Conference hydra::dejavu

    Hmm.  we might broaden this a bit to include _all_ drugs (no, I
    haven't heard specifically about MMDA).
    
    Some drugs are loosely called "mind altering," and a number of these
    have been used for centuries to achieve states that their users
    believe is of a psychic [in _modern_ terminology] nature.  Medieval
    (mainly Satanic) witches used a mixture of aconite, belladona, fat,
    ash, and a couple of other ingredients that don't come to mind at
    the moment, to create a "flying ointment," which, when smeared on
    their bodies made them at least believe that they'd flown. [Modern
    researchers using the formula (though substituting lard for baby
    fat) did hallucinate flight through darkness, though their physical
    bodies remained in place; some thought of it as a chemically induced
    OBE where the astral or etherial body was sent involuntarily somewhere
    it ordinarily wouldn't go.]
    
    There are two schools of thoughts on drugs of this sort:
    
    1) Judiciously used, they may enhance psychic ability in at least
    some people; and,
    
    2) A mind-altering drug distorts perceptions so that the user _thinks_
    he or she achives a desired state while not really doing so: this
    is because the first thing to be affected in the brain is the
    judgemental facility.
    
    My own view tends towards opinion #2, for what that's worth.  I
    rather suspect that people who try drugs to enhance whatever abilities
    they have or suspect they have is someone looking for a shortcut
    rather than practicing mental discipline. 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    
      

    It has been interesting to note throughout history the connections
    people have made between psychic phenomena and drugs.  The major
    connection seems to have been _using_ drugs to promote the psychic
    experience, that is, some inner experience of a reality other than
    that ordinarily perceived by the conscious mind.
    
    I can understand why drugs would seem so attractive to those in
    search of another reality--they can indeed provide an immediate
    and sensate experience for the user.  The real developmental paths 
    that lead to mastery of the psychic experience are long and arduous, 
    just like the paths to becoming musicians, doctors, SW engineers, 
    cabinetmakers, racing drivers--any endeavor.  Using drugs can seem
    like an easy shortcut.  Their great danger is the elimination of
    the "mastery" element; unless the whole mind can be available to
    a person (the conscious, the subconscious, the intuition, whatever)
    it seems almost impossible to guide and control one's experiences.
    As you can perhaps tell, I'm not into elimination of one characteristic
    in order to court another; I like the concept of synthesis much
    better and tend to practice that instead.
    
    _Does_ ECSTACY have its effect because of a person's latent psychic
    tendencies?  It's an interesting theory; assuming that it could
    be true, how would one go about showing that it was true?  Any 
    ideas?
    
    Perhaps the first question is: does anyone out there know the whys
    of the effects of this drug?  In other words, how does its chemical
    affect our chemistry?  Or don't the researchers know that yet?
    
    Marcia

    I strongly suspect "empathy" here means no more than "profound
    sympathy."  Also, I believe MMDA has common impurities or break-down
    products that produce Parkinson's Disease.  (One of the new opiates
    does, and I think it's this one.)  A high price to pay for a few
    hours of enhanced empathy, whether normal or paranormal.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Empathy is considered by many psychologists to be a very highly
    developed skill.  Many people, mostly who had suffered some sort
    of deprivation in childhood, never develop empathy.
    
    So I don't think that a drug can "give" anyone empathy.  If
    you're lucky, you've already got it; if not, a few years on a
    couch might develope it.
    
    Maria
    

	    The ones who use couches are generally psychoanalysts
	(Freudian perspective).  Other "talk session" types of
	psychotherapists operate from a phenomenological perspec-
	tive, but usually not with a couch.  The folks most in-
	clined to prescribe drugs come from a neurophysiological
	perspective.
			<_Jym_>

Empathy -- Understanding so intimate that the feelings, thoughts, and
    motives of one are readily comprehended by another.
		The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Empathy means roughly the same as "sympathy".  Whether it is more or less
intense depends on which definition of sympathy you intend.  Originally
sympathy referred to a total identification with the feelings of another
(remember "sympathetic vibrations" from physics).  It was used popularly to
mean simply understanding how another feels, and thus became "devalued".
Empathy sort of comes in between the two meanings. 

There is also a technical usage of empathy in some forms of psychotherapy.
In that sense it refers to a process in which someone confuses an emotion
with the source of the emotion, e.g., someone who is angry at their mother
who insists that it is their mother who is angry. 

Empathy = EMotional telePATHY, seems to have been invented in science
fiction.  The assumption (incorrect) seems to be that "telepathy" refers to
the reading of "thoughts" (words and images) and another word is needed to
express reading of feelings.  From there it seems to have been picked up by
some occult/spiritual groups.  This is not the common usage in general
English.  In parapsychology we would just refer to emotional telepathy. 

There does seem to be a fair number of anecdotes about Ecstasy producing
psychic experiences.  One common emotional response from Ecstasy is a
strong feeling of identification of self with others (empathy) or with the
surroundings (one of the classical mystical experiences).  This: 

    o	Might be produced by enhanced psychic contact with externals
	(In my opinion *extremely* unlikely).

    o	Might result in increased psychic abilities.

    o	Might result in lessened filtering of psychic input.

    o	Would almost certainly result in the illusion of psychic abilities.

As Steve pointed out, someone whose brain has been disordered by chemical
substances is in no position to accurately separate reality from illusion. 

I was talking to D. Scott Rogo at last year's Parapsychological Association
meeting about precisely this.  He feels that there is a small probability
that it may be worth experimenting with Ecstasy under carefully supervised
conditions, but that the legal and social problems at this time make the
risk greater than the probable gain.

There is a one page "box" article on Ecstasy in the current (August, 1986)
issue of Discover magazine (page 34).

To the best of my knowledge the only drug which has ever been shown to
cause any improvement on psi abilities under laboratory conditions has been
(surprise) caffeine.  The effect was very small, however.  LSD has
apparently caused a strong decrease in psi scores, though this seems to
have been because the subjects were too distracted by their experiences to
perform the tests.  The effect of the caffeine was probably simply the
opposite effect, i.e., it probably slightly improved concentration.

Rogo expressed the opinion that very little of the experimentation with
drugs and psi has been properly handled.  Experiments using psychoactive
drugs are difficult to manage and need experimenters who are experienced in
handling such experiments.

My personal feeling is that drugs are unlikely to provide any real effect
on paranormal abilities.  They *may* have a small role as part of a general
spiritual growth training program for some individuals, in order to "shake
them loose" from too strong an idea of what is real.  If this is true it
could only be judged by an experienced and advanced teacher in the
discipline.   Anyone who self administers drugs to gain psychic abilities
or spiritual insight is deceiving themselves.

			    Topher

    Does anyone have a feeling on how natural drugs like mushrooms or
    peyote affect psychic abilities?  It is interesting that some cultures
    use these plants in religious rituals.
    
    		Dave

    Re .10:
    
    Topher said it best.
    
    Those who _do_ use drugs in religious ceremonies are very disciplined
    and generally don't self-administer.
    
    The Pythoness of Delphi chewed laurel leaves to place her in order
    to achieve a prophetic state, but she generally was sick for quite
    a while afterwards.
    
    "Natural" drugs are not really a good idea either.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re: -1
    
    I was interested in what people thought about how natural drugs
    affect psychic abilities.  It is apparant to me that these may be
    dangerous but they still have been used quite a bit to help people
    "see their gods".
    
    		Dave

    re .12:
    
    Or _think_ they see their "gods," which is something else altogether.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

	    I guess the books to check out are:

	      o Books by Carlos Castaneda.  There are two topics in
	      	this file about Castaneda, who underwent an apprentice
		that involved "natural" drugs.

	      o _The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test_, by Tom Wolfe.  This
		chronicles the exploits of Ken Kesey & Co. as they try
		LSD in situations designed to be as *un*structured as
		possible (i.e., the opposite of the usual approach).
		Beware, though; Wolfe is a lousy writer.

	      o _The_Doors_of_Perception_, by Aldous Huxley.  This is
		said to be the classic work on the topic.  I've never
		read it.

			<_Jym_>

	> If you believe in the transmission model, that might make you
	> tend to believe that our bodies are already in the optimal
	> state for transmission of psychic abilities, such that any
	> type of chemical agent can only disrupt transmission.

	    Actually, the argument usually goes that our minds are so
	busy with what they're socialized to be busy with, especially
	with regard to maintaining an ego identity, that they can't
	pick up the signals.  Drugs (the argument continues) show the
	mind that the ego is an illusion, and opens the mind up to the
	transmission.
			<_Jym_>

    
    
    An interesting book on this topic is a collection of articles on
    women's drug experiences, titled "Shaman Woman, Mainline Lady".
    I borrowed the book from a friend, so I don't know the editor's
    name offhand.  It tends very much toward articles on religious and
    ritualistic uses of drugs (especially peyote and psylocibin) by
    women.
    
    There are also several good books published in the early sixties
    reporting on LSD experiments done in clinical situations on
    psychiatrists, priests, and schizophrenics (what a combination!).
    Unfortunately, much of this research was trashed when LSD became
    popular as a street drug, since that biased not only the research
    itself, but the attitudes of the agencies funding it.
    
    On a slightly different track, the participants in the Elysian
    mysteries have classically been depicted as having their mouths
    stained with purple.  While it has often been assumed that this
    was the stain of wine, it has been speculated that it may also be
    the stain of ergot (a purple grain mold which contains the precursors
    for LSD).  Steve, do you have literature references or speculations
    about this?  And weren't many of the possesions and mass hallucinations
    documented in Medieval Europe attributable to entire towns being
    poisoned by bread contaminated by ergot?
     
    One other thing...in my readings, I have seen mention of a drug
    called harmalyn (sp?).  It is derived from a plant called Syrian
    Rue.  Crowley allegedly used it as the active component in formulating
    incense for his workings.  It supposedly increases one's potential
    for telepathic contact.  Has anyone heard of this?
    
    Rita
    
         
    
    
    

    Hmm.  I'll speculate shortly.
    
    I know there have been a number of references to ergot hallicinations,
    one of which, in a book by the science-fiction author and Fortean
    Society member Eric Frank Russell, _Great World Mysteries_, was
    a speculation that why the crew abandoned the _Marie Celeste_ on
    the high seas was because they all came down with a case of ergot
    poisoning.  As plausible a speculation as many.
    
    As mentioned earlier, the Pythoness of Delphi chewed laurel leaves
    to acghieve a prophetic state (in theory); I presume other cultures
    used equivalent mind-altering techniques to produce similar effects.
    
    Note that in ancient times a child (innocent) or idiot (innocent
    and frequently called "touched by the gods") was used as a conduit
    for Truth, since (apparently) they were of purer stuff than adults.
    
    It takes little imagination to conclude that someone (or some culture)
    would assume that sometrhing that would reduce a properly "purified"
    adult to a childlike (i.e., "innocent" or "new") state would be
    useful for "parting the veil."  
    
    There are a couple of herb books listing their ritual uses (the
    exact titles elude me though I have 'em both at home); one is a
    psychoactive-drug book and warns that many of the herbs are
    _dangerous_; the other is a traditional pseudo-Vodoun book using
    herbs more for their occult values.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .17:
    
    I had a chance to do a little checking last night.  Syrian Rue isn't
    listed, but there are two forms of herb called Wild Rue.  One, called
    also African Rue, is an old-world plant, (_Pegonum harmala_); the
    other, also Caapi (_Banestericopsis_) is a South American vine.
    Both versions containe harmine, which is what you were asking about.
     Harmine is a naturally occurring hallucenigen somewhat related
    to LSD.
    
    Caapi also is supposed to contain a substance called "telepathin,"
    which presumably is the telepathic inducer, but I've not come across
    "telepathin" in any other of my source materials.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
     

I am going to attempt to describe another way that drugs may "aid" psychic
functioning.  Please note that this is in no way a recommendation to
experiment: this use requires rather special conditions to be effective (if
it, indeed, works at all) and is far more dangerous than equally effective
alternatives. 

First, a simplistic "model" of the human mind. 

We have a conscious mind which acts as an "executive" and a subconscious
mind.  The conscious mind receives all information, sensory, mnemonic, and
extrasensory from the subconscious.  The job of the subconscious is to
filter and organize the information for presentation to the conscious.  The
conscious than makes decisions based on this "cleaned-up" information
(remember this is deliberately simplistic).  I'll ignore how the decisions
get "executed". 

There are a limited number of "channels" by which the subconscious can
communicate with the conscious.  For our purposes (I'm being simplistic
again) these channels correspond to the physical senses and to associated
"memory banks" (e.g., visual memory, auditory memory, kinesthetic memory).
There is no special channel for psychically obtained information. 

The subconscious filters out information which "it" considers to be
irrelevant or harmful to making decisions.  The subconscious is, however,
an "idiot savant".  It can be *very* clever in some ways, but it tends to
be rather simple-minded (no pun intended) and rigid about applying its
"filtering" rules. 

Actually (or rather, slightly less simplistically) the subconscious is more
like a group of people than an individual. 

Other parts of the subconscious will sometimes hedge the bets of the main
filters by taking filtered out information, from whatever source, and using
it to modify the messages being sent to the conscious.  For lack of a
better term, I'll refer to this as "extra information."  Since psychic
information has no channel of its own, it always appears as extra
information on other channels.

If the subconscious is supplied with a code it may use it to communicate
extra information.  The code is arbitrary (Jung once commented that Freud's
patients seemed to dream in Freudian symbolism while his tended to dream in
archetypes) but not all codes are equally usable by the subconscious. The
code allows information to be sent "up" to the conscious in a form which the
simple-minded and rigid filters ignore (Freud referred to these filters as
"censors", but in his narrower concept their purpose was only to filter out
*socially unacceptable* ideas). 

Now to the straight dope (pun intended) -- 

The effect of hallucinogenic drugs is to dampen the amount of filtering and
organizing of information before its passed to the conscious and/or to
increase the addition of extra information. 

The result is a lot of material of three types: 

	1) Useful and valid associations, deductions, observations,
	   memories etc. which should not have been filtered out.

	2) Psychically obtained information which should not have been
	   filtered out.

	3) Complete nonsense which *should* have been filtered out.

Unfortunately the third seems to be far and away the most common. 

There are two ways this information can be practically "used".  Generally
both are used simultaneously. 

One way is to subject the results to conscious (i.e., more or less
rational, though not necessarily "intellectual") analysis.  This provides
the function of the subconscious filters at a conscious (and therefore less
rigid and simpleminded) level. 

One important technique is to look for material encoded in the
"prearranged" code.  This code is frequently (e.g., in the case of
Shamanism) derived from (and/or is the source of) religious symbolism.
This is not the whole of the matter, however -- the code indicates a
"deliberate" attempt by some part of the subconscious to "send" specific
information to the conscious, it does not mean that the "opinion" of that
part of the subconscious is worth paying attention to.  So even after
something is identified as being in the code, more "interpretation" is
needed.

The other way to use the raw information thus obtained is to use it to
probe the subconscious in a less drastic manner.  In this technique
arbitrary material is "sent" to the subconscious by the conscious with a
"request" for "relevant" memories, associations, deductions, etc.  Since
"real" information is weak in this case, it is particularly easy for
extra information to be inserted.

This is at least an element in many psychic techniques such as Tarot,
geomancy, skrying, tea-leaves, bibliomancy, etc.  It is also, of course
the basis of the Rorschach test.  Once again, though the material "sent"
to the subconscious is arbitrary, not all material is equally effective;
it must evoke a lot of response, which is, however, unstructured. Then there
is sufficient opportunity to "add" extra information by structuring. 

The Rorschach ink-blots are actually pretty weak as far as this is
concerned. their advantage to psychologists lie in their neutrality: they
don't bias the results. 

The mass of material resulting from drugs can, however, be extremely
effective in inducing this type of effect.  This applies both to the
experient at a later (somewhat more rational) time, and to others who share
a sufficient common base of symbols.

In many cases, I think that societies which make use of heavy-duty drugs
(destructive to body and mind) to inspire special holy "oracles" are, in
essence, sacrificing the overall well being of that individual for the good
of the group.

There *are* ways, however, for you to experiment with the essence of this
technique in a way which is beneficial to you as an individual.  They are
less spectacular, less reliable (in the sense of producing results on
demand) and require more *mental* discipline -- but they are *much* safer. 

For example: keep a dream diary.  Study it, think about it and "feel it."
There are now many popular books available which discuss the necessary
techniques. 

			Topher

    I'm afraid the only one-liner I heard many years ago that I find
    ludicrous:
    
    Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.
    
    You don't have to be strong to take drugs (Like, wow man...) you
    just have to be smart enough to know that they don't increase 
    your brain cells, they just eat them up.  Why prove your stupidity
    and take the chance of permanently impairing your abilities, whatever
    they might be?
    
                      Cynthia
    

    Reply to 182.2 regarding medieval witches ointments
    In fact, the european medieval witches balms were made mostly from mineral 
    matters, it's a rationnalistic myth that they were made of
    alcaloids and vegetals . This myth grew in the 19 th century from
    the interest in exotic drugs. This myth survived in the Castaneda writings
    and the dope movement of the 60's. Drugs are prison to the mind
    not keys to other planes.     
    
    
                                             Rosebud
    

                                             
    
    

    Re .23:
    
    Maybe so, but I've several independent sources with recipes for
    such balms, some written before the 19th Century.  I certainly agree
    that, in my opinion, drugs are an inappropriate way to reach higher
    states, but that's a different matter.
    
    I would be more than interested to learn which "mineral matters"
    witch balms were made from, with source citations.  It's quite at
    variance with what I've researched.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .25:
    
    Thanks.  I'll try to supply some flying-ointment recipes and sources
    shortly.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    This thread is probably as good a place as any to mention the passing,
    in December, of R. Gordon Wasson, at the age of 88.
    
    His scholarly research, and his rediscovery and documentation of
    obscure traditions of shamanic, occult and religious use of sacred
    plants in the Old and New World, are a matter of record. 
    
    Notable among his works are the monumental MUSHROOMS, RUSSIA AND
    HISTORY, SOMA:DIVINE MUSHROOM OF IMMORTALITY, MYCOLATRY IN MESOAMERICA,
    and the controversial SECRET OF ELEUSIS. (sp?)
    
    Pat Hardy
    

    Re .25, .26:
    
    It was pointed out to me that just entering a flying-ointment recipe
    myght not be a Good Thing, particularly since there are some
    noncontributors who occasionally read these files and who might
    possibly say such details might be against the new Corporate Policy.
    
    So first:
    
    Among the books talking about herbal ingredients in Flying Salves
    or ointments are -- _Magia Naturalis_ by Dr. Giambattista della
    Porta, published in 1589; _De praestigiis deamonum, et cantationibus,
    ac veneficiis_ by Dr. Johann Weyer, published in 1536; and _De
    subtilitate rerum_ by Georolamo Cardani, published in 1550.  Note
    all of these were significantly before the 19th Century.  Each of
    these publications has recipes; there are older ones with incomplete
    recipes.
    
    Moving on to salves:
    
    I will not use the common names of the herbs, but a typical flying
    ointment would take the form of:
    
    Sleep wort, Devil's eye, Herb of Circe, Sium, Eleoselinum, and Tinne;
    dried powdered and mixed with [usually baby] fat to make a salve.
    To be applied on the chest and under the armpits.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I believe that I read somewhere that someone actually made some
    of the flying-ointment (using lard instead of baby fat, of course).
    They actually used some of it, and found that it was indeed a
    hallucinogen that also caused the feeling of flying through the air.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re .29:
    
    I've read similar reports.
    
    re .28, .29:
    
    A cautionary --  if someone really wants to go through the trouble
    of "modernizing" the ingredients, a couple of things to remember.
    First, the ancient recipes often were qualitative but not quantitative.
    Unless you know how much of an ingredient, esp. those that work
    synergistically, you should use, you might OD on the stuff.  There
    are reports of Medieval [Satanic] witches who died of their salve
    applications.  Additionally, some of the ingredients are extremely
    difficult to get.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .31:
    
    Mandrake, thornapple, and jimson weed all are scopalomine producers.
    Indeed, the mandrake produces a slew of interesting substances and
    was even used in ancient Greece as an anesthetic.
    
    The mandrake (_Mandragora_) should not be confused with the so-called
    "American mandrake" (_Podophyllum petaltum_, or May apple), which
    does not produce the same chemical substances.  The May apple can
    be substituted for the mandrake symbolically, but not if it is to
    be used chemically.
    
