or Michael Phelps things, it's the prevailing reality, and apparently, the one that the majority of the world believes is the way to go for now, otherwise enough people would have gotten together and had the laws changed.

It has nothing to do with the majority. The majority of people in Nevada decided to decriminalize marijuana, and the federal government responded by threatening to take away all federal funding to the state if they actually did it. (IMO, a violation of the 10th amendment) The people in power profit by keeping drugs illegal. The legal profession profits TREMENDOUSLY by keeping drugs criminal. Legislators = Lawyers. Decriminalizing drugs removes an entire franchise of criminal defense law. It isn't about what the *people* want, it's about what the powerful want. That same congressman who is snorting cocaine off of a hooker's ass, he likely payed for with kickbacks from any number of people who want to keep drugs illegal in this country. The federal government has repeatedly lied to us about the dangers of drug use, spent massive amounts of money on propaganda campaigns to convince us that the lies are true, and ruthlessly prosecutes those involved in drug use. It's an insane system that any rational person can see needs to end.

[Avatar]

Good post TD.

But he didn't flout them for the purpose of proving a point, or for civil disobedience, he just got caught huffing a bong to get high.

I'll certainly grant that.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Great point, TD! What about the majorities in the several states which have passed decriminalization laws? Why can't individual states decide this issue, themselves? I strenuously object to the interpretation of the commerce clause in the Constitution which has allowed this horrific abuse of federal power to ever come about. It's not about what the majority wants, as TD has said. It's about what a few politicians and judges have wanted. The Constitution was created to protect us from the tyranny of the so-called majority. The majority shouldn't have the right to dictate what I can do with my mind. This was never a power granted to "the majority" in the first place, it was only seized by the federal government, and aided by their willing accomplices in the majority.

[Rawedge Rim]

Phelps has been doing the Olympic thing for several years now. He was well aware of Olympic policy towards the use of drugs. He was well aware of US and international law concerning the use of drugs. He was well aware of US corporation views on what image it wanted to project to it's consumers.

Knowing this, Phelps still decided to engage in pulling on a bong in a relatively public place. My sympathy meter just ain't gonna budge on this.
And frankly, I wouldn't feel any more sympathy for Phelps if they had found him passed out on the sidewalk after chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels either.

As to Drug laws....


As I've stated before, I think the Drug War is a silly waste of time, money, and effort as it's being done today. Study after study has agreed that treatment would be more efficacious, and cheaper.

Having said that, the Drug War is what it is, and whatever you, or I, or Michael Phelps things, it's the prevailing reality, and apparently, the one that the majority of the world believes is the way to go for now, otherwise enough people would have gotten together and had the laws changed.

It has nothing to do with the majority. The majority of people in Nevada decided to decriminalize marijuana, and the federal government responded by threatening to take away all federal funding to the state if they actually did it. (IMO, a violation of the 10th amendment) The people in power profit by keeping drugs illegal. The legal profession profits TREMENDOUSLY by keeping drugs criminal. Legislators = Lawyers. Decriminalizing drugs removes an entire franchise of criminal defense law. It isn't about what the *people* want, it's about what the powerful want. That same congressman who is snorting cocaine off of a hooker's ass, he likely payed for with kickbacks from any number of people who want to keep drugs illegal in this country. The federal government has repeatedly lied to us about the dangers of drug use, spent massive amounts of money on propaganda campaigns to convince us that the lies are true, and ruthlessly prosecutes those involved in drug use. It's an insane system that any rational person can see needs to end.

I have to disagree with you on several points, but first let's get the "majority" thing out of the way.

The State of Nevada had a choice....it could keep receiving Federal Funds and keep drugs illegal, or it could legalize drugs (or at least de-criminalize them) but lose Federal Funding. They made their choice. "He who pays the rent makes the rules"

Now as to the rest:

1. There are numerous drugs out there that are hideously dangerous to use. PCP, Crack, LSD, Barbituates, amphedimines, Oxicondin, etc.

2. I agree that the way the War on Drugs is being fought is a waste of time and money.

3. The main people who want drugs to remain illegal are actually the Drug Cartels and the Mob. The illegality of the drugs keeps the price up and therefore makes them more profitable.

[Zarathustra]

RR, it's more than receiving funds and who pays rent. Cancer patients smoking pot in a state where it's legal and prescribed by her doctor can still be arrested by federal drug enforcement agents.

[Avatar]

And LSD isn't hideously dangerous to use either. Although I'll grant that there are some people who shouldn't use it, and if you even think you might be one of them, you probably shouldn't.

--A

[Vraith]

And LSD isn't hideously dangerous to use either. Although I'll grant that there are some people who shouldn't use it, and if you even think you might be one of them, you probably shouldn't.

--A

There's a fair amount of evidence that LSD has very high value for therapy in controlled settings/dosages.
There is also significant evidence many of the problems associated with LSD 'on the street' are due to the fact that it is often 'cut' with strychnine (sp?) and/or PCP. [symptomatic signs for any of you who've used it: if you ever got muscle cramps, it had strychnine, if you ever completely lost touch with reality (as opposed to altered perceptions) it was either a massive dose or PCP-laced]
According to a collection of studies done by the Swiss and the Dutch about 8, or maybe 10 years ago.

[Avatar]

Yeah, small amounts of strychnine are pretty common...I usually associate it with a mild initial nausea as well. *shudder*

--A

[[Syl]]

Strychnine in LSD is a myth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_urban_legends#Strychnine
www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/bluestar.asp