NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Ufology it sounds like you are personally very 'anti-' drugs that are not used medically ... I don't want to sound like some campaign in support of drug-taking but I do think that due to the criminalisation of drugs, humans have missed out on many opportunities to learn about the brain and consciousness. LSD was demonised due to the counter-culture associations despite it being able to provide amazing chances for discovery. Rick Strassman's book on DMT is fascinating and it can only be important to discover how this chemical works - it seems to be made in many living organisms, plant and animal, and there is strong evidence that it could be partly the cause of all religious/mystical experiences that we, humans, have.
You're confusing hard drugs with psychedelics, there are no cartels and drug gangs involved in selling ayahuasca that I'm aware of. Your point of view is a little naive, you're assuming that enough money could get the government to back off when it comes to legalization but that's just ridiculous, drugs will stay illegal because the government and big business make more money that way ...
The context of my reply above was in response to illegal drugs in general. I'm not the least bit naive. I realize that getting people to actually be responsible enough to drive the violent criminal element out through voluntary abstinence is completely pie in the sky. People are far too selfish or addicted for that and the criminal element depends on that to stay alive. As for the rest, I've already made my comments on the evidence for its use in "expanding consciousness" or therapy. What informed adults choose to do on their own time with their own bodies isn't any of my business, but the last thing I'm going to do is start recommending that people, especially young people start taking it up as a recreation.
I'm not telling you to recommend that people start using drugs, just trying to get you to recognize the difference between drugs that actually do contribute to criminal activity and drugs that don't. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that the criminal element is going to step in to provide it. There are already plenty of drugs out there that have a high potential for addiction and are readily available. That's the kind of drug that appeals to the criminal element. Ayahuasca, on the other hand, is difficult to produce, non addictive, and definitely isn't something that would appeal to the average recreational drug user. You aren't going to find criminals who are interested in selling something like ayahuasca when they can make a lot more money selling recreational drugs to people that will keep coming back every day.
As for your theory about people being responsible enough to drive the criminal element out of the drug game, (lol) it's not just pie in the sky, it's silly. Legalization would take care of the criminal element in one fell swoop, just like it did when prohibition ended. Corporations who already have the resources and a distribution network in place would take over the market with cheaper, higher quality drugs that could be sold in stores instead of the dangerous places that you sometimes have to go when you're chasing drugs. The criminal element depends on the fact that it's against the law which makes them the only game in town.
The people who fight the so called war on drugs, the prison industrial complex, the recovery business, and pharmaceutical companies that make recovery based drugs would all suffer huge losses if drugs were made legal, that's why you're never going to see it.
Silly? Pie in the Sky? I thought those were fairly synonymous:
How long have people been trying for legaization ( decades ) and all the while the users have participated in the growth of a violent criminal network. That's just a fact. It not the same as "Well if they had just legaized it in the first place we wouldn't have this problem now." There is no "What if." Yet, you're calling the idea of taking the matter into our own hands as responsible citizens by boycotting the products "silly"? The only thing silly about it is to expect a bunch of drug users to be that responsible. As for recognizing which drugs are more or less damaging or even potentially beneficial when used responsibly: That is something you don't need to tell me about. I get that picture. I know not all producers of all products are "bad people" ( especially in the early days ). To me it's more of a crime for a police hit squad and their dogs to smash into a little old grandmother's house and bust her for a few plants she's tenderly cared for that help ease her arthritis. Don't think I don't understand. The fact that I do understand is one of the main reasons I don't do it. I won't contribute to the crime, but I will support legaization. I can do both and be completely responsible. So can almost anyone if they really want to. But there's the rub.
- If an idea or scheme is pie in the sky, it is utterly impractical ( UsingEnglish.com )
- Silly is lacking common sense ( Encarta )
Yes I'm calling it silly because it is silly and for three reasons, one as you've already pointed out expecting drug users to act in a responsible manner is pretty damn silly, two expecting the entire human race to act in concert on any one issue is completely and utterly ridiculous and three even if that somehow did happen it wouldn't lead to legalization. Why would they bother to legalize drugs once everyone in the world decided that they'd just boycott them? .... ( see full post above ).
In the past people have boycotted various products and had an effect, but that was the past, before the age of instant gratification. Nowadays there is no self-discipline. Everybody's gotta have it now and so long as all the dirt is hidden behind the facade, they don't care how they get it. Why would they legalize it in the face of a nationalized boycott? Two reasons. It would prove society is responsible enough to handle it, and as mentioned, the boycott would go hand in hand with a legalization campaign funded by all the money saved from not buying drugs ( how many billions is that? ). It would be a virtual certainty that with that kind of organization, cooperation and funding, it could be done. But it won't happen ... so why bother trying ... it's just "silly".
This is exactly what I mean by naive. There's a huge difference between a temporary boycott of some product or service by a relatively small segment of society compared to what you're proposing, which would literally have no effect at all unless you could get the entire to world to participate because the suppliers would just sell to whoever didn't participate and wait for the rest of the people who did participate to realize that their boycott wasn't having any effect. I've already pointed out that isn't an issue of responsibility so I'm not going to address that.
You talk about "nowadays there's no self discipline" but when it comes to drugs there never has been, not now, not in the past and there probably never will be on the level that you're suggesting. You could campaign until you're blue in the face and while it could be argued that people are becoming more receptive to legalizing a relatively harmless drug like marijuana, I seriously doubt that any amount of money or campaign or personal responsibility exhibited by drug users would convince certain segments of this society of the potential benefits of legalization when it comes to harder drugs. The billions that your campaign would raise is nothing compared to the trillions put into the enforcement of the current laws against drugs, not to mention the benefits that certain corporations and politicians reap from criminalization. The idea that personal responsibility exhibited by drug users would change that is terribly naive.