    The true mandrake is an old-world plant.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .23, following:
    
    A further point.  I do _not_ recommend that anyone manufacture or
    use a Flying Ointment or other so-called "Witch Salve."  These are
    not only highly dangerous, but they try to do by 'brute force" what
    some take decades of training to achieve.  If, indeed, one actually
    succeeds in reaching one's goal in a drug-induced state, that person
    would be in no condition to make proper use of his or her state.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Nightshade (Belladonna) is indeed a drug.  In fact, it is used by modern
    medicine to make some types of strong sedatives.  However, there are
    some members of the nightshade family, such as tomatoes and potatoes
    that are harmless. 
    
    RE: Steve
    
    I couldn't agree more!  I certainly do not recommend making any
    of these things and trying them.  Most of these (and other
    mind-altering drugs) work by putting a controlled amount of poison
    in the body.  Too much could cause death or permanent disability,
    either mental or physical.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re .34:
    
    > ...                                           However, there are
    >some members of the nightshade family, such as tomatoes and potatoes
    >that are harmless.
    
    Er, well, yes, but only if you're careful.  Making a salad of tomato-
    plant leaves isn't a good idea, since the leaves are poisonous.
    
    Steve Kalis, Jr.
    

    re .36:
    
    On "broomstick riding," masturbation wasn't necessary, though Freudians
    ans neoFreudians might make a deal out of the fact that the witch
    would straddle a shaft (big deal: but syumbols are part of the
    subjective reality).  In some cases, the ointment was smeared on
    a shaft; in others, it wasn't.  
    
    Probably any skin area where there could be a reasonable (osmotic
    or absorbtive) transmission of the salves' active ingredients would
    be okay.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

RE: .36,.37
    
    Some women sometimes or always experience an OBE upon orgasm.  Female
    orgasm *might* therefore be conducive in all women to OBEs (though
    for most women, insufficiently so to actually produce an OBE), and
    therefore there may be an additive or multiplicative synergistic
    effect involved.
    
    				Topher

    re: .6
      
    ...an excerpt from  "The Only Dance There Is"  Ram Dass (talks given
    at the Menninger Foundation in 1970 and Spring Grove Hospital, 1972)
      
    ....I was looking in there, and I found this little bottle of LSD.
    I had brought that to India-not because I was particularly eager
    to take it, since I had taken it up here as far as I was concerned,
    but because I thought I might meet somebody who I could give it
    to who would tell me something about what it was all about.  I thought,
    "After all, I'll give it to these holy men," and I'd give it to
    different holy men like a Buddhist monk and I'd say "How did affect
    you, sir?"  and he'd say, "It gave me a headache."  I'd give it
    to someone else and they'd say, "Well, it is good for meditation."
    Somebody else said, "Well, meditation is better than this."  Somebody
    else said, "Where can I get more?"  There was the standard set of
    reactions that you'd get in the West.  You didn't have to go to
    India to find out all those reactions.  So I found this bottle and
    I thought, "Gee, you know, *this* guy is going to *know* [he's talking
    about his eventual guru, Maharaj-ji.]  I'll talk to him about LSD.
        I go to bed.  The next morning a message comes: Maharaj-ji wants
    to see you.  We go over to the temple around 7:30 or 8 in the morning.
    IF'm walking toward him.  I'm about as far from him as that booth
    back there, and he yells at me, "Where's the medicine?"  I'm not
    used to thinking of LSD as medicine, so I was a little confused.
     I said, "Medicine?  What medicine?"  He said, "The medicine, the
    medicine."  I said, "LSD?" "Yes, bring the medicine."  So I went
    to the car and I got the medicine and I brought it back.
         "Let me see."  So I put it on my hand.  I had all different
    kinds of things in there.  "What's that?"  I said, "LSD."  "What's
    that?"  "That's mescaline, that's librium, and that's..."  you know,
    a little traveling kit.  So he said, "Does it give you siddhis?"
    Now siddhis in India means "powers."  But I had never heard the
    word before and they translated it as powers, and I thought he wanted,
    like, vitamin B-12.  You see, I figure he's an old man, he must
    be losing his power and he wants vitamin B-12  and I didn't have
    B-12, so I said, "I'm sorry-no, this doesn't give you that kind
    of power," and I put it back in the bottle.  He says, "Nay, nay,"
    and he holds out his hand.  So I put one pill in his hand.  These
    pills were 300 micrograms each.  He looked at it.  "Come on."  So
    I put a second one-that was 600 micrograms.  He looked, so I put
    a third pill on-that was 900 micrograms-which seemed like an
    adequate dose for anyone-and he went like that, see, took all three
    pills-and I was around him all that morning, and nothing at all
    happened. Like, "That's your medicine, groovy, that's interesting."
    Nothing at all happened.
      [he then relates telling the story in the U.S. and being doubted
    and having doubts of his own.]
       (back in India another trip...)
      ...One day he calls me up to him and he says, "Say, did you give
    me any medicine last time you were in India?"  I said, "Yeah." 
    He said, "Did I take it?"  I said, "Well, I think so."  "Oh.  Did
    it have any effect on me?"  I said, "No, I don't think so."  He
    said, "Oh. Go away."  So I went and the next morning I received
    a call from him and he says, "You got any more of that medicine?"
    I said, "Yeah."  "Bring it."  So I bring it.  I have what is comparable
    to 1500 micrograms. I put it in his hand, and one pill is broken
    and he gives it back to me.  The rest he is holding in his hand,
    and this time, as if in response to my slight doubt, he takes each
    one-and he does it *very carefully* to make sure that I see that
    it is going into his mouth and he is swallowing it, you see.  After
    he swallows all these pills, he looks at me as if though panicked
    and he says, "Pani, can I take water?"  And I said, "Sure."  He
    asks, "Hot or cold?"  And I said, "Either one, it doesn't matter."
    He's calling, "Pani, pani, bring water, bring water."  They bring
    him a glass of water and he drinks it down.  Then he says, "How
    long will it take to act?  How long will it take?"  I said, "Well,
    I don't know, about an hour or so-something will happen in an hour,
    I'm sure."  So he calls a man over and he has a wristwatch and he's
    holding the man's wristwatch and he says to me, "Will it make me
    crazy?"  And our relationship is very intimate so I said to him,
    "Probably!"  So at this point he goes under his blanket, which is
    what he sits with, and he comes up looking absolutely insane!  At
    which point I think, "Aha, oh, what have I done?  I've let this
    old man take this strong drug and now he's gone crazy-oh, what
    a terrible-it'll be an international incident, and it's terrible,
    and I've blown it again."  Then he laughed at me-and at the end
    of the hour, just nothing had happened.  And I was there all day
    and nothing had happened at all.  At the end of the hour he says,
    "You got anything stronger?"  I said no. "Oh."  And he said these
    substances were known about in the Kulu Valley, long ago, but that
    all knowledge is lost now.  Then he said, "It's useful, it's useful,
    not the true samdhi, but it's useful."  Then later when questioned
    about LSD by some of the young Westerners that were with him, he
    said, "If you're in a cool place and you're quiet and you're feeling
    much peace and your mind is turned toward God, it's useful.  It's
    useful."  He said it will allow you to come in and have the visit-
    the darshan-of a saint, of a higher being of a higher space-higher
    consciousness is how you translate it.  But he says you can't stay
    there-after a couple of hours you gotta come back. He said, you
    know, it would be much better to become the saint, rather than
    have have his visit; but having his visit is nice.  He said it
    strengthens your faith in the possibility that such beings exist.
    At the time he used Christ as the saint he was talking about.  He
    said it allows you to have the visit of Christ but you can't stay
    with him.  It would be better to become like Christ than to visit,
    and LSD won't do that for you.  He said that it will strengthen
    your faith but it won't make you into that.  He said love is a
    much stronger drug than LSD medicine.
      
      
      
    -Frederick
    

    Re.-1
    
    That was excellent!  Thank you for sharing that with us.
    
    Sort of drives home the meaning of the phrases, "Hugs, not drugs",
    and, as the song goes, "All you need is love".
                                  
    Cindy

         I have tried Ecstasy on three ocassions.  The first time was
    over three and one-half years ago in a group setting.  The setting
    was very carefully orchestrated and monitored by two people not taking
    the drug.  Five individuals each had very different "reactions"
    to the drug.  All of us were peaceful and completely enjoying
    the experience.  One person wrote poetry voraciously.  One couple
    just sort of cooed and quietly observed the others.  The other person
    also just quietly paid attention to the setting.  During the entire
    time we had music playing, e.g. Kitaro or Paul Horn, etc.  I sat
    with my back to an active fireplace.  The others were in a semi-circle
    around me.  For me, it was one of the most noteworthy physical events
    of my life.  Very early into the sensations, I decided to "be into
    myself" and not necessarily participate.  This decision stemmed
    from the belief that I should "FEEL" and not intellectualize with
    my companions.  Though I was always peripherally conscious of them
    and mostly aware of what they were doing, the majority of my energy
    was focused on my sensations, not my social interactions.  What
    did I experience?  I closed my eyes (and they remained that way
    for about two hours) because I felt that they were a distraction
    to what I was internalizing sensually.  The music was audible in
    a way that I perhaps had never heard it before, i.e., every note
    was crystal clear and beautiful...almost to the point of causing
    tears of joy.  At some point a Lazaris meditation was put on the
    stereo system.  Up to that point I had never heard him so clearly
    and so impeccably.  Every word hit me with its beauty.  I soared
    with his words as he asked us to visualize that and truly basked
    in the glory of that participation.  What I also did was a sort-of
    sitting-in-place Tai Chi.  Please realize that what I did was what
    I felt, it was in no way done deliberately for the others present.
    For well over an hour, however, my hands performed a dance...a dance
    that in my mind was a way to physically connect with the cloud-like
    patterns of energy that I so clearly felt and "saw."  The experience
    for me was marvelous.  It ended about ten hours after it started
    (from 13:00-23:00,) simply by going to bed (although I believe that
    I didn't really feel tired.)  At the time, I had no "S.O." in my
    life, but I couldn't help to wonder how wonderful love-making would
    be in that state.  Subsequently, on two other ocassions, I have
    attempted to find out.  I will say that for me, physical love-making
    was not possible without more effort than it "should" have been
    worth.  Neither of those two times did I experience as deeply as
    I had on the original exploration.
         What do I conclude, etc.?  One, I do not "believe" in drugs
    as the ultimate answer to anything.  I have never felt that drugs
    were much more than an escape for most people and that they were/are
    a trap for too many people.  I include all drugs here...from aspirin
    to alcohol with everything else in between.  Two, I have been able
    to re-create the feelings I have received from most of the "inebriants"
    I have tried, without the use of said inebriant.  This has been
    very important to me, for I believed I "found" something in the
    energy clouds of XTC and wanted to find it naturally, and I have
    (although not as easily nor for as long, so far.)  Three, I still
    think that a drug can be used if done carefully and with a specific
    meaningful reason (highly individuated reasons, here.)  Four, everyone
    has to decide for him/herself.
      To that end, I refer you to note 358.90 which is a bit of Lazaris'
    view.
      Let me make it clear that I do not favor drugs, witches brews
    included!
      
    Frederick
    

>reply .1,.2,...

To all of you that are referring to the drug mmda or mda, these are
    not the same as mdma, also known as ADAM, ECSTASY, etc.  The first
    two, MMDA and MDA are similar in that they are halucinogenic, however
    they do not promote the empathic feelings found in MDMA.

    Let me say then where I think drugs are useful.
    
    In our over energized society we have been conditioned against being
    affected by anything. Some call it desensitiziation. Certain drugs
    on a periodic basic can help us resensitize.
    
    Another problem is that we live in an age of super enormous pressure
    and further we are desensitized to this presure, repressing even
    further the feelings. Some drugs, used on a periodic basis can be
    helpful in accessing and coping with these repressed feelings.
    
    This of course presumes the individual is using the drugs as a tool
    and does not have an addictive personality. 

 RE: .45 

     All of the positive things that can be accomplished with drugs can be 
     accomplished without them.  Considering the risks, I find them to be
     quite unnecessary and potentially dangerous.  Culturally, there may
     have been a time when using them assisted man in his growth, but I
     believe we are in a time in which we are to learn that all we need is
     ourselves and that through ourselves alone we can achieve inner
     growth.

     Terry

    re: -.1
     
          Agreed!  In fact, all it takes is meditation (and various
    ways and goals within) to reach that same feeling.  Tapping in,
    as it were.
    
    Frederick
    (no longer a "guest")
    

Well, as my old uncle Albert used to say, "Different strokes, for different
folks".

		Dave

    Reply to .46, .47,
    
    I disagree entirely. Here's why...
    
    Chemicals affect our bodies because they induce foreign compounds
    into the human body. In some cases these compounds are very similar
    to other compounds already present in our bodies. 
    
    For instance mescaline mimics noradrenaline, psilocybine, psilocine
    and lysergic acid diethylamide mimic serotonine. Mimic is the key
    word here.  The compounds are close but not identical.
    
    The mental states achieved with the use of these drugs are NOT
    achievable in the normal human condition. They cannot be duplicated
    by the human bodies system because the compounds are too foreign.   
    
    Foreign you say? Then why do you take asprin or Tylenol? These are
    foreign substances too. Not ethical you say?  Then why do you watch
    television, listen to the radio, read books or the paper? These
    items affect the human body in varying degrees yet in a different
    way than psychoactive drugs. Which is more ethical, to watch a person
    torn in half in a car accident on the news or to turn on and listen
    to Mahler?? If you are in pain is it less ethical to take asprin than
    to meditate?
    
    A blanket objection to the use of any psychoactive drug for any
    person other than yourself is objectionable in and of itself. You
    can't speak for all people. It may be part of a shamans growth to
    consume the flesh of the Gods (psilocybe mexicana, semperviva,
    yungensis, caerulescens, wassoni, or hoogshagenii). You can't make
    that call for them. And if you did they'd laugh in your face and
    toss you off the reservation.
    
    Further it has only been in the last milliena or so that psychoactive
    plant compounds have not been used for religious purposes. In North,
    Central and South America we have our Christian missionaries to thank
    for that. 
    
    Soma, the god-narcotic of ancient India with 120 holy hymns dedicated
    to it in the Rig-Vedas, has recently been found to be Amanita, ie, Fly
    Agaric mushroom. Soma is the legendary source of Indra's strength.
    Needless to say Soma has some strange properties which themselves
    induce even stranger stories about it. 
    
    Neither you nor I can say that anyone else can or cannot experience
    the flesh of the Gods. We can however speak for ourselves and relay
    our experiences to other interested persons.
                          
    The "Flesh of the Gods" may not be for you. Generally those people who
    see life as dangerous, negative, filled with overwhelming problems and
    demons behind every door, should not consume the Flesh of the Gods.
    Psychoactive drugs could be thought of as a personal litmus test to
    indicate the deep states of mind. And for those persons who chose to
    consume those "entities" please don't do it alone the first time. Have
    someone there who knows what will happen and who know how to handle the
    drug.  Be positive, it's a wonderful experience. 
    
    There is a big, wide, wonderful world out there. It seems that for me
    to knowingly ignore any part of it is a great loss for myself. 

    For further information look at "Plants of the Gods: Origins of
    Hullucinogenic Use" by Richard Evans Schultes and Albert Hofmann
    (discoverer of LSD). 
    

    Re .49

    Needless to say, what follows is *personal opinion*...

        
    >> Chemicals affect our bodies because they induce foreign compounds
    
    So does driving a six inch nail through ones hand, it also gives you a
    quite unique mental state. It's also about as necessary to achieve
    enlightenment as drug use. 
    
    
    >> The mental states achieved with the use of these drugs are NOT
    >> achievable in the normal human condition. 
    
    I don't agree at all. However, this is impossible to prove one way or
    the other as someones opinion of their mental state has to be *the*
    most subjective opinion possible. 
    
    You imply here that "States of Consciousness" are governed solely by the
    laws of chemistry. This is debatable ; many, many people throughout
    history have been able to significantly alter their consciousness
    without recourse to drugs and, more importantly, can restore their
    original states just as easily. 
    
    The last point cannot be made with regard to drugs ; the drug is in
    control of your state, not vice-versa, and you have no options until the
    drugs wears off. 


    >> The "Flesh of the Gods" may not be for you. Generally those people who
    >> see life as dangerous, negative, filled with overwhelming problems and
    >> demons behind every door, should not consume the Flesh of the Gods.
    
    Unfortunately those very people are often those most attracted by the
    promise of drug-based "instant enlightenment".

        
    >> There is a big, wide, wonderful world out there. It seems that for me
    >> to knowingly ignore any part of it is a great loss for myself. 

    So, how much of the big, wide, wonderful world are you actually
    conscious of while stoned out of your head ?

    Artificial highs detach you from reality.
     
    
    I ( and anyone else ) can experience *real* highs and phenomenal states
    of "Altered Consciousness" that *YOU CAN CONTROL* ( with practice and
    dedication that will benefit you in many other ways ) without any
    recourse to drugs or any artificial stimulus. 
    
    Drugs are an easy way to a quick thrill and an easy way to wreck your
    body ( and you'll find an acid-soaked brain rather a block to
    enlightenment ). 
    
    Dave.

RE: .50

    I agree.

RE: .49

    >> There is a big, wide, wonderful world out there. It seems that for me
    >> to knowingly ignore any part of it is a great loss for myself. 

    When it comes to drugs (and I think we're talking about those 'controlled'
    substances) they are certainly a part of that big, wonderful world, BUT
    alot more comes with it, like extorsion, prostitution, murder, political
    instability and blatant disregard for human life in general.  When someone
    chooses to 'experiment' with one of these substances, they ultimately get it
    from someone connected to this web.  No matter how far from the center of 
    the tangle they may be, by making the purchase they've supported it, 
    sanctioned it and gave it their stamp of approval.  The suppliers are driven
    by the demand.

    This is my (as you can see, strong) opinion.  I don't mean to ruffle any
    feathers.

    Terry

    re .51
    
    Well, it's really the mindless efforts those who wish to 
    inflict their own morality into the control of victimless crimes.
    
    Organized crime in the US developed its strength during
    prohibition.  OC has expanded tremendously during the last
    two decades because of the _reefer madness_ syndrome.
    
    Don't blame people who are trying to live their own lives...
    blame those who would control others' lives.
    
    	bruce

    re .52
    
    > Well, it's really the mindless efforts those who wish to 
    > inflict their own morality into the control of victimless crimes.
    
    Would you call purchasing a 'hot' VCR from some middle-man who got
    the unit from some criminal who killed someone while stealing it
    a victimless crime?

    Would you call purchasing cocaine from some white-collar
    distributor who got his supply from someone who may have killed
    ten people to get it into the US a victimless crime?

    I don't feel like I'm 'blaming' anyone, but I do feel that those
    that support the illegal drug infrastructure by creating the demand
    can't be considered totally separated from the circumstances that
    may have been necessary to supply them with their drug.

    My opinion.

    Terry

    the act of purchasing cocaine is a victimless crime.
    the illegal drug infrastructure is in place because drugs are illegal.
    drugs are illegal because self-righteouos do-gooders wish
    to control the individual actions of others, in the name of
    "morality."   just grant me the right to be left alone.
    
    	bruce

>    the act of purchasing cocaine is a victimless crime.

that part of the path that the cocaine takes is harmless enough, but there is 
also the karma of where it's been (in other words, i have to agree with terry 
about the person with the drug being part of all the karma that the drug has 
generated)  ...makes it hard to know where to walk, doesn't it?

>    the illegal drug infrastructure is in place because drugs are illegal.
>    drugs are illegal because self-righteous do-gooders wish
>    to control the individual actions of others, in the name of
>    "morality."   

i think it goes all the way up to our defense structure; can people stoned out 
of their minds fight wars to protect their lives?  or do they just say "here, 
russkies, take me away".  sure, it would be nice if we were one world, but 
we're not.  we're divided.  even in here...we're divided.

it also includes morality from the other side of the fence.  is it ok for 
someone who is addicted, physically and/or psychologically, to, in order to 
perpetuate his or her addiction, steal, kill, get small children addicted...if 
a drug addict has no money, he or she will do what needs to be done to get the 
drug, whether it is legal or not...just like with every other possession/habit.

>just grant me the right to be left alone.

then what are you doing in here!  :-}
    

RE: .-1

      I can't argue with that, but that's the world we live in and it's
      a problem that isn't easily solved.  I certainly don't have the
      solution.  My choice has been not to connect myself with it,
      support it or sanction it, particularily since all of the proposed
      spiritual benefits can be achieved (even surpassed) in other, 
      safer ways.  

      Terry    

>    Of course, we can extend this by analogy to suggest that
>    we not pay our taxes 


(except that's illegal and when the IRS bear gets you, you're gonna get 
CLAWED!)

>    because those monies support apartheid in south
>    africa,  rape and murder of nuns in el salvador, killing
>    of civilians and destruction of schools and hospitals in
>    nicaragua,  "disappearances" of thousands in south america,
>    abuse and massacre of palestinians in isreal...

I agree that this is an effective analogy; unfortunately, my hands are tied 
because of the law that says I have to pay taxes
    
>    and don't forget that dec computers and software are used to design
>    atomic weapons at sandia labs...

Don't look at me; I'm leaving    :-3

>    great!  don't take drugs kiddies, or the commies will get you!

only if it makes it easier
    
>    This kind of crime occurs because drugs are illegal, 

this kind of crime happens with legal things too, when people have a need or an 
addiction to those legal things

drugs also have the quality of being HIGHLY addictive, and addiction supersedes 
reason and logic to get what it wants, which makes the likelihood for someone 
to behave irrationally, increase tremendously.

>legalize drugs, and the
>incentive for those crimes disappears.
    
factor; the ABUSE of ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES that are POTENT causes people to act 
IRRATIONALLY whether or not the substance is legal.

(silly aside; what if the closest three local drug stores were all out of 
cocaine when the addict whose car was in the shop went to buy some, and his or 
her buddies were unavailable for a carry-over supply or loan of vehicle...i 
guess he or she would ride a bicycle for twenty miles, eh? :-P)

i do agree that there would be a lot less murder over drug trade if drugs were 
legal.  would take the wind right out of those sails.  then, drugs would have 
less of that type of karma.

if drugs were legalized, what other effects could you predict?

RE: .57 

    > Of course, we can extend this by analogy to suggest that
    > we not pay our taxes because those monies support apartheid in south
    > africa,  rape and murder of nuns in el salvador, killing
    > of civilians and destruction of schools and hospitals in
    > nicaragua,  "disappearances" of thousands in south america,
    > abuse and massacre of palestinians in isreal...
    
    In the case of taxes (in my case, at least), I don't give, rather
    the IRS takes, something that really ticks me off!.  I never see it.  

    One has more latitude of choice when it comes to drugs vs. paying
    taxes.  When one purchases a drug it is done so as a matter of
    choice - their choice and their's alone.  It's not the same for
    paying taxes (another form of organized crime ;')...) and therefor
    what is done with the money is someone elses choice, not mine - they
    live with the karma, not me.

    Terry

    Tell you what, Terry:
    
    You let me be responsible for my own karma, and I'll let
    you be responsible for yours....  
    
    	bruce

re: .60 (Bruce)

    Sounds fine to me.  I think that's the way it is whether we like it
    or not ;').  I understand your point of view, respect you desire to
    express it and appreciate your taking the time to share it with me.
    That's what's so nice about this conference.
    
    I enjoyed the discussion.

    Terry

seen on a button;

My karma ran over my dogma

re .52

>    Don't blame people who are trying to live their own lives...
>    blame those who would control others' lives.

Bruce was applying this to the illegal drug situation.  I would like to apply 
this to the situation of taxation.

But then again, who put those people in control in the first place?  We did... 
Well maybe not you and me specifically, but under our system, the majority does 
rule when the majority elects our officials.  Frankly, the more I learn about 
politics and government (our major contractor), the more I wish it wasn't the 
way it is, and yet, I feel so helpless to change it as an individual.  So 
Terry, we are suffering the karma of our taxes, as a nation, I think.  We 
helped create this system.  If we're responsible for drug karma when we're 
holding a bag of whatever, then we're responsible for our tax karma, since we 
played a role in getting it to where it's going.  I didn't volunteer my paid 
tax dollars directly, but indirectly, I support the system that set it up that 
way; I also share responsibility for the laws that are made that take my tax 
dollars.
 
Mikie, with regard to your note, I have a LOT of mixed feelings.  I'm not here 
to determine or not to determine someone's right to use whatever it is that 
they want to use.  I do believe that the government has made too many decisions 
on our freedom to do so (that's for Bruce, too), for whatever the reasons (I 
think that defense is an issue with our government in this respect; each group 
of people is progressing with its own goal in mind; it just so happens that the 
government has the power, grrr, to make the rules).
    
>It may be part of a shamans growth to
>consume the flesh of the Gods (psilocybe mexicana, semperviva,
>yungensis, caerulescens, wassoni, or hoogshagenii). 
>Further it has only been in the last milliena or so that psychoactive
>plant compounds have not been used for religious purposes. In North,
>Central and South America we have our Christian missionaries to thank
>for that. 
>Soma, the god-narcotic of ancient India with 120 holy hymns dedicated
>to it in the Rig-Vedas, has recently been found to be Amanita, ie, Fly
>Agaric mushroom. Soma is the legendary source of Indra's strength.
    
The places that you mention are not technological, well, except for where we 
are.  Do you think that background makes a difference; that body composition 
makes a difference; that our cultures make a difference?  Do you think that the 
"chemistry" of legality and easy access (i.e., make it yourself or go pick it 
from the field) that make a drug free of the karma of crime and lives lost, 
makes a difference?

The psychoactive drugs you mention are not, to my knowledge, addictive, either 
physically or psychologically.  I think there is a different argument for drugs 
that fit into the addictive category, but that's already been stated.

Reply to...
    
================================================================================
Note 182.63                          Drugs?                             63 of 63
GENRAL::DANIEL "Strength proven; success deserved"   50 lines   4-AUG-1988 16:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >Mikie, with regard to your note, I have a LOT of mixed feelings.  I'm
    >not here to determine or not to determine someone's right to use
    >whatever it is that they want to use.  I do believe that the government
    >has made too many decisions on our freedom to do so (that's for Bruce,
    >too), for whatever the reasons (I think that defense is an issue with
    >our government in this respect; each group of people is progressing
    >with its own goal in mind; it just so happens that the government has
    >the power, grrr, to make the rules). 
     
    Since we seem to have wandered into social issues, yes the government
    has the power to make the rules but they also lack the ability to
    enforce some of those same rules. Again governments should not enforce
    a morality or a spirituality. It should be concerned with public
    and national saftey.
    
    >The places that you mention are not technological, well, except for
    >where we are.  Do you think that background makes a difference; that
    >body composition makes a difference; that our cultures make a
    >difference?  Do you think that the "chemistry" of legality and easy
    >access (i.e., make it yourself or go pick it from the field) that make
    >a drug free of the karma of crime and lives lost, makes a difference? 
     
    Since when is a spiritual path ever necessarily technological? B^) To
    my knowledge it has only been in the last decade or so that low cost
    technological machines have been developed to assist man into ASCs. So
    I guess that we have a technology for this today that we didn't have
    before. 
    
    My thoughts on this are that human bodies (body composition question)
    come from the same place that psychoactive plant compounds come from,
    the Mother. The option is open for those that want to explore this
    path.
    
    If one subscribes to the notion of karma then every action generates
    karma, whether one uses a drug to gain an ASC or whether one punishes
    their pet for wetting the floor. The only way not to generate karma is
    to do as the Jains do; drop out of life until the body wastes away.
    I don't see anyone is this file doing droping out of life.
    
    Further you associate a compound with social crime. Tell me is the
    compound responsible for the crime? If not, then who or what is? The
    gun argument takes the same track. Tha solution to the problem is
    education and exposure, not socailly enforced ignorance. 
                                              
    >The psychoactive drugs you mention are not, to my knowledge, addictive,
    >either physically or psychologically.  I think there is a different
    >argument for drugs that fit into the addictive category, but that's
    >already been stated.                                     
    
    Along the Buddhist lines no one can determine for anyone else what they
    do or don't do. We simply don't know for sure. After all it may be part
    of a person's dharma to use a psychoactive drug. An no one really
    thinks about the negative aspects of karma either. It might be part of
    someones karma to use psychoactive drugs. Can anyone say for sure?? 
    
    I'm not picking on you Meredith. It's just that the other replies don't
    really address spirituality, they address social custom as determined
    by a semi-Christian based country. And to me they resemble the front
    row of the spiritually blessed that we find in the Asemblies of God.
    Sort of a New Age/Christian peanut gallery, with all the shouting and
    singing going on, but no real work being done. 
    
    Christian ethics are not generally pagan ethics, which balance the
    light and the dark instead of trying to "get fried" by the Light. A
    balance has to be struck between the light and the dark to maintain a
    health human life. 
    
    And in closing I wonder what the karmic consequences are for humans
    who purposefully ignore the dark. Will they be reborn again in a
    darker enviroment until they learn to balance the light and the
    dark??? Ah yes, the energy flows the other way too, doesn't it? 
    

>governments should not enforce
>a morality or a spirituality. It should be concerned with public
>and national saftey.

Classic confrontation between church and state.  What do you think of what's 
happening now between the church and the state?  ...if you do have thoughts on 
this, would you be willing to take the ball from here and start another topic 
where we can get in to that?  My opinions right now are pretty foggy, and I'd 
like more information, from sources with differing feelings.
    
>    Since when is a spiritual path ever necessarily technological? 

What I was thinking is, it seemed that the less-technological societies were 
using hallucinogenics for spiritual advancement over the more technological 
societies; now I would add that societies that consider themselves more 
civilized/Christian use hallucinogenics for spiritual advancement less than do 
other societies (I hesitate to say third-world, but am leaning in that 
direction).

>The only way not to generate karma is to...drop out of life until the body 
>wastes away.

I agree.  But even under those terms, why would I want to generate extreme 
Karma?  In other words, why would I want to open the door to bad vibes, as in;

>    Further you associate a compound with social crime. 


>    Tell me is the
>    compound responsible for the crime? If not, then who or what is? 

The compound, or a gun, in and of itself, is not harmful.  It is the person who 
handles it, who makes it so.  (I know this is where you were heading with 
this).  So, then what; do you perform a ritual or rite, to clear the compound 
or gun of the negative vibrations that have surrounded it and are tied to it?
 
>I'm not picking on you Meredith. 

? I didn't think you were.

>really address spirituality, they address social custom as determined
>by a semi-Christian based country. 

(snicker) are you saying that semi-Christianity is not spiritual?  BTW, what 
*is* "semi-Christianity"?

I believe that messages of the Spirit are always coming through social custom. 
Somehow, isn't social custom a form of spirituality in and of itself?

are we not here for a reason, here with man's laws?  even if we believe 
ourselves to be highly spiritual, is there not a place for man's laws?  after 
all, they are before us, and in certain cases, such as the illegality of drugs, 
they seem to be confronting us, insisting upon attention.  Is that not, 
somehow, a spiritual message?

>Sort of a New Age/Christian peanut gallery, with all the shouting and
>singing going on, but no real work being done. 

What, in your opinion, is the Real Work?
    
>    And in closing I wonder what the karmic consequences are for humans
>    who purposefully ignore the dark. 

Since I ask so many questions of you, I will give you my thoughts here.

I think the consequences are blindness; half-vision; not true vision.  To 
ignore the dark is to ignore part of the self.  To ignore the dark is to give 
it power over you, because you are unable to understand it.

Hope to hear more from you.

re: the last ten or so

This is probably a dumb observation (don't all agree at once!:-)), but
the several people who say that any state achievable via drugs can also
be achieved by other means MUST have achieved the states in question via
BOTH means, if they're presenting a truly informed opinion.

There are interesting implications to this.  If the drug was not there
for comparison, how would you know whether your meditation-induced
(or fasting-induced or scourging-induced or dancing-induced etc. etc.)
mystical state really measured up?  Wasson's theory about Vedic religion
was that many of the mystical disciplines of Hinduism were developed
specifically to mimic the state induced by consumption of the Soma
mushroom (A. muscaria), but that as the Aryans moved farther and farther
away from the Himalayas (where A. muscaria was plentiful) this original
intent became disguised within ritual and lost.  The efficacy of the
substitutes could no longer be validated against the original experience.
(In many ways this could apply to all revelation-based religion, FWIW.)

That's why I think many pagan religions put the drug experience within
a unique and otherwordly context, such as a coming of age or initiation
rite, a vision quest, etc.  It gave the initiate the basic experience
for comparison without making it a commonplace or otherwise giving it a
"profane" significance.  Shamanic religions place more emphasis on
repeated use of drugs as part of the priestly function: e.g., for
oracular purposes, etc.--still clearly a "sacred" rather than a "profane"
use, but with greater potential for abuse (the piest/ess is clearly given
greater latitude because of presumed spiritual strength and discipline).

I think this may supplement some of the points that Mikie? was making,
with which I tend to agree.  We tend to judge many forms of experience
by the yardstick of how easily our culture can trivialize them.  Such
judgments may be a case of misdirecting the blame.
								paul

    Re .-1
    
    >> the several people who say that any state achievable via drugs can also
    >> be achieved by other means MUST have achieved the states in question via
    >> BOTH means, if they're presenting a truly informed opinion.
    
    You make a valid point but it is not necessary to experience both
    aspects to have an opinion that is in some way "informed" by ones
    experiences.
    
    I have never used *any* hallucinogenics ( not even sure I can spell
    them ) but I have read some very lucid and thorough accounts and
    had long and interesting conversations with individuals who have.
    
    From those descriptions I honestly believe that I have experienced
    several ASC ( oh no not another acronym ) that massively outstripped
    the drug-induced highs that were described to me. 
    
    However, as you say, I cannot be sure, from someone elses description
    exactly what it would be like for me. That is why I made the point
    about a mental state being the most subjective description you can
    find.
    
    But it remains that I have experienced profound changes that I cannot
    imagine equalled. And I haven't meddled with my body chemistry nor had
    to cope with any other side-effects I've also had so vividly described
    to me. 
    
    
    Re -.? ( Mikie / Meredith ? ) Just a thought...
    
    If you accept that we have any kind of "social" responsibility then
    dropping out of life is actually going to generate negative karma
    for you because you contribute nothing to your fellow man.
    
                                              
    Re -.? ( Bruce ? ) 
    
    Accepting the above assumption then one has some kind of responsibility
    to protect those less capable of making informed decisions ( and they
    do exist in our non-Utopian world ) from destroying themselves. I
    acknowledge *your* wish to be left alone ; you are intelligent, as
    affluent as DEC allows (8^), and informed...but there are others less
    fortunate. Do we leave them to rot ? The balance between protecting
    people from themselves and dominating them is too fine for any society
    to find so we have to live with compromise. 
    
    Dave.

>>< Note 182.67 by FNYADG::PELLATT "Just what is it with Turkey ?" >
>>                            -< Getting diverse... >-

>>    Re -.? ( Bruce ? ) 
    
>>    Accepting the above assumption then one has some kind of responsibility
>>    to protect those less capable of making informed decisions ( and they
>>    do exist in our non-Utopian world ) from destroying themselves. I
>>    acknowledge *your* wish to be left alone ; you are intelligent, as
>>    affluent as DEC allows (8^), and informed...but there are others less
>>    fortunate. Do we leave them to rot ? The balance between protecting
>>    people from themselves and dominating them is too fine for any society
>>    to find so we have to live with compromise. 
    
>>    Dave.

This reminds me of an old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good 
intentions."  All right, how are you going to judge when you know more than
the next person?  This statement could be used to justify anything that
you believe is right, 'cause the rest of the world may not be capable of
making the same informed decisions that you, in your enlightened state of
being, has decided is "the right way of doing things." ;-}

Look, a lot of money is spent on illegal drugs.  This money is used to
corrupt society.  I remember a few years ago some drug kingpins hired a few
mercenaries and assaulted Columbia's Supreme court WITH MILITARY WEAPONS.
I forget how many supreme judges were killed, but it was a hell of a fight.


In a Utopian society there are no rules to break, but nobody hurts anyone
else because everyone lives by a strict, unwritten moral code.  Okay, so
people aren't perfect, we need rules to maintain consistency in society.
Drugs were/are made illegal since they can effect society as a whole, NOT
BECAUSE THEY CAN EFFECT YOU.  We've tried to push prohibition with Alcohol
fifty years ago and that didn't work.  Now we're playing the same game, but
with different drugs.  History tends to repeat itself, and unless we learn
from history we will be destined to repeat it again.

I think the largest problem with alcohol in the past fifty years is that we
showed that it was glamorous to drink.  Actually the same holds true to
Tobacco smoking too.  Madison Ave is probably the biggest reason why so many
people drink and smoke.  Now that smoking is no longer in vogue, you're
starting to see more and more people stop.  Nicotine and Alcohol are both
very powerful drugs that are quite legal.

It's interesting to look back at the sixties and seventies and see that
"doing drugs" was also considered glamorous.  All this hype about drugs has
gotten people to use drugs because it is the "in-thing" to do.  We need to
educate people to stop taking drugs, or at least to warn them of the
dangers of drugs, and to cure the addicts (of ALL drugs, legal or illegal,
except caffeine 8-) ).  I'd rather see the government spend a billion
dollars on education than a billion dollars to have an army fly through the
jungles of South America in search of Pot and Cocoa farms.  The Latter
doesn't stop the DEMAND for drugs, therefore attacks a symptom of the
problem instead of the problem (why are they using drugs?).  Eliminating one
source of drugs just means another source will appear.

I think that it is inevitable that pot, and possibly coke (in small doses)
will be made legal in my lifetime.  According to a recent poll, 25% of drug
enforcement officers would prefer to see pot be made legal.  The stuff will
still probably cost the same as today since they'll tax the hell out of it
to pay for drug education, rehabilitation and balance the budget.  All I
can say is that I'd rather see the money go to Washington than to the drug
Cartels in South America (well....  ;-) ).


Dave

    
    Dave (or anyone else),
    
    Isn't marajuana in small amounts a misdemeanor at best in some parts
    of the country?  This isn't exactly legalization, however it is
    fairly close to (I'm referring to a $10.00 fine or something along
    these lines).  $10.00 today is almost not worth the paperwork and
    the time it takes to fill it out.
    
    Cindy

          To continue in the vein of the "magic mirror" (which is something
    that I have indicated before is becoming more and more apparent
    to me as time goes on and definitely ties in to the "create your own
    reality" understanding), yesterday's San Jose Mercury News
    had a relevant article in it concerning this topic.  I will briefly
    rewrite parts of it below:
               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
        ...
         "By choice and by chance, Menlo Park [next to Palo Alto] clinical
    psychologist Victor Lovell, a handsome son of a career Navy officer,
    was present at the birth of a cultural revolution.  When encounter
    groups, consciousness-raising and nude hot-tub therapy ["the only
    way to fly"  ;-)] were in their infancy, Lovell served as wet nurse.
    He was the peninsula's foremost "hippie shrink", a charismatic 
    guide to the inner landscape of self-knowledge.
          And people didn't need much convincing, insists Lovell, to
    follow him there.  "Everybody was ready to be transformed, to
    experiment, to explore.  It was in the air," says Lovell, now 
    53, his dark hair beginning to gray.  "It seems pretty tame now.
    But at the time it seemed pretty mind-blowing.  We jumped into 
    hot tubs the way certain Christians do Baptism.  Total immersion.
    It was a holy approach."
         ... What has changed is his earlier belief that people can
    radically retool their personalities as easily as swallowing a pill
    or exposing themselves to a bright, hot burst of self-awareness.
          "We were into quick fixes and instant transformations.  We
    had a Big Bang theory of drugs, politics and psychotherapy.  And
    we were wrong," says Lovell.  "We thought there would be a cata-
    clysmic, explosive event and then everything would fall into place.
    Those expectations were bound to lead to disappointment."
          ...
          ...he dropped acid with Timothy Leary, defied the prosperous
    burghers of Palo Alto by organizing one of the city's first communes
    and started the Mid-Peninsula Free University where you could learn
    Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Volkswagen repair.  He is still
    a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, but no longer
    inclined to romp naked in the Stanford [University] fountain.
           ...
           ...Lovell was a "very unhappy, confused, miserable
    undergraduate" at Stanford when he turned to psychotherapy.  Even
    the conservative brand of couch coaching practiced in the 1950's
    offered hope for a troubled teen-ager.  His first therapist was
    a graduate student named Richard Alpert.  Coincidentally, Alpert
    himself would later become one of the leading personalities in
    the psychedelic/human potential movement, but by then he would be
    known as Ram Dass.  "I was the first person he worked with.  It
    was very traditional.  I talked.  He listened."...    ...
    Today he is a connoisseur of alternative therapies, an expert 
    in the varied guises of Gestalt.  His hero is Woody Allen,
    "the world's most famous, long-term psychotherapy client."...
         ...
         His drug experiences began at a Veteran's Administration Hospital
    in Palo Alto where he and Kesey worked in the early 1960's. "The
    CIA was looking for a truth drug," remembers Lovell, ...  "They
    gave away grant money and spread LSD all over the place.  We were
    trusting and needed the money and wanted to get high."
         After work, Lovell and Kesey would walk through wards crowded
    with delirious old men to volunteer for psychedelic drugs designed
    to induce their own delirium.  The experience transformed them both.
    Kesey, who was attending Stanford University on a writing fellowship,
    became the leader of the Merry Pranksters whose adventures were
    chronicled by Tom Wolfe in "THe Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test."  Lovell
    earned his doctorate in psychology and set out to subvert society.
          The commitment to change, however, came at a cost.  "I started
    out sweet, loving, naive, and innocent and ended up angry...and
    obnoxious," says Lovell.  "but there were a lot of things to be
    angry about back then."
        ...
        ...
           Lovell is less proud of the progress of the therapeutic 
    community of which he is a part, and in particular the "human
    potential movement" that offered so much promise.  "People
    are not interested in having their consciousness transformed,
    and I think it is the fault of those of us who sold the human
    potential movement.  We were going to make you feel so good so
    fast.  You were going to have the world's greatest sex and were
    going to feel all the ecstasy you deserved.  It's our own damn
    fault for putting out all that B.S.  People don't believe us.
    Our processes got to be sold like headache remedies and mutual
    funds."
         ...
         ...
         "I see what is eternally human.  People still get angry.  People
    still fight with their parents or their children.  People still
    have trouble with their sexuality.  They are not so inhibited about
    sex anymore, but it is still eternally a mystery."
          ...
          "You've got to be careful and not believe your hallucinations,"
    advised Lovell.  "Or they'll blow you away."
    
                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
    
    

    Re .68 ( Dave D. )
    
    >> This reminds me of an old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good 
    >> intentions."  
    
    Indeed, but I hardly think the path to heaven is paved with bad !
    
    Somewhat irrelevant as I don't believe in the two... (;^)
    
    
    I did spot the smiley face but still, you judge me somewhat harshly. I
    do not, and would not wish to, claim to have "the answers" or to impose
    any aspects of my life-style upon another... 
       
    
    >> All right, how are you going to judge when you know more than
    >> the next person?  This statement could be used to justify anything that
    
    The most difficult question in the world. But you cannot seriously be
    saying that you could look at a junkie at the end of the road, with his
    body wrecked, and his brain rotted, that you might not have knowledge
    enough to say "Don't do it" to the guy you see just starting ? 
    
    Generally :
    
    I guess what it comes down to is whether or not we recognise the
    "right" of individuals to destroy themselves ( ever known a junkie ? ),
    and perhaps more importantly, to deeply scar their families, lovers and
    friends ? 
    
    Dave ( the P. )

re; .66

>the several people who say that any state achievable via drugs can also
>be achieved by other means MUST have achieved the states in question via
>BOTH means, if they're presenting a truly informed opinion.

I'd like to present a truly informed opinion.  (The following will be stated as 
Fact, simply to encourage economy of words.)

Psychoactive drugs act to enhance certain segments of reality, both the 
objective (physical) reality, and the subjective (mental/spiritual) reality. 
Such being the case, in addition to the world looking extremely colorful and 
detailed, the mental process magnifies certain portions of what's "already in 
there" for closer scrutiny.  Details previously unknown, may show themselves, 
at this time, and a perspective on How to Be, Eternally, may be gained.  I wish 
to maintain this state of being, but I often find, upon the return, that I am 
less like I want to be, than was I, before I tried the trip.  I have walked 
away with many lessons, and have found that lessons from such outside-induced 
chemical alterations are simply reworded forms of something, already known.  I 
have also found that there is a certain Lie involved in outside-induced 
chemicals, in that, while I may think my ego has dissolved to reveal something 
deeper, what has actually happened, is that my ego has taken control more 
tightly than before, although its form is less-recognizable; i.e., it is not a 
familiar ego, but a different one.  (Hallucinogenics; do they bring about 
schitzophrenia, or are schitzophrenics more likely to use hallucinogens?  The 
two are related when studied under controlled circumstances, i.e., not all of 
the hallucinogen users in the world were tested; more like a cross-section).  I
learned this in the Drugs and Behavior upper-level psychology course in 
college.  LSD and psylocybin were specifically used in these studies.

Since departing from outside-induction, and working via other means, I have 
been through similar revelation-type experiences, with the exception that the 
revelation (lesson, or realization about myself) is a fitting together of 
pieces of a puzzle by adding the piece that brings the parts together, as 
opposed to being old information in a new form, that means the same thing, when 
boiled down to definition.  I have found that the "other means" allow for a 
change of ego, rather than a division, thereof.  Physically speaking, the world 
is more colorful as I realize my spiritual Self, much like I used to experience 
via outside induction.

Therefore, I have concluded similar information to what Marcia says in one of 
the first replies to this topic.

Disclaimer:  I do not imply, nor do I expect, that my experiences are going to 
be universal.  Some experiences were under controlled circumstances, and others 
were not.

re: Dave D. and Dave P.

I'm not sure whether it makes more sense in the short term to legalize some
or all drugs.  It's a Hobson's choice with overflowing prisons providing
their own counter-educational system on the one hand and eager advertising
companies ready to make a buck on pushing Panama Red during the Super Bowl
on the other.

What I was trying to point out before is that we lack a social paradigm for
responsible drug use, just as we lack one for responsible drinking (alcohol
that is).  For that matter you could say that we lack a social paradigm for
open and responsible sexual behavior too.  Even our sports models of
channeling aggression are thwarted (in terms of helping us work out our
physical aggression without harming others) by the heavy spectator emphasis
...encouraged by our pals in the advertising world.

The best deterrent to destructive behavior is peer pressure.  The highest
form of peer pressure is the positive one of having many good living examples
available to emulate.  Creating THAT reality is the long term solution.
								paul

Re: Dave P., Paul C.

While I am for the legalization of some drugs, I am completely against the 
advertisement of *ALL* recreational drugs, including tobacco and Alcohol.
Half of our alcohol problem would go away if all forms of advertisement of
hard and soft liquor was banned.  If you believe that Spuds McKenzie promos
are targeted to the 21 and up age group, I have some ocean front property in
North Dakota you might be interested in. ;-)

I am also for the education of people not to take drugs in the first place,
or at least understand the seriousness of these substances.  We should talk
to them before they become addicts, warn them.  Even if we throw all addicts
into jail, they'll continue to take drugs UNTIL *THEY* DECIDE TO STOP.  Once
they decide to stop, we must give them all the support we can because it's
a rough road back.

Dave (D.)

>                                               I am completely against the 
>advertisement of *ALL* recreational drugs, including tobacco and Alcohol.

I was just thinking about this last week while watching a beer commercial.
I wondered how many people would change the beer they drank just because
of a commercial.  Most people know what beer they like and a commercial
won't change them.  Maybe they're targeted at people who don't yet know
what beer they like and would be easily influenced by a cute ad.

		Dave

    
>    < Note 182.75 by JACOB::STANLEY "You know this space is gettin' hot..." >

>I wondered how many people would change the beer they drank just because
>of a commercial.  Most people know what beer they like and a commercial
>won't change them.  Maybe they're targeted at people who don't yet know
>what beer they like and would be easily influenced by a cute ad.

    You almost said it, Dave.  The people who would be most influenced
    would be the young adult, pre-21 age.
    
    
    GCA/
    
    

< Note 182.76 by SCAVAX::AHARONIAN "I'm literary as hell." >

>    You almost said it, Dave.  The people who would be most influenced
>    would be the young adult, pre-21 age.

Yeah, but I'll bet alot of other people thought it even though I didn't
come out and say it.  I believe it's true.  I think the same goes for cigarette
ads.

		Dave

re: past few.

Someone was threatening to take the "Spuds MacKenzie" ads to court when 
they first came out because they felt the ads where directed at too young an
age.  Next time you see a beer ad on television, guess the age of the actors/
actresses, and remember that the drinking age is 21 in all states...

Dave

My opinions...

I didn't read all the 20+ replies since Mikie? entered his reply (while I
was on vacation). 

The discusion seemed to go from the 'flesh of the gods' to the drugs
which cause social problems.

In my mind there is a distinction between opiate-derivatives (narcotics)
which are the cause of social problems and the hallucinogens that Mikie?
refers to (and which have been used/are used by shamans and the like
throughout time). One is mind-expanding the other is mind-constricting
(just ask Ram Dass or his friend Timothy Leary, or Don Jose Matsuwa
etc.). 

There are many ways to reach altered states of consciousness;
hallucinogens, drumming, deprivation, meditation, music ... but I wouldn't
include narcotics in the list. While I don't recommend anyone take a
hallucinogen to reach an altered state of consiousness, I would advise
AGAINST anyone using opiate-derivative drugs including the great American
pastime: cocaine.

Jay

RE: .79 (Jay)
    
    Just so there is no confusion (there is enough drug-misinformation
    being promulgated both by the pro and con sides of the issue) --
    
    	Cocaine is neither a narcotic nor an opiate.  There are
    	non-opiate narcotics but cocaine is not one of them.
    
    My desk dictionary defines a narcotic as an addictive "downer" [my
    paraphrase].  Cocaine, though addictive (at least in the current
    usage of that term) is an "upper" (stimulant and euphoric).
    
    I don't think that Jay intended to imply that Cocaine was an opiate,
    but slips like this can be propogated as truth, so I thought it
    best to set the record straight.
    
    					Topher

.80 (Topher)

Thanks, we can always count on you to keep the record straight, and I,
for one, appreciate it.

I did not intend to imply cocaine was an opiate. I was trying to make a
distinction between drugs which, today, cause social problems: heroine,
cocaine (and crack), and (to a certain extent) marijuana, and those which
are accepted (in certain circles) as a legitimate mind-expanding,
consciousness-altering vehicle. This is not to say that ANY drugs are
socially acceptable, or that I personally accept or condone the use of
any drug.

Jay

    Reply to .81, Jollimore,
    
    Ok, I'll be a pain the the arse.  B^)
    
    You don't condone the use of any drug?? Please specify.

Mikie?

My name is Jay.
Other than prescription drugs.
That what your looking for?

Jay

Hi Jay, hi Mikie,

I get the sense that each of you kind of knows what the other is getting
at.  Then again, I have been wrong before. :-)

		Dave

    RE: Mikie's replies
    
    Drugs have no place in a natural lifestyle.  Plants produce these
    chemicals as *defense mechanisms,* not for fun and games.  If you
    were living in the wild, you would shun psychoactive drugs as poisonous
    (which they are).  These substances would also leave you more vulnerable
    to attack from predators.
    
    John M. (Prophet of Ethical Scientism)

> Plants produce these chemicals as *defense mechanisms,*

That's a very interesting fact.  How did you determine that this was true?

		Dave

    Re .86 (Dave):
    
    Isn't it obvious?  He channeled a psychoactive plant, which told
    him. :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

       Dear Prophet of Ethical Scientism (P.E.S.T.),
      
       Maybe you can incarnate as a crystal and not worry about
    digestion?
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: .86
    
    Chew on some deadly nightshade and come back to me with your question.
    
    John M.

re: .89
    
>    Chew on some deadly nightshade and come back to me with your question.
    
Sure, but we could come up with plenty of counter-examples, John.  You
can chew on psilocybe mexicana or amanita muscaria and live to come back
for more.  The very fact that so many humans DID come back for more shows
that secreting psilocybin or muscimole is counter-productive as a defensive
strategy.  Also, the toxicity of hallucinogenic plants is often the result of
some of the non-hallucinogenic alkaloids that coexist with the hallucinogens.

(Plus your argument has a teleological sound: plants don't decide to secrete
certain chemicals because they know that those chemicals will be toxic to
animals, so it's not fair to assume that any mind-altering chemical produced
by a plant is by definition a toxin that you just didn't take enough of.)
								paul

>psilocybe mexicana or amanita muscaria and live to come back
>for more.  

However, the effect *is* toxic.  "Come closer to Death; come closer to seeing 
God..."

I think it's called specialization; it's a type of evolution in which the plant 
kingdom specializes itself to its parasites and/or "devourers", for want of a 
better word.  For example, a flower specializes itself so that a bee cannot get 
its nectar.  Certain types of bees who prefer that type of flower, grow more 
specialized equipment with which to get the nectar from the particular flower.  
I guess that's why there are so many types of honey; bees specialize themselves 
to the chosen flower to achieve its nectar.  As far as the psilocybe in the 
mushroom, etc, it will kill certain among the animal kingdom that would eat it.

RE: .90 (paul)

> (Plus your argument has a teleological sound: plants don't decide to secrete
> certain chemicals because they know that those chemicals will be toxic to
> animals...

  Ah, but they do, for the expressed purpose (it seems) of driving away
  animals that may threaten their health.  The chemical is tannin and plants
  create it in extreme levels when they are mistreated - like animals ripping
  at their limbs for food.

  What has this to do with the previous few replies, I don't know...

  Terry

< Note 182.89 by DECWET::MITCHELL "The Cosmic Anchovy" >
    
>    Chew on some deadly nightshade and come back to me with your question.

Now I understand.  You chewed on some deadly nightshade to come to your
conclusion.  Then your previous statement about defense mechanisms only
pertains to this particlular plant.  You probably should do more research to
cover the rest of the psychoactive plants.

		Dave

    Asprin comes from the willow, penicillin comes from certain molds
    and fungus, digitalis comes from the american foxglove... plants
    contain all sorts of medicinal qualities as well other properties.
        
    The plant world is filled with strange and dangerous and wonderful
    elements just like the rest of the world.  Ancient peoples used
    certain plants to heal themselves, to nourish themselves, and to bring
    themselves to a greater awareness of God.
    
    Those who wish to spend their lives safe in their own routine should
    certainly do so.  Those who wish to experience all that life offers
    will not be discouraged by the fears
    of others.
    Mary

Reply to .94, Mary,

My dear Mary, thank you for providing the needed P.E.S.T.icide.

re; .94

What a way with words.

    RE: .95 (Mikie)
    
    Don't count your pests before they are sprayed; I did not answer due to
    lack of time and for that reason only.  
    
    Stay tuned.
    
    John M.

    re: no one in particular
    
          I saw the movie "The Big Blue" this past weekend and was moved
    to tears many times.  It is a beautifully filmed movie with superb
    underwater shots, especially when seen on a big screen.  I loved
    the sound track, too.  What is different about the underwater scenes,
    from any other movie I have ever seen, is the lack of creatures
    and ocean floor---in other words, the "void" of the sea in its
    purest sense.  What this has to do with this note is that it was
    dramatized in the movie that the divers would get "high" from
    their pursuits (the story line has two great friends competing
    with each other in world competition to see who could dive, sans
    breathing apparatus, etc., the deepest.)  Since my girlfriend is
    a former scuba instructor who once was startled by an encounter
    with a whale with whom she "danced-around-around" for ten minutes
    and has dived to 80 feet, she indicated that the "draw" of the
    ocean can be quite incredible.  Perhaps fear of the unknown has
    something to do with it.  Moreover, someone I spoke with the past
    two days told of a friend who went scuba diving in Monterey Bay
    (Ca.) at night once.  He said that there was never anything he
    had ever done more frightening than to be in an incredibly black
    void with nothing but one light.  Anyway, though this is a bit of
    a stretch for this topic, the change in body chemistry, as a 
    result of pressure, does produce an altered state of consciousness
    also.  And, it's done "naturally."  Oh, and by the way, I give
    a giant 'thumbs up' to the movie, in spite of the jerk critics,
    and recommend it to anyone wanting to go to a movie anytime soon.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    	Re .85 -  "Drugs have no place in a natural lifestyle"
    
    Not true. If you look, you will find evidence that animals - birds,
    cows, rabbits - will deliberately ingest certain substances (which
    they likely regard as "food") that have a subsequent effect of
    intoxication. To never be intoxicated can concievably be just as
    much an "out of balance condition" (with respect to what is "natural")
    as being intoxicated continuously! I dont think you'll find evidence
    where an animal maintains a continuous state of intoxication.
    
    You have to be careful when you say "natural" because nature is
    simply not "spit 'n polish clean" in all her ways. That's a *human*
    reasoning!
    
    	Joe Jas

re: .99 (Joe)

    > To never be intoxicated can concievably be just as much an "out 
      of balance condition" (with respect to what is "natural") as being 
      intoxicated continuously! 

      Huh???  My experiences with intoxication can't possibly be
      considered an attempt at balance (some of the times I couldn't
      balance (physically) if my life depended on it :').

      Could you elaborate and give an example ot two??

      Terry

    
    	I meant that *both* conditions; one, "never being intoxicated",
    the other, "being intoxicated continuously" are out of balance with
    respect to what is "natural". "Never" is as far out on the left
    hand side of the stick as you can get, "Always" is as far out on
    the right hand side of the stick as you can get. "Balance" is dead
    center, in terms of "the stick" being a scale of frequency of
    occurrance. It only means it happens sometimes in nature. Note I
    have not speculated on what the "natural" frequency is. 
    
    	Joe Jas 

    RE: .101
    
    A bird that eats a fermented berry is definitely at a disadvantage
    because doing so impairs its judgment and motor control.
    In fact, a lot of birds dead on the highway did just that.  It is
    rare for other animals to become intoxicated because the amount
    of alcohol needed to cause intoxication is rarely present in natural
    situations (to say nothing of the *taste* being disagreeable).
    
    Tell me... how many horses go back to eat loco weed?
    
    Notice something else?  Plants that contain psychoactive toxins
    have little or no food value; why do you think that is?
    
    People are just amazing.  In Japan there is a deadly fish that,
    if prepared "just right" can give you a buzz.  I guess
    god put it here so that humans could get their jollies.  

    Yes, there are plants that contain chemicals that can be useful
    or recreational for humans.  But this is no more "natural" than
    shooting heroine, really.  People, just like every other animal,
    are born with all the senses they need to interpret their environment.
    Drugs do not "expand" the perception of reality; they merely distort
    it. But people who want to get high will invent all manner of excuses
    to do so, including the claim that they are just doing what comes
    naturally.  Poppycock.
                                                                         
    John M.

    
    Dear John M.
    		In reply to your poppycock statement I must beg to differ.
    From the beginning of recorded time psychoactive plants have been
    used for religious purposes by a multiplicity of cultures. My
    understanding of your belief system is that such experiences have
    no redeeming value and do not lead to an opening of awareness on
    any level. My question is, why is it that the multiplicity of cultures
    through time found benefit in the use of such plants? The use of
    such plants by a Mayan brujo is not in the same league as some kid
    taking lsd to get high. As a person who went through the '60s, all
    I can say is that I've experienced things that definitely were in
    the realm of paranormal and psychic. You can choose to denigrate
    the claim and just put it down to self induced illusion, but my
    experience was otherwise.
    						Peace
                                                     Reilly
    

    Poppycock yourself, John.
    
    Animals do not deliberately seek out psychoactive plants.  However,
    I have read hilarious stories, particularly about bears and elephants,
    who chow down on particular fruits when they're in season.  Due
    to the way they digest these things, the fruits ferment in their
    stomachs.  Park rangers in North America and Africa have had a great
    time hiding from the animals and watching their antics after they
    get unintentionally drunk.  They have also observed that the animals
    do not avoid the fruit later; they run right back to chow down on
    the stuff after the hangover wears off; they probably remember that
    they tasted great and that they got really high.
    
    I have also spent much time at public fountains that stock ornamental
    fish, such as carp, in the Hawaiian Islands.  I always wondered
    why the fish gathered at the waterfalls.  I watched the caretaker
    in Ala Moana shopping mall feeding the carp one day; he explained
    that the fish liked the extra oxygen they got from the foaming,
    aerated water splashing down the little waterfalls.  Remembering
    the high I got in chem lab when we sniffed the oxygen we made up,
    I can't help but wonder if the fish were dreamily collected beneath
    the waterfall in a sort of O2 trance, much like I used to see people
    nursing drinks in their favorite bars.  O2 could certainly make
    a human float; why not a fish?
    
    And then there are cats.  Ah, catnip.  Surely you have heard how
    the felines like that particular herb?  And, like people with their
    own sensitivities, my 5 felines have their preferences and tolerances.
    Two don't care for the stuff.  One gobbles down all he can, falls
    asleep as if stunned, and throws up when he wakens.  Two others
    become wild and kittenish, performing all manner of ludicrous circus
    tricks and sleep a lot the next day.
    
    Marcia

    
    re: .102
    
    How convenient, John...  the fact that some animals eat other animals
    does not justify people eating meat,     but your claims that
    animals avoid ingesting psychoactive substances does justify
    your admonitions that people avoid psychoactive substances.
    
    I guess we're free to take our examples according to our belief
    systems, eh John???
    
    	bruce

RE: .103 (Reilly)

    > My question is, why is it that the multiplicity of cultures through
    time found benefit in the use of such plants? The use of such plants by
    a Mayan brujo is not in the same league as some kid taking lsd to get
    high. < 

Well, yes it is.  Both are doing it to change their *perception* of reality.
Reality does not change.  If you get high and perceive me as a 7' warthog
that does not change the reality of my being a 6'1" asshole.  ;-)

    > I've experienced things that definitely were in the realm of
    paranormal and psychic. < 

Well, that's nice, but if your brain was not functioning normally (an it
would not have been) how can you conclude that anything you saw was other
than a distortion?  It's like a schizophrenic telling the masses about
"reality"... and as valid.   

Anyone can get high.  Having a religious experience with all of one's mental
faculties *intact* is something really worth pondering.


RE: .104 (Marcia)

    >....Park rangers in North America and Africa have had a great time
    hiding from the animals and watching their antics after they get
    unintentionally drunk.  They have also observed that the animals do not
    avoid the fruit later; they run right back to chow down on the stuff
    after the hangover wears off; they probably remember that they tasted
    great and that they got really high  < 

Fermentation of the type you describe does not happen instantaneously. 
There is simply no way for the animal to draw a connection between what
they eat and the reaction it produces in this case.  In the one human case
that I know of where intestinal fermentation took place the person never
made the connection that what he ate had anything to do with it (that was
not determined until after surgery).  Fermentation is really a different
subject anyway, since anything containing carbohydrate will support it,
given the right conditions.  That is a whole lot different than a systemic
toxin.


    > ...the fish liked the extra oxygen they got from the foaming, aerated
    water splashing down the little waterfalls....< 


Well, of course they did!  Don't you prefer fresh air to stale?  The fish
aren't seeking a "high" any more than a person is who takes a walk in the
open air.


RE: catnip

That is a subject unto itself and is something I am still looking into.
Why does it only effect cats in this way?  If you have information on how
*wild* catnip effects *wild* cats, please share it!


EVERYBODY:  I am not saying that drugs can't be useful or recreational,
just don't call them *natural.*  It is natural in the same way that shooting
heroin is natural.  I'll be the first to admit that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG
WITH ARTIFICE as long as we remember the proper place of it.

RE: animals and drugs (I don't remember who said it and am too lazy to look
it up)
                                                   
Everything I have said regarding the "naturnalness" of drugs is entirely
consistent with my statements regarding vegetarianism.  People are animals with
animal bodies that function the same as with any other animal.  Only humans
choose to override their natural system of checks and balances, allowing us to
do all manner of things that are not good for us (meat-based diets, drug
addiction, etc.)  You can eat meat without ill effects and you can take drugs
without permanent damage.  NEITHER ACT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING
OF THE HUMAN BODY. The difference is that taking drugs does not require a
victim, whereas eating meat does.  I do NOT think it is acceptable for people
to eat meat in a *non-survival* situation for this very reason.  If a person
wants to take drugs, that is their business and they should be free to do
so!  People should be free to do whatever they like *with their own bodies*
and drugs are no exception.  Let's just not act as if psychoactive plants
were put here for human use.

John

re: .106 (John)

>  The difference is that taking drugs does not require a victim...

   I doesn't require it, but it certainly can have a bunch.  As I
   said in .51 & .53, if the drug is of the illegal variety and
   obtained from the usual network, the user is part of all activities
   that got it into his/her hands.  That can be anything from robery,
   extortion, murder to the overthrow of some third-world government -
   taking who knows how many lives.  Granted, buying a Mr. Coffee may
   link me to some crime as well (like the store owner killed his wife's 
   brother to get the store as part of an inheritance), but this is a bit 
   more direct and the buyer knows, or should know what their supporting.

   Terry

re: .106 
I'm impressed but puzzled by the number of firm opinions you seem to
have on so many topics, John.  Are your beliefs really that unshakeable
or did you just acquire a skill for forceful presentation?  I'm equally
baffled by the folks here in NOTES that can tell you exactly how many
astral planes there are and what spirits inhabit them, or what Jesus's
precise views on any modern issue would be (complete with biblical
citations), etc.  I have a some strong opinions, but I would be hard put
to think of any one that didn't contain at least some ambivalence or
reservation.  Doesn't anyone else find some value in Doubt?

re: .107
>   said in .51 & .53, if the drug is of the illegal variety and
>   obtained from the usual network, the user is part of all activities
>   that got it into his/her hands.  That can be anything from robery,
>   extortion, murder to the overthrow of some third-world government -

As Abbie Hoffman used to say, if you want to increase the crime rate,
pass more laws!  Argument #1 for legalizing all drugs.  That's one of the
issues that I have strong but ambivalent opinions about, as I mentioned
above.  Laws against drugs are manifestly counterproductive in their
social effects, but it's not clear how easily we can do away with them
at this point and get the same effect as never having had the laws.

For instance, if you're going up a stairway to nowhere you can probably jump
over the railing to get off when you're still close to the bottom; when
you're up to the 99th stair, you couldn't do that and survive--you'd have
to back down the long, hard way.  (Maybe one of the ideological carnivores
would apply this analogy to our meat-eating practices too.)  For all of
our anti-establishment tendencies here, it's wise to remember that social
experiments that try to do it all overnight often meet with catastrophic
results (how about the Red Guards, or Prohibition, or the French Revolution?).
								paul

RE: .106 (John M.)
    
	I see some fantastic jumps of logic (or lack thereof) between:

>> NEITHER ACT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE HUMAN BODY. 

    	and:
        
>> Let's just not act as if psychoactive plants were put here for human use.
    
    I don't know why those plants exist, and neither do you.  Admit
    it, they *may* actually be here to get people high.   I agree 
    that they aren't necessary.   Looks to me like you are freaking 
    out on the abuse of the term "natural".   The way I see it, if 
    people do it it must be what's natural for people to do.  From 
    that point of view, it's also natural for some to persecute
    drug users.    Why is it that *anything* a wild animal does is
    considered "natural"?  Acts of domestic animals *may* be "natural",
    but may not.   (I submit that humans are wild, undomesticated,
    and therefore "natural".)  Personally, I like to abuse words and 
    concepts, like the word  "natural", naturally.   In fact, as a 
    poet, I *demand* the right to abuse terms.   Arguements which
    center on semantic disputes make for bad poetry, and when words get
    confined to definitional boxes they lose their "natural" flexibility.

					Alan.

    RE: .107 (Terry)
    
    Yes, I agree.
    
    John M.

RE: .108 (Paul)
    
    >  I'm impressed but puzzled by the number of firm opinions you seem to
    have on so many topics, John.  Are your beliefs really that unshakeable
    or did you just acquire a skill for forceful presentation? < 
    
    
    Neither.  I am a prophet.
    
                             
    John M.

RE: .109 (Alan) who_should_be_spelling_his_name_Allen
    
    
  >  I don't know why those plants exist, and neither do you.  <
    
    But what if I DO?
    
    >  Admit
    it, they *may* actually be here to get people high. <
    
    And they *may* be here because God likes green.  And my sister *may*
    be a trilobite.  And there *may* be a birthday cake somewhere that
    is really a centipede and .....   (I just HATE the "everything is
    anything" mentality.  It is useless.)
    
    >   I agree 
    that they aren't necessary.   Looks to me like you are freaking 
    out on the abuse of the term "natural".  <
    
    Not at all.  "That which has been established for the whole of
    creation."  Next question.
                               
    >   Why is it that *anything* a wild animal does is
    considered "natural"?  <
    
    Where did you get that idea?  All animals have the capacity to exhibit
    abnormal behavior.  It's just that people make an institution of
    it.
    
       >   In fact, as a 
    poet, I *demand* the right to abuse terms. <
    
    And as poet, I demand the right to use them correctly.  Only *bad*
    poets abuse terms.  ~/~
                           
    
    Let me leave you with this:
    
    Consider the red pepper.  Virtually every animal will shun this
    fruit because of the ....uh capacin?....it contains (what makes
    peppers hot).  This is a DEFENSE mechanism of the plant.  It means,
    "Don't eat me!  My seeds cannot be propagated through your intestines!"
    Now, every animal on this planet will shun eating red peppers (if
    you don't believe me, try feeding one to your dog or cat).  Only
    man ignores the "warning signal" of this plant and considers it
    some kind of delicacy.  Drugs are the same way.  They are there
    as defense mechanisms that are ignored by humans (who override their
    natural inclinations to shun such substances).  Again, I'm not saying
    that this is inherently "bad" (if not carried to extreme) just don't
    assume that pepper plants were put here so that we might have Mexican
    restaurants.
    
    John M.
    
    

Re:< Note 182.112 by DECWET::MITCHELL "The Cosmic Anchovy" >

>RE: .109 (Alan) who_should_be_spelling_his_name_Allen
    
>>  I don't know why those plants exist, and neither do you.  <<
    
>   But what if I DO?  <

Good question, John. What if you do? What if Alan does? What if I do?
I don't get your argument there. Are we supposed to quit using drugs
(including cafein and nicotine) simply because you *may* be right?
We could argue ad infinitum about 'may be' and 'what if'.


I don't want to get into the rest of your reply, it reminds me too much of 
SOAPBOX and your replies there about vegetarianism. No one can out-debate you, 
John. Your opinion will never change. But consider this. Just because you are 
better at 'expressing' your *opinion* than others are (myself anyway), does not 
make your views right or correct. They are still simply opinions, with no more 
worth or value than anyone else's opinions. Please don't let DEJAVU degenerate 
to the level SOAPBOX did by continuing an argument that can't be settled.

Pete

P.S. If you run into Phil hays, tell him I said 'Hi!'.
    

RE: .113 (Pete)

    >  Are we supposed to quit using drugs (including cafein and nicotine)
    simply because you *may* be right? < 

AGAIN, I did not say that people should not use drugs if they want to! I said
that it is foolish to consider certain plant substances "natural" gifts to
mankind for healing, supposed mind-expansion, or seasoning.  These substances
are in plants to serve as defense mechanisms or support the plants own life
functions.  We can take the substances out of these plants or use the plants
themselves (which have little or no food value) to achieve certain ends,
but it is important to keep in mind the artifice of doing so.  Psychoactive
plant substances and the like do not exist for human use any more than human
blood exists for mosquito use (less so, really; given that they do not support
survival).                              
    

    > Your opinion will never change. < 


If that were true, I would still be eating meat.


    >  But consider this. Just because you are better at 'expressing' your
    *opinion* than others are (myself anyway), does not make your views
    right or correct. They are still simply opinions, with no more worth or
    value than anyone else's opinions.  < 

They are opinions in the same way that my stating "your heart pumps blood" is
an opinion.  My "opinions" are based on botanical fact.  Feel free to spin any
kind of fantasy around the truth you want (it's done all the time here) but
don't expect me to adopt an "everything is anything" attitude that flies in the
face of simple reason, OK? 


    > P.S. If you run into Phil hays, tell him I said 'Hi!'. < 

OK!  He's just around the hall.

John M.

    Dear John M.,
    		I too am in 'awe' of your forcefully stated opinions
    that to the unitiated can take on the aura of law. I find that the
    older I get, the less I know for sure. When eighteen, I thought
    I had it all figured out. Now at 44 the universe is a magical wonder-
    land that keeps on getting more mysterious and interesting. I'm
    glad for you that you can be so 'sure' that what you opinionate
    is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    		Now as to my 'altered consciousness' experiences as
    a not so callow youth, I can say in good faith that what occured
    was more than schizophrenic myopia. What was encountered and observed
    happened with other people who attested to the validity of the exper-
    iences. There is a whole lot of filtering going on by the brain
    that creates the consensual reality that we all share. In this area
    I would agree with Aldous Huxley that psychoactive substances can
    open up the doors of perception a bit so that one can experience
    what is already there; though not normally perceived by the senses.
    		Here in my dotage I no longer indulge in the use of
    natural substances in order to open the door in my head. Ram Dass
    said somewhere that the problem with the use of psychoactive stuff
    is that once the effect wears off you are still where you were at
    before for the most part. For the last twelve years various forms
    of meditation are key to altering brain chemistry that allows that
    door to open without the trauma of recovering from a drug. 
    		However, I honor the learning experiences that were
    accorded to me through the use of natural substances. They definitely
    spurred me on to engage reality from an even more natural state.
    I also don't mind that the same kind of paranormal and psychic
    occurences first encountered 'under the influence' still are happening.
    
    						Peace
                                                     Reilly

.112 (John M.)

>   Now, every animal on this planet will shun eating red peppers (if
>   you don't believe me, try feeding one to your dog or cat).  Only
>   man ignores the "warning signal" of this plant and considers it
>   some kind of delicacy.  Drugs are the same way.  

My parrot LOVES red peppers. I can't get 'im to smoke a joint tho.
Personally, I like to smoke trout, but they're hard to roll.

Nyuck nycuk
Jay

    It has been said here a couple of times that a strong, forceful
    opinion might be taken as 'gospel truth'.  I'd like to say that
    this is a problem on the side of the listener, and not the speaker.
    Anyone who blindly accepts _anything_ without question simply because
    it is stated forcefully and with conviction should perhaps consider
    changing this mode of behavior....expecially when it comes to
    questioning the actions of their particular government.
    
    John states it as he sees it.  There isn't anything wrong with this
    in the least.  I may not always agree with him, however unlike other
    places I've been where I've been personally attacked for what I
    believe in, John has never gone after a particular individual or
    resorted to namecalling that I can recall. 
    
    Community - where everybody feels safe to be themselves and to express
    that which they believe in.
    
    Cindy

re: .118 (Cindy)

	Well said.

	Terry

Cindy:

	I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. I have no complaints with John
except for the way he throws the word "fact" around. After all, it wasn't *that 
long ago*, that it was a "fact" that the world was flat and was the center of 
the universe.

John:

	I respect your opinions and see alot of validity behind them. If you 
were to have said "generally accepted belief of the scientific commuity" instead
of "fact", there would have been nothing in your reply that I could find 
objectionable. Of course, you're not in this world to live up to my 
expectations.

Pete

re: .120 (Pete)

Yes, but in keeping with what Cindy pointed out, if John insists 
something is fact, it is only his *opinion* that it is fact.  I may or
may not accept it a such, and therefore, view his responses as the expression
of his opinion, his feelings, perceptions or whatever you want to call it.
How I view it is up to me and only me.

Reading notes in DEJAVU is like going to the grocery store.  Some grocers
would have you buy one of everything.  But most folks know ahead of time
what they want, listen to the grocer, decide if what he says makes
sense to them, and if so, adjust their list accordingly; if not, they buy
what they came for and go home.  Some of the folks here sound as if they 
would prefer that the grocer move his store out of the neighborhood when his 
ideas/suggestions don't agree with theirs.

Terry

PS. Note how you used the word fact in your reply.  You, in all cases, you
    enclosed it in quotes.  Does that mean you question whether it is fact?

Note 182.106                         


> EVERYBODY:  I am not saying that drugs can't be useful or recreational,
> just don't call them *natural.*  It is natural in the same way that shooting
> heroin is natural.  I'll be the first to admit that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG
> WITH ARTIFICE as long as we remember the proper place of it.

That created by man is artificial,... that created by God is natural.  
You can equate all drugs with the experience of "shooting heroin" John,
but anyone with any knowledge or experience knows that what you are saying 
is not true.  And all of the money being poured into television and 
public awareness campaigns will not make it true.  And all of the best
intentioned directives of our politicians will not make it true.  And all
of the propaganda efforts conducted in our schools will not make it true.
That you believe a plant growing wild in the jungle to be as unnatural
as the act of injecting oneself with heroin reflects only the bias
of your judgement.

    
>NEITHER ACT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING
>OF THE HUMAN BODY. The difference is that taking drugs does not require a
>victim, whereas eating meat does.  I do NOT think it is acceptable for people
>to eat meat in a *non-survival* situation for this very reason.  If a person
>wants to take drugs, that is their business and they should be free to do
>so!  People should be free to do whatever they like *with their own bodies*
>and drugs are no exception.  Let's just not act as if psychoactive plants
>were put here for human use.


The proper functioning of the human body may not be the only reason for
mankind's existence.  Those of us who seek beyond the physical, beyond
breathing and salivating and digestion and defecation, are concerned 
with things beyond the proper functioning of the human body.  We are
also concerned with the human mind, the human soul, and the human experience.

If anything at all was put here for human use...  the plants were. 
Psychoactive plants are no different in that respect than any other plant.


> AGAIN, I did not say that people should not use drugs if they want to! I said
> that it is foolish to consider certain plant substances "natural" gifts to
> mankind for healing, supposed mind-expansion, or seasoning.  These substances
> are in plants to serve as defense mechanisms or support the plants own life
> functions.  We can take the substances out of these plants or use the plants
> themselves (which have little or no food value) to achieve certain ends,
> but it is important to keep in mind the artifice of doing so.  

All plant substances are natural gifts to mankind for healing, seasoning,
nourishment and mind-expansion.  It doesn't matter why the substances are
in plants in the first place.  It is no more artificial to use the substances
in plants or the plants themselves for our own ends than it is to breathe.
People don't need excuses to do what comes naturally to them John.  



Note 182.107                         

Terry,

>   I doesn't require it, but it certainly can have a bunch.  As I
>   said in .51 & .53, if the drug is of the illegal variety and
>   obtained from the usual network, the user is part of all activities
>   that got it into his/her hands.  That can be anything from robery,
>   extortion, murder to the overthrow of some third-world government -
>   taking who knows how many lives.  Granted, buying a Mr. Coffee may
>   link me to some crime as well (like the store owner killed his wife's 
>   brother to get the store as part of an inheritance), but this is a bit 
>   more direct and the buyer knows, or should know what their supporting.
>

Prohibition showed us that it is the attempt to regulate human behavior
that creates and fosters the network of violence and illegal activity.

    Those who attempt to control the behavior of the masses by trying to
    change behavior that has always existed in one form or another, 
    to attempt to regulate large numbers of individuals to benefits 
    society as a whole or some small group of ruling individuals
    are overestimating the amount of power and control government and society
    actually has acquired over the individual.  
    
    Cannibis seeds have been found in prehistoric settlements.  
    Ancient people used plants are part of their religious rituals.  
    Todays teenager may well be seeking from the Magic Mushroom the 
    spiritual enlightenment, guidance and solace that he is not getting 
    from the political and materialistic religions of our modern world.  
    The hope and the comfort he is not getting from our modern society.
    For society to admit that would be for society to admit failure.
    So the practice is condemmed.


	Mary
                                                                       

re: .123 (Mary)

>  That created by man is artificial,... that created by God is natural.  

   Huh?  Man and woman together can create life.  Is that new life to be 
   considered artificial?  

>  Prohibition showed us that it is the attempt to regulate human behavior
>  that creates and fosters the network of violence and illegal activity.

   I don't at all disagree with the problems created by writing laws to
   control substances, nor do necessarily support the ones that exist.  What 
   I'm saying is they *exist* and those who circumvent them by purchasing
   illegal drugs have, by matter of *pure* personal choice, dragged themselves 
   into the repulsive, degenerate activities caused by the creation of such
   laws.  Some like to ignore this, I can't. 

   Terry

    I couldn't stay out of this any longer:
    
    1) The concept of natural vs artificial is (if I may be somewhat
    oxymoronic) a completely artificial one.  It reflects a philosophy
    in which human beings are somehow outside of or beyond nature. 
    At best the set of "artificial" things is a subset of those things
    which are "natural" in any real sense (i.e., everything).  The idea
    that we are in any way capable of doing or creating anything which
    is not "natural" is such an extreme example of "Western Materlialist
    thinking" that few actual "Western Materialist Thinkers" would,
    after thought endorse it.
    
    To shift frames of reference: if we have lost the Tao then it is
    because it is our nature to lose the Tao and thus we can only appear
    to have lost it.
    
    2) John, almost nothing you have said in your support has had the
    same kind of epistemolgical support as "your heart pumps blood".
    Some is just plain rationalist opinion without supporting evidence
    (e.g., you make statements about the why psychoactive substances
    are in plants -- biology can speak of the functions that aspects
    of an organism can serve to that organism, and evolutionary theory
    can speculate about how those functions changed and developed over
    time, but they *cannot* speak of *purpose*.  To speak of purpose
    is to speak of God's intent or lack of it; and this is beyond the
    reach of science.  That I share your opinion in this does not lead
    me to confuse my opinion -- actually I would say, my presumption
    -- with established fact).  Much of it is opinion about the ability
    to generalize certain very limited facts: that you do not know
    of cases where animals repeatedly seek the simulation of psychoactive
    substance simply cannot be taken to mean that it is a fact that
    non-human animals never do so.  I for one know of many reports
    of them doing this (in the wild, in association with humans and
    in the lab), and while I am not willing to take this as proven
    (particularly in the wild) it is only your opinion which dismisses
    such reports as untrue or irrelevant.  The size of the research
    project which would be needed to establish your opinion as fact
    at the same level as what is known of the function of the human
    heart is staggering: in comparison the supercollider is basement
    science.
    
    There is an implication that psychoactive substances are generally
    contained in plants in order to cause negatively reinforcing
    psychochemical effects in higher animals such as humans.  This
    is probably true in some cases, but I think it is unlikely to
    be generally true.  Where function is known, generally those
    substances seem to work against much "less advanced" predators:
    insects, molds, bacteria etc.  Their modification of human
    cortical function would seem to be completely incidental.  This
    certainly seems to be the case for both caffein and nicotine.
    
    While it is certainly true that psychoactive substances are not
    necessary for survival, this is not all there is to the question.
    A good backrub is not necessary for survival either, but it is
    nevertheless positively reinforcing for humans (and some non-humans)
    and even beneficial.  The development by evolutionary mechanisms
    of sophisticated symbol-processing capacity in human beings seems
    to have carried with it (perhaps by "design") some apparently non-
    functional but definitely real psychological tropisms (it is a common
    error to suppose that evolutionary theory requires that everything have
    a function -- many observable characteristics of organisms are simply
    side effects of the easiest way evolution had of developing some other,
    more functional characteristic).  Fulfillment of those tropisms is
    a real human drive, and seems to result in many cases in more
    functional organisms.  It is a *fact* (i.e., there is a good deal
    of evidence for it) that psychoactive drugs can aid in that
    fulfillment.  (It is also a fact that they are not neccessary and
    that they carry some severe risks even within a well controlled
    cultural matrix -- which no one reading this newsgroup has the
    advantage of).
    
    		     		Topher

    
    Reading the last twenty or so replies leaves me wondering where
    all our usual caution ( eg protections / white light etc for ouija
    et al ) escapes to when it comes to drugs ?
    
    
    Why do people feel they need drugs to get enlightenment ? is it
    just an "I can't be bothered with all that meditation and practise
    and stuff so I'll just blow my mind and see what happens" attitude
    or am I missing something ?
    
    What is the point of engaging in something in which your senses are so
    over-loaded you'll never know what really happened anyway ? 
    
    
    >>    Todays teenager may well be seeking from the Magic Mushroom the 
    >> spiritual enlightenment, guidance and solace that he is not getting 
    >> from the political and materialistic religions of our modern world.  
    
    Todays teenager must be pretty advanced... my contemporaries were
    either into 'getting high' ( about 95% of them anyhow ) or were lured
    toward 'instant enlightenment' by some of the attitudes displayed here.
    Whatever, at least one of them now knows the ultimate truths ; the only
    problem with that being that he's dead.
                                                  
    
    >>    Cannibis seeds have been found in prehistoric settlements.  
 
    And in two thousand years, our successors will be able to say the
    same thing about heroin laced hypodermics.
    
    
    You are all you need, Dave.

Note 182.126                         


>    Todays teenager must be pretty advanced... my contemporaries were
>    either into 'getting high' ( about 95% of them anyhow ) or were lured
>    toward 'instant enlightenment' by some of the attitudes displayed here.
>    Whatever, at least one of them now knows the ultimate truths ; the only
>    problem with that being that he's dead.

Everybody dies.  Many of my contemporaries died in Vietnam, others died on
the nations highways.  America has one of the highest infant death rates 
of all the industrialized nations.  More infants die in a year in our
country than have all of the victims of AIDS since it was detected here.  

Death is a part of the experience of living, it will always be with us,
it is something we all must confront.   Whether we confront it on the 
battlefield or a rest home or hospital or highway or in an altered state, 
we still die.  Nothing will stop our impending death.  We live therefore
to experience the fullness of life while we may... as we choose.  
Before the ultimate experience transforms us once again.

Mary

re: .127

 >  We live therefore to experience the fullness of life while we may... 
 >  as we choose.  

    Or *not* experience, _as_we_choose_.  And then, who defines 
    "fullness of life"?  Another word for personal perception.

    Terry

RE: .123 (Mary)

    > That created by man is artificial,... that created by God is natural.
    You can equate all drugs with the experience of "shooting heroin" John,
    but anyone with any knowledge or experience knows that what you are
    saying is not true. < 

And anyone with an ounce of reason knows that what I am saying IS true.
TELL ME that smoking pot is any more "natural" than shooting heroine!  Again,
the intent of both practices is to create an altered physiological state
by the introduction of foreign substances.  Anyone who thinks that they
were designed to do this is just kidding themselves.


    > The proper functioning of the human body may not be the only reason
    for mankind's existence.  Those of us who seek beyond the physical,
    beyond breathing and salivating and digestion and defecation, are
    concerned with things beyond the proper functioning of the human body.
    < 

Your view is dangerous at worst and anthropocentric at best.  The whole
of creation does not revolve around mankind; it never has and it never will.
Human bodies don't need drugs any more than other animal bodies do.  If
you want to use these substances then do so.  But to pretend that pot was
put here for humans to smoke is self-delusion (something else people have
a right to).


    >  We are also concerned with the human mind, the human soul, and the
    human experience. < 
                       
    
Great.  None of the above concerns require ingesting foreign substances.


    > If anything at all was put here for human use...  the plants were. < 

More anthropocentrism.

 
    > Psychoactive plants are no different in that respect than any other
    plant. < 

They are in that there are inherent dangers in "using" them.  Again, these
plants have no food value and were certainly not evolved for human consumption
(something else to think about:  many of these plants are not indigenous
to Africa where most of human evolution took place.  Makes you wonder how
something that grew in, say, North America for millions of years with no
humans in sight was "intended" for humans). 


    > All plant substances are natural gifts to mankind for healing,
    seasoning, nourishment and mind-expansion.  It doesn't matter why the
    substances are in plants in the first place.  It is no more artificial
    to use the substances in plants or the plants themselves for our own
    ends than it is to breathe. People don't need excuses to do what comes
    naturally to them John.  < 

I love that last sentence.  Using your logic, I can state that helium exists
so that humans can inhale it and talk funny.  Of course, helium has no value
as a food or oxidant, but that doesn't mean that it is unnatural for humans
to breathe it, right?  And if you inhale too much, you'll black out for
lack of oxygen.  But it's still natural, right?

Sometimes I feel as though I am conversing with space aliens.


RE: .125 (Topher)


    >  The concept of natural vs artificial is (if I may be somewhat
    oxymoronic) a completely artificial one.  It reflects a philosophy in
    which human beings are somehow outside of or beyond nature.  < 

Quite the opposite, really.  You'll find anthropocentrism at the very core
of all the arguments for the "naturalness" of drugs in this topic.


    >    At best the set of "artificial" things is a subset of those things
    which are "natural" in any real sense (i.e., everything).  The idea
    that we are in any way capable of doing or creating anything which is
    not "natural" is such an extreme example of "Western Materlialist
    thinking"... < 

That statement is absurd.  The argument that anything that anything man
creates is natural by virtue of man himself being natural is a very old
and very silly one.  Using this argument one can argue that toxic waste,
nuclear war, and just about anything else can be excused as "just a part
of nature."

The concept of what constitutes "natural" is difficult for many people to
understand because people have surrounded themselves with artifice (from
fire to computers) for so long that it is difficult to picture the correct
setting for our bodies.  For instance, people have no problem describing
the GI tract of Great Apes as being evolved for a vegetable diet, but when
we talk about the identical system in humans, we hear justification upon
justification as to why humans MUST have meat in their diets.  It doesn't
matter that animal carcasses must be killed, rendered and processed by
artificial means in order for bodies supposedly so evolved for meat consumption
to use them.  Now we are being told why lighting the leaves of one plant
and inhaling the smoke in order to bring about artificial perceptions of
reality is "natural" for humans.  Of course, it is no more natural for humans
to do this than it would be for a cat or a panda or any other mammal to
do this, but that is beside the point; humans are somehow special.


A lot of people seem to be having a hard time understand what is meant by
natural, so let's use the definition:

"having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature."
[From Webster's New Collegiate]


    > John, almost nothing you have said in your support has had the same
    kind of epistemolgical support as "your heart pumps blood". Some is
    just plain rationalist opinion without supporting evidence (e.g., you
    make statements about the why psychoactive substances are in plants --
    biology can speak of the functions that aspects of an organism can
    serve to that organism, and evolutionary theory can speculate about how
    those functions changed and developed over time, but they *cannot*
    speak of *purpose*.  < 


They certainly can.  What is the purpose for the thorns on a rose, to serve
as a defense for the plant or to give aphids a spot to jump from?  Why does
a lion have canines, to tear the flesh of it's prey, or to give their heads
something to rest on when they are asleep?  Let's be real here, OK?  If
we are to ignore the obvious, then there is simply no foundation for discussing
*anything.*


    > To speak of purpose is to speak of God's intent or lack of it; and
    this is beyond the reach of science. < 

Oh please.  Only a fool would spend time philosophizing about the purpose of
mother's milk.  The intent is obvious and it is well within the reach of
science to state what the purpose is.


John M.
                                          

    
    Re.129 (John M.)
    
    >Sometimes I feel as if I'm conversing with space aliens.
    
    Do you have this experience very often, or does it correlate to
    the amount of time you spend in this conference?
    
    I(;^)
    
    Cindy  (prehistoric face with bone on head...just made it up)

Q: How many DEJAVUers does it take to change a light bulb?



A:  One to change the bulb and 150 to deny that it is burnt out.



JUST KIDDING!

John M. ;-)

    Re .106 (John):
    
    I've already said what I said about drugs, however ....
    
>RE: catnip
>
>That is a subject unto itself and is something I am still looking into.
>Why does it only effect cats in this way?  If you have information on how
>*wild* catnip effects *wild* cats, please share it!
 
    There was an article on this in _Science_ about 25 years ago.  It
    seems that the catnip plant (Nepeta cataria) produces an oil that
    happens to give cats a high (and is also a powerful aphrodesiac
    for unneutered tomcats [note: it works that way only on tomcats
    -- for people, it's a calmative, if anything]).  However, ther reason
    for this oil is as a defense against insects (it acts as something
    of a repellant) that might eat it.
    
    A number of years ago, on the television show _Zoo Parade_ (predecessor
    to _Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom_), several _bales_ of catnip
    were placed in the Chicago Zoo's tiger enclosure (one of the early
    moat systems).  Out of four tigers, two ignored the catnip, one
    was mildly interested, and the remaining one was as playful as any
    housecat on the stuff.
    
    I don't believe catnip is native to the Indian subcontinent.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    re: John
    
         I tend to validate drugs only on a case-specific basis and
    have pretty much expressed my views earlier (somewhere in the .40's
    in this topic) so I don't wish to restate old stuff.  What I wish
    to add my comments on, however, has to do with defining purpose.
    I completely agree with Topher that purpose cannot be that easily
    determined.  Mother's milk may have developed for another reason
    and THEN discovered to be helpful as a nutritive asset, e.g. 
    We have already often talked about science vs. non-science, so
    to do that here seems out of order, somehow, yet it basically 
    describes what the lines of demarkation in this part of the
    "discussion" are about:  "God's" purpose or some other order
    purpose ("alien") or strictly a slide-rule vision of the world.
    I believe life is subjective and that objectivism lies within
    that...solipism and egocentrism are nice words to throw around
    when one can't understand spirituality.  Perhaps one of your 
    biggest "flaws" is that you do not seem to relate to a larger
    sense of being...a difference that is not commonly shared
    by DEJAVUers.
    
    Frederick
    

Note 182.128                         


>    Or *not* experience, _as_we_choose_.  And then, who defines 
>    "fullness of life"?  Another word for personal perception.
 
You define it for you and I define it for me.



Note 182.129                         


> Your view is dangerous at worst and anthropocentric at best.  

Dangerous to whom, John?  And since anthropocentric means 'interpreting reality
in terms of human values and experience" ... I assume that is a natural thing
for a human to do_:-).  Interpreting reality in terms of human values and
experience in this set of circumstances poses no danger to the dolphins or
whales or environment.  We do not wish to distroy our fellow creatures to
make a profit.  We wish only to live with them in peace, they following
the calling of their nature and we ours.

> The whole of creation does not revolve around mankind; 

No one claimed that it does.  For the individual to make a choice based
on his own judgement, values, and experience is not a crime against nature.
It is rather the way nature has designed us to function.  (I knew you'd
love this one)_:-).

> But to pretend that pot was put here for humans to smoke is self-delusion 
> (something else people have a right to).

I never said that John.  What I said was...

Before man came to be the plants were.  The plants ruled the kingdom of earth
for many eons.  The plant kingdom has (I believe) a conciousness of it's own,
an ancient wisdom and knowledge that has grown through time since they first
appeared on the planet.  When man first appeared on earth, the plants were
here to greet him.  The plants contained secrets of health, of nourishment,
and of spirituality.  They balance the environment and maintain the air
and the earth.  The Indians and other ancient cultures respected the plant
kingdom and shared in their gifts with a deep appreciation of the wonders
of the earth.  The plants are part of the kingdom of earth... as are we.
When we share conciousness with the plants we join with all the earth,
all living creatures, in a celebration of life.



> None of the above concerns require ingesting foreign substances.

If plants are foreign substances, then what do you as a vegetarian eat?

 
> They are in that there are inherent dangers in "using" them.  

There are inherent dangers in living.  

> Again, these plants have no food value and were certainly not evolved for 
> human consumption

What plants evolved for human consumption?  None!  What right do you have 
to eat plants at all if they are a foreign substance?  Corn evolved in North 
America so by your reasoning it was not intended to be consumed by us.  
Hope you will respect your own values and refrain from eating those plants 
that did not begin life on the African savannah._:-)


> I love that last sentence.  Using your logic, I can state that helium exists
> so that humans can inhale it and talk funny.  

No one maintains that inhaling helium is 'natural' for mankind so perhaps
you should find another more appropriate example.

> Sometimes I feel as though I am conversing with space aliens.

You very well may be_;-)


Mary

RE: .129 (John)

    I think you misinterpreted my first point.

    > That statement is absurd.  The argument that anything that man creates
    > is natural by virtue of man himself being natural is a very old
    > one and very silly one.  Using this argument one can argue that
    > ... just about anything ... can be excused as "just a part of nature."

    No it cannot.  You need the assumption that attaching the arbitrary,
    ill-defined label "natural" justifies "excusing" something.  My point
    is that it does not.  If someone tells me "Meat eating is good because
    it is natural" I will ask them what their predicate has to do with
    their conclusion.  If someone else tells me "Meat eating is bad because
    it is unnatural" I will ask them the same question.

    Whether or not something is "natural" is irrelevant to whether or
    not it is to be recommended for the well-being of the individual or
    the culture or the biosphere.

    > You'll find anthropomorphism at the very core of all the arguments
    > for the "naturalness" of drugs in this topic.

    I don't think so, rather what you find is "anthrocentrism" at they're
    core and that is a very different kettle of fish.  Anthropomorphism
    assumes human characteristics in non-human things -- and it makes
    the distinction between the artificial and the natural much vaguer
    (the right conclusion for the wrong reason).  Anthrocentrism assumes
    that nature exists for human use and it can reinforce that distinction
    (but doesn't always).

    > <<Purpose vs. function>>

    What we are talking about is what is refered to as the teleological
    fallacy.  The thorn *does not have any purpose intrinsic to it*,
    nor does mother's milk (at least as far as science is concerned).
    It is no more the purpose of a thorn to protect the rose than it
    is the purpose of an electron to form chemical bonds.

    The term purpose implies *intension* and intension is beyond the
    reach of science.  Indeed it is not uncommon to define "scientific"
    explanation as non-teleological explanation (explanation which does
    not invoke intension as a causitive force).

    Science can talk about the function that something serves in a
    particular situation, and, in evolutionary terms, in can talk about
    why a particular feature is maintained against mutational drift.
    But it cannot talk about intension -- that is for religion.

    This is not just an issue of words.  Teleology is a common fallacy
    in connection with evolution and a lack of awareness of the distinction
    between "purpose" and "function" has lead to a lot of the foolish
    errors the people make about evolution (e.g., justifying things
    as good because they are natural as defined by some vague reference
    to how we evolved.  For example, arguments against homosexuality
    as unnatural since it interferes with the direct propogation of genes).

    By the way, John, I don't consider myself a "fool" nor my statements
    "absurd" nor "very silly".  Invecitive does not deepen shallow arguments.

    (I'm going away for the next week so if I don't respond to something
    immediately it is for that reason -- be patient).

				Topher

RE: .132 (Steve)

Thanks for that info.  I still want to know shy only cats seem to be effected
by it.  What is it about felines that makes their nervous system different
in this regard from other members of their order?


RE: .133 (Frederick)

    > I completely agree with Topher that purpose cannot be that easily
    determined.  Mother's milk may have developed for another reason and
    THEN discovered to be helpful as a nutritive asset, e.g. < 

FWIW, milk is modified sweat.  The purpose is still obvious and my statement
still stands.


    >...solipism [sic] and egocentrism are nice words to throw around when
    one can't understand spirituality.  < 
                                  
    
That's nice, but I have not used either word.


    > Perhaps one of your biggest "flaws" is that you do not seem to relate
    to a larger sense of being  < 
    
    
Guess again.


RE: .134 (Mary)


    >> Your view is dangerous at worst and anthropocentric at best.  << 

    > Dangerous to whom, John? < 


To those on the road to drug addiction.


    >  And since anthropocentric means 'interpreting reality in terms of
    human values and experience" ... I assume that is a natural thing for a
    human to do_:-). < 


Ah, but you left out the FIRST definition, my dear:

    "considering man to be the most significant entity of the universe." 

That is the definition I have been using.


    >  We do not wish to distroy our fellow creatures to make a profit.  We
    wish only to live with them in peace, they following the calling of
    their nature and we ours. < 

Why are you speaking in the plural?  

"The world is full of woodmen who expel
Loves gentle dryads from the haunt of life
And vex the nightingales in every dale..." [Shelley]

To name just a few examples of people who "wish to destroy our fellow creatures
to make a profit," consider the meat industry.  Consider the fur industry.
Consider the whaling industry.  Consider McDonalds and the rain forests.
Consider the cosmetics industry.  Consider [insert any of 100,000 other
industries here]. 


    >  For the individual to make a choice based on his own judgement,
    values, and experience is not a crime against nature. It is rather the
    way nature has designed us to function.  (I knew you'd love this
    one)_:-).  < 

Anthropocentrism is taught, not inherent.  

RE: your speech on plants

That's nice, but it is a religious view.  Anything goes in religion, because
nothing can be proven.  Thus religion can never serve as a true justification
for anything.

    > If plants are foreign substances, then what do you as a vegetarian
    eat? < 

"Foreign substances" does not apply to plants, but to what some plants contain.
The urushiol in poison ivy is there for the plant's defense, but there may
be people on the planet who LIKE what it does to them.  These people would
argue that urushiol is a drug put here for human use.  That notion is
ludicrous, but no more so than people stating that "magic mushrooms" or
any other plants that contain toxins are natural for human ingestion.

 
    >> They are in that there are inherent dangers in "using" them. << 

    > There are inherent dangers in living.  < 


Yea, right.  I once met a woman who never wore her seatbelt because she felt
"when it's your time to go, it's your time to go."  Is that a stupid philosophy
or what?


    > What plants evolved for human consumption?  None! < 

uh huh.  I'll remember that next time I eat a fruit.


    > Corn evolved in North America so by your reasoning it was not
    intended to be consumed by us. < 

Correct!  (After all, we are eating the plant's seeds, so there is no direct
propagation involved.  Recall too that we *cook* corn before eating it,
in most cases, which should tell you something too).

I have much to say on that, as it is an issue addressed by my philosophy
of Ethical Scientism.  This topic is not for that philosophy, however, so
I won't address the statement from that standpoint.  ("Aw, shucks!" you
are thinking.  :-)  


    > No one maintains that inhaling helium is 'natural' for mankind so
    perhaps you should find another more appropriate example. < 

Why not?  The substance is naturally found on earth.  What's the difference
between that and eating a plant to get some chemical to make you high?


    >> Sometimes I feel as though I am conversing with space aliens. << 

    > You very well may be_;-) < 


OK Mary, tell the truth:



Are you Elvis?   ;-)

John M.
                                 

RE: .135 (Topher)

    >  You need the assumption that attaching the arbitrary, ill-defined
    label "natural" justifies "excusing" something.  My point is that it
    does not.  < 

I understand your point; I am saying that it is not always true.  You may
define natural as "required for the proper functioning of an organism and not
requiring artifice" if it helps you.  


    >  Whether or not something is "natural" is irrelevant to whether or
    not it is to be recommended for the well-being of the individual or the
    culture or the biosphere.  < 
                                
    
That all depends on the scale of the application.


    >> You'll find anthropomorphism at the very core of all the arguments
    for the "naturalness" of drugs in this topic. << 

    >  I don't think so, rather what you find is "anthrocentrism" at
    they're core and that is a very different kettle of fish....< 
                                                                 
    
That was a typographical error on my part.  I meant to write anthropocentrism.


    > What we are talking about is what is refered to as the teleological
    fallacy.  The thorn *does not have any purpose intrinsic to it*, nor
    does mother's milk (at least as far as science is concerned). It is no
    more the purpose of a thorn to protect the rose than it is the purpose
    of an electron to form chemical bonds.  < 

Nonsense.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  An electron is not subject
to evolution; it is a building block.  I am trying to discuss the purpose
of a library, and you are debating the purpose of clay.

Thorns are on a rose for defense, just as the purpose of molars is to grind
food.  You erroneously assume that intent or purpose implies intelligence.
                         
    
    > The term purpose implies *intension* and intension is beyond the
    reach of science.  < 
    
    
Not at all.  A great deal of the science of archaeology, for instance, deals
with just that.


    >    By the way, John, I don't consider myself a "fool" nor my
    statements "absurd" nor "very silly".  Invecitive does not deepen
    shallow arguments. < 

I did not call you a fool and I attacked certain notions as absurd and/or
silly.  Interpret my intent however you like.


    >  (I'm going away for the next week so if I don't respond to something
    immediately it is for that reason -- be patient).  < 

Oh, I HOPE this discussion will be over by then!


John M.                                                 

re: .118
>    It has been said here a couple of times that a strong, forceful
>    opinion might be taken as 'gospel truth'.  I'd like to say that
>    this is a problem on the side of the listener, and not the speaker.

I can't buy this notion entirely.  Where what is being stated is quite
manifestly opinion, than one person's "truth" is as good as the next's.
When someone misrepresents their opinions as "facts" or tries to blur
the boundary between the two (like Von Daniken, as a good example), then
the speaker has a "problem" that should be pointed out.

Actually, Cindy, what I was trying to get at in my last reply (.whatever
the heck number it was) is that I find the Doubters a lot more engaging
or interesting than the "gospel truth" possessors.  I think John is a
tenacious debater, and I'm frequently amused by the way he punctures the
balloons that the rest of us send up and by some of the gyrations he'll
go through to defend his point.  But I don't derive any sustenance from
it, any sense that we might together find some new "truth" that has eluded
each of us individually up to this point.

>    Community - where everybody feels safe to be themselves and to express
>    that which they believe in.
    
That seems like a very static definition.  Sometimes we need to be tested
in our beliefs, for better or worse.  Sometimes we need to ask questions
rather than state beliefs.  And sometimes also (to return to the
base topic in a left-handed way) we need to feel "unsafe" in our selves
in order to discover a new level of understanding.
								paul

    Re John: 
    
    >TELL ME that smoking pot is any more "natural" than shooting heroine!  
             
    OK, John, I will.  Pot is, at least, a natural herb.  Heroine is
    a refined substance.
    
    How is consuming pot any less natural than the use of any other
    herb (say camomile, which tends to induce sleep)?
    
    Elizabeth 

    RE: .139 (Elizabeth)
    
    >  How is consuming pot any less natural than the use of any other
     herb (say camomile, which tends to induce sleep)?  <
    
    It isn't, if it is eaten.
    
    Mind you, I am not addressing which might be BETTER for you.
    
    John M.

re: .136

> To those on the road to drug addiction.
  
  All drugs are not addictive John... but you must know that already_:-)
  So that means that you're babbling now.


> religion can never serve as a true justification for anything.

  But you totally miss the point my friend.  Justification isn't required.
  People do what they will do regardless of the fears, the desires, or 
  the force brought upon them by other people.  Thats true in Palestine,
  its true in South Africa, its true in South America, and its true here.
  People only obey laws that they believe to be just and necessary.

  The very fact that so many people use drugs regardless of the
  zero tolerance actions of the government substantiates this.
  Outlaw tobacco (according to Koop) and cigarette smokers will be robbing
  liquor stores.


> "Foreign substances" does not apply to plants, but to what some plants 
>  contain.

    So are you saying that its ok to eat those plants then?  As long as the
    "substances" are not extracted out of them and used separately?  Pot
    works just as well if its eaten you know.  Alice B. Totlas made
    some killer brownies in her day.
 

> Recall too that we *cook* corn before eating it, in most cases, which 
> should tell you something too).

It only tells me that you're running out of good arguments John_:-)
By the way,... who is this "we" you're talking about?

    Oh well,  everyone knows that you're nothing but a hound dog anyway..   
    crying all the time.  

(who said that?)_;-)
    
    Mary

RE: .141 (Mary)

    >  All drugs are not addictive John... but you must know that
    already_:-) < 

I never said all drugs were addictive.  I said that your outlook was dangerous
for those "on the road to drug addiction."  That implies the use of drugs
that cause physical or psychological dependence.


    >  The very fact that so many people use drugs regardless of the zero
    tolerance actions of the government substantiates this [that people
    will do what they want]. < 


I think it strongly implies the addictive nature of drugs.  Your next sentence
only supports that implication:


    "Outlaw tobacco (according to Koop) and cigarette smokers will be
    robbing liquor stores."  --M. Pare 


    >> "Foreign substances" does not apply to plants, but to what some
    plants contain. << 

    >   So are you saying that its ok to eat those plants then?  < 

No I am not.  (Why is this so hard to understand?)  Why eat a plant that has
no food value?  ONCE AGAIN I offer the case of the poisonous Japanese fish.
People get a buzz off of eating it.  That buzz is a result of the poison
working at a low level.  That poison is a foreign substance; it has no food
value and is a toxin.  I can say without reservation that ingesting it is
unnatural for humankind.  You can consider the THC in pot along the same
lines.

    >  Pot works just as well if its eaten you know.  < 

Well no, it doesn't.  THC is fat soluble and its effects are unpredictable
when ingested.  That is why most people smoke it; the results are more
predictable and immediate.

    >  Oh well,  everyone knows that you're nothing but a hound dog
    anyway.. crying all the time. < 


And everyone know that you are alive somewhere in Michigan.  ;-)

John M.

    Nit-picky, I know, and I see and understand most of your points,
    but if a "no-value" plant enhances the taste of the life-sustaining
    food, what's wrong with that???
    
    My outlook on a non-perscription drug is kinda basic:  If, after 
    you've taken the drug (and the effects have worn off), you've benefitted
    by taking it then you could say it have value.  Can't think of any
    "dope"-type drugs that do this.  They take you higher but leave
    you lower.  Reminds me of the word "addiction", now softened to
    "drug dependancy".                
    
    I am amazed, however, about the heated debates about meat/no meat
    diets.  It's O.K. with me if you're a vegetarian; all the more
    Chateau Briand for *me*.  ;-)
                                                     
    						Don

re: .142 (and preceding)

John, what's the point of tossing off terms like "[un]natural" or
"[ab]normal" as if they had some predetermined objective definition?
(as in) >I can say without reservation that ingesting it is
	>unnatural for humankind.
Your definition of "natural" apparently says that plants can only be
used for nutritional purposes, which to me is similar to the Pope
saying that sex can only be used for reproduction.  My definition of
what's natural is more expansive than yours, I guess, so sorry.:-)

One of the striking characteristics of the "natural" human, to my
mind, is his or her willingness to indulge in curiosity, to experiment,
to play, and to otherwise do weird things that don't immediately seem
to contribute to his or her appetitive or procreative needs.  If you
are talking about it only being "natural" for this human to carry out
those actions that are directly necessary for physical survival, then
she or he is a sure bet to be "unnatural" almost from the word Go.

It's especially tricky when you think in species terms rather than in
individual terms about what's "necessary" for survival--for instance,
agriculture is probably necessary for species survival, but its
prehistoric inventors were probably being "unnatural" for wasting
their time on it when wild plants could be gathered with less effort.

Maybe this is worth spinning off to another note (or another conference),
before I get us too far off of the base topic.

Yes, drugs are often dangerous (there is objective evidence of people
being killed or made physically or mentally ill by them).  Yes, some of
them are addictive, but some are not.  Yes, they have no food value, nor
do they generally seem to contribute to reproductive function in any
positive way (some have demonstrated negative effects in this department).
...That's about all you can say for fact, as far as I can see.  Whether
use of a particular drug has any value for spiritual growth, is natural,
is normal, causes crime, promotes social decay, etc., etc., is purely a
function of one's own opinions and of the cultural framework in which one
finds oneself.
							paul

    Reply to...                                 
================================================================================
Note 182.100                         Drugs?                           100 of 144
USAT05::KASPER "You'll see it when you believe it."  14 lines  25-AUG-1988 11:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >  Huh???  My experiences with intoxication can't possibly be
    >  considered an attempt at balance (some of the times I couldn't
    >  balance (physically) if my life depended on it :').

    >  Could you elaborate and give an example ot two??
     
    I'll venture a guess here from personal experience.
    
    Not knowing the specific terms in psychology here is my theory.
    
    During normal everyday life we build or create not only stress
    structures but also highly vertical, meaning mentally artifical, belief
    structures. 
    
    In the first case many times I've seen friends smoke pot and then laugh
    hard for 3-5 minutes straight. Invarably they always feel much better
    after this great laugh as laughter is sometimes the best medicine for
    stress. In this case pot is a drug that relieves stress just like
    asprin relieves pain. 
    
    At one time I consumed mushroom, (the only time I have), in a religious
    setting. I laughed for 5 minutes straight. I felt tons better. I don't
    advocate that anyone do that on a daily basis but I think a regular
    scheudled basis might be ok for *some* people. 
    
    Further the human animal (DID YOU READ THAT, ANIMAL!) builds vertical
    (artifical) belief structures that don't really reflect natural life.
    Obviously these belief structures affect our daily lives on a mental
    and emotional basis, if not physical also. The use of certain
    psychoactive substances help us shake these artifical structures. They
    demonstrate to us graphicly that consciousness is chemical in nature.
    And as such conscious can be affected by the myraid different chemicals
    in nature. 
    
    Our friend Tim Leary, while some think that he lost his sense of sense
    of porportion, is radiently sane after being sent to prison for many
    years, spending some of that time in solitary confinement because of
    THOUGHT CRIME. THOUGHT CRIME is dangerous indeed. THOUGHT CRIME
    involves changing your consciousness in non-government approved ways. 
    
    Robert Anton Wilson describes Tim's system in "Cosmic Trigger", page
    119-120. Generally it involves the use of metaprogramming substances
    along with predetermined programming for the patient, who Leary calls
    "research associate". 
    
    Here is the formula:
    
    Bn = Bo + Pn + MS--where Bn is new behavior, Bo is old behavior, Pn is
    deliberate new program for self change and MS is a metaprogramming
    substance like LSD. 
                
    Now Bn and Bo could be replaced with Cn and Co for Consciousness
    new and old. Further Cn and Co could be replaced with In and Io,
    intelligence new and old.
    
    So we see that some drugs can be used for repairing or replacing
    highly artifical mental structures (castles in the sky) with more
    down to earth perceptions of reality. This of course means some,
    but not all, people should use these substances.
    
    Some will object to Tim Leary's activities. Again Tim is guilty on
    all accounts of THOUGHT CRIME. Tim dares to think new thoughts in
    new ways. His sense of porportion may not be mine but he damn well
    has every right to think what he will. He has my vote of confidence
    if for nothing else that he stood up against big brother, did his
    time, remained completely sane, and turned millions on to nonlinear
    thought processes. 
    
    Some drugs help us find and experience nonlinear thought processes.
    Sadly many parrot the government position that any change in
    consciousness not oked by big brother is bad. In essense many of us are
    guilty of THOUGHT CRIME. I guess I'll always be guilty of THOUGHT CRIME
    with or without metaprogramming substances.        

    Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 182.106                         Drugs?                           106 of 145
DECWET::MITCHELL "The Cosmic Anchovy"                83 lines  26-AUG-1988 17:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  >  > My question is, why is it that the multiplicity of cultures through
  >  time found benefit in the use of such plants? The use of such plants by
  >  a Mayan brujo is not in the same league as some kid taking lsd to get
  >  high. < 

>Well, yes it is.  Both are doing it to change their *perception* of reality.
>Reality does not change.  If you get high and perceive me as a 7' warthog
>that does not change the reality of my being a 6'1" asshole.  ;-)

    I think your getting near my conclusion at least. Consciousness
    and perception are chemical in nature. I think you've admitted that
    in the past by saying that dreams were random firings of nuerons.
    
    And I think you'll agree that our perception is the only perception we
    have of reality. And in changing the chemical composition of the brain
    temporarily we can indeed change our perception and consciousness
    almost permanently. And even in the unaltered realm John Lilly tells us
    that what we believe to be true become true for all intents and
    purposes.     
    
    

    Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 182.106                         Drugs?                           106 of 145
DECWET::MITCHELL "The Cosmic Anchovy"                83 lines  26-AUG-1988 17:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Just thought you'd like to know that man, that natural animal, has
    NATURALLY has been using metaprogramming substances for 30,000 years.
    
    Please reference Dr. Andrija Puharich's "The Sacred Mushroom", John
    Allegro's "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross", R. Gordon Wasson's
    "Divine Mushroom of Immortality", Professor Peter Furst's "Flesh of the
    Gods", Dr. Weston Lebarre's "The Peyote Cult" and "Ghost Dance: Origin
    of Religion", Margaret Murry's "The Witch Cult in Western Europe" and
    "Plants of the Gods" which I've already referenced in this topic. 
    
    Indeed some anthropologist think that altered states of consciousness
    caused by mushrooms were, in ancient times, thought to be actions of
    the Gods themselves. In some ancient cultures the mushroom was
    considered a deity in and of itself.
    

    
    Re: .145
    
    
    	Question--- How can Pn be established effectivly during the
    	period of influence by MS? I have been working with using
    	pathworking which is "sorta meditation" and I know what is used
    	there to consiously alter the sub-conscious and would be interested
    	to know what would be the stimulus to alter the Bo (Old behavior)
    	while using a "Metaprogramming Substance". Off hand I would
    	guess that they would be the same but the result "if that would
    	be the case" would be about (10x) instead of (x). Now if something
    	invaded or disturbed my controlled space I could be bouncing
    	off the walls of some friendly state hospital. 
    
    Aleister receives a social death sentance for thought crime daily.
    
    just interested
    
    	Craig

                  
    	re .142 (John)
    
    I can see you believe that drugs themselves "cause physical or
    phychological depandance" and are of an "addictive nature". Let me
    propose to you that it is not the drug that causes "depandancy"
    and also that it is not the drug that is of an "addictive nature".
    
    It is the *person* who is dependant and who is of an addictive nature.
    
    A drug has *nothing* to do with these things. It is merely a vehicle.
    If not a particular drug, or a drug at all, a person's addictive
    nature and dependancy would be manefested in another way. It happens
    all the time. Drug use through the ages does not show anything about
    the validity of using drugs. What it does show, is how valid it
    is to assume that many people have been of a dependant and addictive
    nature for a very long time. It has been this way for so long that
    it's easy to assume that everyone is like this - as a given - and
    it's "the drug" that's addictive and *causes* people to be dependant.
    Get to the root and cure the real problem (people's dependancy), and
    drug use will dissappear intrinsically, "all by itself". 
    
    Your reasoning (and that of the govt sponsored "frying egg" type
    anti drug commercials) will not effect the problem of drug use for
    anyone who is doing so. Drug use is only a symptom of something
    bigger. Unfortunately, *that* problem is never adressed, because
    it's existance makes for useful exploitation by those who must be
    in control, i.e., Big Brother and the Great Society. *Many* businesses,
    not only the illegitimate drug traffic trade, profit from this aspect
    of people also. "Our common crisis" is that this is allowed to go
    on and on and on...
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    Reply to .148, Craig,
    
    I don't know yet how it is done. My guess is that while at the peak
    an associate would lead in some program or meditation. 
    
    I would make a tape consisting of all my favorite and needed
    affirmations mixed in with my favorite songs for a particular focus.
    A 45 min. tape should do.
    
    You could also augument that by looking at your favorite pictures
    for a particular focus. Mandalas should do fine.
    
    And what we're talking about here is probably much the same as the
    Eleusisan Mysteries where celebrants were given Claviceps paspali, a
    fungal parasite of grains closely related to Claviceps purpurea, aka
    Ergot. Grain was of special import to Demeter and Persephone. Both
    Goddesses were celebrated in the Eleusisan Mysteries.
    
    Another European name for Ergot is St. Anthony's Fire. 
                     
    Anyway I imagine that the celebrants were participants in some
    psychodramas put on by the priest/esshood.
    
    The answer to your question is that the one being programmed is
    not alone.

    
    RE: .150
    
    	Yes, I have always thought that being alone under the influence
    would be terrifying/hellish. Being that the person would question
    which reality is real and would not have an outlet to share the
    emotional-experiance-output. Creating at best a wasted experiance/trip.
    	A controller/priest/guide would make all the difference, keeping
    the brain on track and allowing the experiance to flow. A rather
    responsible job though, being the Priest/ess. 
    
    Thanx, I can see the possibilities now.
    
    Craig

>    	Yes, I have always thought that being alone under the influence
>    would be terrifying/hellish. Being that the person would question
>    which reality is real and would not have an outlet to share the
>    emotional-experiance-output. Creating at best a wasted experiance/trip.
>    	A controller/priest/guide would make all the difference, keeping
>    the brain on track and allowing the experiance to flow. A rather
>    responsible job though, being the Priest/ess. 

somehow this makes me feel a direct tie-in to the brainwashing topic... 
perhaps because my, um, controller used such a state to gain more control over
me.

i did it alone and was just fine, thank you.  maybe it's a matter of how much 
trust in the self exists.

    
    Re: .152
    
    > Maybe it' a matter of how much trust in the self exists.
    
    True perhaps, but If the "explorer" isn't well grounded (attached to the
    material-world/reality) he might well take off and not come back.
                                 
    Also, complete dependence on the "controller" would lead to a greater
    likelyhood of change. remember, we would be trying to CHANGE the
    self. An experiment like this with concentration put on the self,
    and your trust of it, might reinforce the very things you wish to
    have reprogramed.
         
    Risky in either case
    
    Craig

    Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 182.153                         Drugs?                           153 of 153
USACSB::OPERATOR_CB "DO WHAT THOU WILT"              17 lines  14-SEP-1988 02:09
                                 -< margorper >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >   True perhaps, but If the "explorer" isn't well grounded (attached to the
 >   material-world/reality) he might well take off and not come back.
 >                                
 >   Also, complete dependence on the "controller" would lead to a greater
 >   likelyhood of change. remember, we would be trying to CHANGE the
 >   self. An experiment like this with concentration put on the self,
 >   and your trust of it, might reinforce the very things you wish to
 >   have reprogramed.
 >        
 >   Risky in either case
  
   True. But any job worth doing is worth doing right the first time.
    This is the lesson I'm learning now. I'm working on a wood, plexiglass
    and metal project that requires the first effort to be the best
    effort. It's a pain in the a$$ but one well worth doing. The same
    applies to any self-programing.
    
    What's exciting is that the whole effort is an exercise in self-trust,
    from beginning to end.
    
    Risky? Yes. But somethings are worth the risk.
    
    To follow the topic closer... If one wants to expiement with a
    particular drug or class of drugs they should know as much as they can
    about the drug before they do anything. Somethimes this is not easily
    possible. I find depending upon ones synchronistic ability to bring
    them the proper information works wonders though. 
   

    
    RE: .154
    
    "Risky? yes. But somethings are worth the risks."
    
    Agreed! and self trust is an excelent example.
    
    (The plastics all melted and so is the chrome...)
    
    Craig
         

re: .155    
>    (The plastics all melted and so is the chrome...)
    
Could it be??  Is he really quoting from the infamous "Who
Are the Brain Police?" (or am i on drugs?:^))??
         
						paul

    
    RE: .156
    
    				BOTH.
    
    "Suzy Creamcheese! whats got into you?!?!?"
    
    Mother Craig

        I heard on the radio this morning (before sunrise, if that has
    anything to do with anything) that Timothy Leary is wanting to have
    his head cryogenically preserved (in liquid nitrogen) until some
    society in the future can "bring him back to life."
    
        Who said drugs never caused anyone any "ill" effects?
    
    Frederick
    

    Frederick,
    
    I guess he needed to stick around until all that is left is the
    unenraptured!
    
    Was this a news item, or was the DJ just being peculiarly funny
    at that time of the morning?
    
    Jeff

    re: -.1
    
         I think most of the world is brain-dead at that time of the
    day, anyway...  :-)  [I think the item was at least semi-serious.]
    
         I guess we could divide drug supporters into two camps...those
    who admire Timothy Leary and those who admire Richard Alpert.
    Who you would prefer to "hang out with" (between those two) might
    be an indicator of "relative enlightenment."  Incidentally, for
    a "Clue" as to my thoughts, Richard Alpert (as Ram Dass) once 
    described an incidence he experienced in terms of his own negative
    ego; in other words, he talked about his self-awareness.  Timmy,
    on the other hand, apparently has no idea of how pervasive his
    ego (and disruptive child within) is nor how irresponsible his
    behavior is nor the kind of negative impact he has.  Is this enough
    of a *Clue*?
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .158   Has he set a date?
    
    							Don

    
    
    Tim Leary never seemed to have a good handle on current reality
    when he used to come to the coop house I lived in at Radcliffe.
    At that time he and Richard Alpert (who were both assistant professors
    at Harvard) were seeking recruits for the first of their experiments
    with LSD. They were also working with people from the Boston University
    divinity school, and after a number of meetings in our livingroom,
    formed IFIF (the International Foundation for Internal Freedom)
    and took over a classmate's family's unoccupied estate in Brookline
    for their work. 
    
    Tim was in reaction to the sudden death of his wife, and drinking
    heavily. Richard was less tied to emotional dramas, although at
    odds with his father (the chairman of the Boston and Maine railroad)
    about his choice of career, associates, and lifestyle. 
    
    In reading of Ram Dass and of Leary now, I see far more of the Leary
    I saw then, and a much-evolved Richard Alpert. But of course, those
    are my perceptions, tinged with memory from the past and the inevitable
    distortions of the present.
    
    Gloria

    
    RE: .158
    
    Fred,
    I dont understand the connection between Drugs, "ill" effects, and
    Cryrogenics. But I am sure my dad would love to discuss it with
    you when he gets back.
    
    Mickey Mouse.

    Dear Mick,
    
         Nice to hear from you again.  I would very much enjoy talking
    with your daddy, since I enjoy talking with adults.  In the meantime,
    since you have a headache, maybe you can go take a couple of 
    aspirins and feel better.  If not, maybe some Thorazine with help.
    If that doesn't do it, there are some really neat *medicines* out
    there that can really give you a chill! Woo! Have you ever seen
    a grown man naked?  Have you ever had a dog rub you leg? Let me
    know how the Michael Jackson tour turns out, okay?  Bye for now.
    
    Your friend (but especially your daddy's friend,)
    Fred
    (Frederick ;-)  )
    

    Frederick,
    
    You'll have some trouble talking with Mickey's dad.  Walt Disney has
    been dead and "on ice" for some time, and it's rumored that he spends
    his time on the Astral Plane doing a Cosmic Intelligence schtik when he
    isn't watching old movies.  Come to think of it, maybe you've been in
    touch with him already. 
    
    Pat
    

RE .137 (John):
    > >  You need the assumption that attaching the arbitrary, ill-defined
    > label "natural" justifies "excusing" something.  My point is that it
    > does not.  < 
    >
    >I understand your point; I am saying that it is not always true.  You may
    >define natural as "required for the proper functioning of an organism and
    >not requiring artifice" if it helps you.

    No it doesn't help. 

    First -- I started this by pointing out that the general use of the
    "natural" assumed that human beings were somehow outside nature.  Since
    this is a false dichotomy -- people are no more able to violate natural
    law than oysters can put on shoes ("and this was odd..."). You
    responded (rather to my surprise, I thought I was disagreeing with the
    people you were disagreeing with) by stating that this was "absurd" and
    "silly" because (apparently by an attempt at reductio ad absurdum) one
    could then deduce that "anything can be excused." I responded (as
    quoted above) by pointing out that such a deduction could be made only
    if one assumed the identity of the notion of "excusable" with the
    common notion of "natural".  I never said that one couldn't invent
    specialized, precise definitions for "natural" for which that
    additional assumption wasn't reasonable. 

    Second -- I don't see anything about your definition which allows one
    to deduce that "justified" and "natural" are the same thing. Therefore,
    if one wants to equate those two words (where the latter is defined in
    your way) than you *still* have to *assume* it. 

    Third -- Your definition is, as it stands, extremely vague and probably
    circular.  What is "proper functioning"?  Under what conditions?  How
    far from "ideal" functioning is "acceptable?"  Is the proper focus
    really the individual organism rather than the
    gene-line/species/community/ecosystem?  How do you define "artifice"
    without circular reference to "natural" and without "building into" the
    definition assumptions equivalent to the ethical system you wish to
    deduce.  Is a beaver dam artifice?  How about a chimp's termite stick?
    How about clothing on Europeans?  What about midwifery?  What about
    culturally transmitted dietary laws and/or customs which allow proper
    functioning on a pure vegan diet?  What about such rules based on
    deductions from knowledge of human nutrition derived from complex
    experimental and observational procedures? 

    [Note that all of the above specific questions, especially the last two
    are rhetorical.  I couldn't care less about the specific answers.  If
    you have specific, usable definitions for the terms you use in your
    definition, that's fine. But you need to provide them to us: they are
    far from obvious and the definition itself is useless without those
    further definitions.] 

    Fourth -- your adoption of the "word" natural for this purpose seems
    unjustified and arbitrary.  The popular use of the term "natural" can
    be defined (however circularly) as "without artifice."  What justifies
    that further potentially very drastic (I say potentially, since without
    a meaningful definition of "required for ... proper functioning" it is
    unclear exactly how much restriction is really there) and seemingly
    arbitrary restriction of the field of reference for the term (i.e.,
    most of the things that people assume you mean when you refer to
    "natural" things are not meant)?  Why say "something is natural iff
    ("if and only if") it is natural by the general definition and also
    required for proper functioning" and also "something is ethical iff it
    is natural (by my special definition)" rather than simply saying that
    "something is ethical iff it is natural and necessary"? 

				    Topher

    No offense intended, Toph, but I've been reading your notes for
    the longest time now and still don't understand a damn thing you
    say.
    
    John M.

    It made sense to me.  It even made enough sense that I could
    justifiably make the statement that I agreed with it.
    
    Does that mean I'm in need of cultural realignment?
    	
    Or just that I don't have enough "real work" to do? :-)
    	
    	-Bill (checking_my_six_for_UFO's)
    

    Reply to .168, John M.,
    
    Strange indeed. I understood it.

    RE: .170 (Mikie)
    
    > Strange indeed. I understood it. <
    
    
    Then you must be on drugs.
    
    :-)
    
    FWIW: It's Topher's style that bugs me, not the content.
    
    John M.

    re.171 (style)
    I rather enjoy it.
    

re: .172 

    > I rather enjoy it.

    You were supposed to say 'naturally'... ;-)))

    Terry
    

RE: .168, .171 (John)
    
    No offense taken.  Sorry I don't communicate to you better since
    that *is* my intention.  I'm afraid that my attempts at relative
    brevity, accuracy and precision sometimes overstrain my abilities
    at clarity (did I just do it again? :-).  I'll try to do better.
    
    Anything in particular I can clear up?
    
RE: others
    
    Thanks, I'm glad my efforts get through to some despite their failings.
    
    						Topher    

    RE: .174 (Topher)
    
    >  Anything in particular I can clear up?  <
    
    
    No.  I have grown bored with this topic.
    
    
    John M.
     

    RE: .175 bored with this topic,
    
    You aren't the only one, I've been hitting next unseen key for the
    last month, it seems like.  
    

    I found a reference to two books on meta-programming. Not suprisingly
    they are:
    
    "Psychedelic Prayers from the Tao Te Ching" by T. Leary and
    "Programming and Meta-Programming in the Human Biocomputer" by J.
    Lilly.  
    
    "Psychedelic Prayers" seems to be based upon the use of acid and
    "Programming" seems to be based upon acid and meditation.

    I was wondering if anyone could give me information on drug use
    by writers of literature (particularly gothic literature).  some
    people have suggested to me that Edgar Allen Poe, Samuel Taylor
    Coleridge, and maybe even Robert Louis Stevenson used drugs while
    writing.  any info or pointers to books about this topic would be
    appreciated...
    
    A friend of mine is writing a term-long project on this, and the
    more sources, the better!
    
    thankqueue
    
    -Jody
    

    Reply to .178,
    
    Try your library. Some, maybe even most, libraries have online catalog
    programs where you can search by word or name for a subject or author.
    Try drugs and writers with their catalog program.

RE: .178 (Jody)
    
    THE drugie writer is S. Hunter Thompson (the role model for Doonsbury's
    Uncle Duke).  I rather suspect that you can find in his writing some
    positive discussion of the supposed positive role of drugs on various
    famous writers.
    
    Coleridge suffered from chronic pain and took an opiate sometimes to
    help him sleep.  One of the only three of his poems to be pretty
    universally accepted as rising above the level of dogerel, Kublah
    Kahn (unfinished, I might add, as was one of the other two: Christabel)
    was, he tells us, inspired by a dream he had during a nap.  It is
    frequently speculated/assumed that the haunting feeling of the
    poem -- which gives it its power -- came from similar characteristics
    of the dream, which in turn was caused by his use of drugs in inducing
    sleep.  As I remember it, there is no evidence that he took any drugs
    on this occasion.
    
    Poe was a relatively controlled alchaholic, frequently tipsy but
    rarely drunk.  Unfortunately, a rather high proportion of his drunk
    episodes were rather public, since much of his drinking seemed to
    be in response to social situations.  He therefore got an undeserved
    reputation as an outright "drunkard" (note the distinction between
    the 19th century concept of a drunkard which Poe was not, and the
    modern concept of an alchaholic or compulsive drinker which he most
    certainly was).  This reputation, along with his bouts of melancholia
    (depression) and the "proof" of his moral unfitness found in a
    (rather tame by today's standards) sex scandal, led to persistent
    rumors of his being a drug addict.  The person who he appointed in
    his will to be his official biographer had it in for Poe (they had
    both been up for a prestigous editing job at one time and Poe had
    "won") and gave these rumors full play as truth in the official
    biography.  There is no evidence at all that Poe ever engaged in
    drugs except alchohol, and the modern medical opinion seems to be
    that his symptoms were the result of a brain lesion.  He tied one
    on one time to many and his weak heart gave out as a result -- he
    died of a heart attack while drunk, but not "in the gutter" as
    frequently reported.  It seems likely that if he had abstained his
    life would have been prolonged only slightly.
    
    Off hand I don't remember ever hearing anything about Robert Louis
    Stevenson in this regard -- but I know little about his personal life.
    I would say that "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde" (sorry about the spelling)
    makes a rather good drug allegory, but whether this is true or simply
    inspired rumors to that effect (remember "Puff the Magic Dragon"?)
    I don't know.
    
    If you want to include alchohol abuse with drug use (quite reasonably)
    you'll find a great deal of material.  Alchoholism is frequently
    refered to as an occupational hazard for writers.  But it is usually
    viewed as the result of the lifestyle (lonely, emotionally stressful,
    and impoverished with bursts of relative wealth) imposed on writers and
    as ultimately destructive to their work rather than in any sense
    contributing to it.
    
    					Topher

         I'm currently reading a book written in '72 on the subject of
     drug use. It's Andrew Weil's "The Natural Mind". Weil has a
     conventional medical school background so it's kinda' surprising that
     he'd take such a different tack in looking at this heavily
     emotionalized issue.
         
         Starting off he discusses biases. He gives examples of people who
     were overly and covertly biased on this issue. He explains his bias
     so the reader can look past the bias to the real information.
         
         His premise is that humans have always, with the exception of the
     Eskimos, had ways to alter their consciousness chemically. Indeed he
     describes this as a basic need, even more basic than sex, which has
     been known by eastern cultures for ages. [Note the Eskimos have
     shamans who can, after training, enter altered states of
     consciousness at will. And the ability to alter consciousness with a
     chemical substance goes back 20 to 30 thousand years.]
         
         Consequently the question is not 'why are youth taking drugs' but
     'why are youth taking drugs not sanctioned by our society?' Humans
     have always had a need and a way to alter their consciousness with
     substances approved by the society itself. Nicotine, alcohol and
     caffeine come to mind immediately. In other cultures hallucinogenic
     plant substances are still the mode of consciousness exploration. 
         
         Then we have to ask why we need to alter our consciousness. Why?
     Because normal consciousness is boring. Even the very young know
     that. Weil studied cases of children spinning themselves around till
     exhausted and other modes that lead to states of consciousness
     between waking and sleeping. Even cases of children choking each
     other leading to fainting is a common occurrence. We've only just
     recently ceased to hear of young AmerIndian boys accidentally and
     fatally hanging themselves. From here children discover the sniffing
     various substances to alter consciousness.
         
         Parents disapprove of this. And in trying to stop their children
     from such activity the children learn to experiment while out of
     sight of adults. Gradually this may turn into anti-social behavior or
     may rebound into a condition of extreme fear, caused by anxiety
     about possible physical affects.
         
         And as time goes by children watch their parents consume alcohol
     and nicotine to achieve altered states of consciousness. Nicotine
     briefly turns the brain on. Alcohol briefly turns part of the brain
     off. It isn't too much longer before the child hears about pot,
     psilocybin, acid, cocaine, pcp and crack. Most of these substances
     don't have the physical affects of alcohol and nicotine, some are
     worse. And since the youth experiment out of sight of authorities
     they have very little real information as to what is happening to
     them and what the costs are.

         Weil quotes Huxley:
         
         "That humanity at large will ever be able to dispense with
     Artificial Paradises seems very unlikely. Most men and women lead
     lives at the worst so painful, at the best so monotonous, poor and
     limited that the urge to escape, the longing to transcend themselves
     if only for a few moments, is and has always been one of the
     principal appetites of the soul. Art and religion, carnivals and
     saturnalia, dancing and listening to oratory--all these have served,
     in H.G. Wells's phrase, as Doors in the Wall. And for private, for
     everyday use there have always been chemical intoxicants. All the
     vegetable sedatives and narcotics, all the euphorics that grow on
     trees, the hallucinogens that ripen in berries or can be squeezed
     from roots--all, without exception, have been known and
     systematically used by human beings from time immemorial. And to
     these natural modifiers of consciousness, modern science has added
     its quota of synthetics..." _Doors of Perception, pages 63-63

         So the conflagration of 'drugs, not drugs' is a non-issue. The
     real questions are what is the nature of consciousness, how does it
     work? And now that we are conscious, what do we do about it, what
     serves us well or serves us poorly? 

    re: .181 (Mikie?)
    
        Interesting and informative.
    
        There is a nit, however.  I don't know who said it, you or Weil,
    but the statement "consciousness is boring" can only be construed as
    a personal statement, especially since it isn't very clear what the
    definition of consciousness is.  I disagree with the statement as I
    read it.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re: < Note 182.182 by MISERY::WARD_FR "Going HOME--as an Adventurer" >

    Oh sure, deflate my ballon. B^)
    
    Perhaps I should have said "normal waking consciousness, however
    defined, is still normal."

    
    I don't think normal waking consciousness is boring - and I work in
    BTO!  
    
    Guy
    

    Re .181 (Mikie?):
    
     >........................................................ Indeed he
     >describes this as a basic need, even more basic than sex, which has
     >been known by eastern cultures for ages. 
      
    Sex needs have been known by western clutures for ages, too. ;-D
                  
     >    His premise is that humans have always, with the exception of the
     >Eskimos, had ways to alter their consciousness chemically.
      
    The ancient Egyptians invented beer.
    
     >    Then we have to ask why we need to alter our consciousness. Why?
     >Because normal consciousness is boring. Even the very young know
     >that. Weil studied cases of children spinning themselves around till
     >exhausted and other modes that lead to states of consciousness
     >between waking and sleeping. Even cases of children choking each
     >other leading to fainting is a common occurrence. We've only just
     >recently ceased to hear of young AmerIndian boys accidentally and
     >fatally hanging themselves. From here children discover the sniffing
     >various substances to alter consciousness.
      
    Mikie?, I think it's less a "need" to alter consciousness than a
    need to satisfy curiousity.  There are many experiments children
    (and adults) make on their bodies just because they heard of anomalous
    results.  Optical illusions, kaleidoscopes, and the like are
    interesting and not at all consciousness-altering phenomena that
    are popular.  A certain degree of phototropism, as it were, impels
    us to stare at fires in fireplaces or camps (and by extension, the
    TV set is a modern elexctronic analogue of that).
    
    To many people, the side effects of drugs (in the broad sense) feel
    good, and that's why they take them.  But that's far from a need.
    
    I also disagree with the hypothesis that straight consciousness is
    boring.  It certainly isn't for me.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    If ordinary consciousness is not at least sometimes boring then we
    would never be bored while in a state of ordinary consciousness.  Some
    people seem to *never* get bored, even when they have nothing to do
    but be conscious, but most of us get bored occasionally.
    
    Therefore, ordinary consciousness can be boring for many people.
    
    					Topher

    
    Re: < Note 182.185 by LESCOM::KALLIS "Anger's no replacement for reason." >

   > Mikie?, I think it's less a "need" to alter consciousness than a
   > need to satisfy curiousity.  There are many experiments children
   > (and adults) make on their bodies just because they heard of anomalous
   > results.  Optical illusions, kaleidoscopes, and the like are
   > interesting and not at all consciousness-altering phenomena that
   > are popular.  A certain degree of phototropism, as it were, impels
   > us to stare at fires in fireplaces or camps (and by extension, the
   > TV set is a modern elexctronic analogue of that).
    
    And could curiousity about ones own consciousness be close to or BE the
    paramount human curiousity?? 
                         
   > To many people, the side effects of drugs (in the broad sense) feel
   > good, and that's why they take them.  But that's far from a need.
                                         
    Is it a side affect that feels good or is it the general effect
    of the substance that is looked for?
                                       
   > I also disagree with the hypothesis that straight consciousness is
   > boring.  It certainly isn't for me.
                                       
    I kinda' blew this off with Fredrick but I might as well say it
    now that it's been broached twice.
    
    Your consciousness', yours and Fredricks, may be quite exciting, but
    what about the other billions of people on this planet? Not everyone is
    lucky enough to work for a major corporation, to earn good money, to
    put nutricious food on the table or even to come closer than 100 miles
    to a terminal. Their curiousity takes them into the opportunities
    presented to them by their station and fortune. And of course, you
    might have expected I'd say something like this B^), everything
    changes. Next year you might be totally bored. I hope not. I wouldn't
    wish that on anyone. It's a fate worse than KP.

    Re .186 (Topher):
    
    _Consciousness_ might not be boring; _environment_ or _circumstance_
    may be.  This isn't worth a semantic wrestling match, so I will
    carry over to...
    
    Re .187 (Mikie?):
    
    >I kinda' blew this off with Fredrick but I might as well say it
    >now that it's been broached twice.
    >
    >Your consciousness', yours and Fredricks, may be quite exciting, but
    >what about the other billions of people on this planet? Not everyone is
    >lucky enough to work for a major corporation, to earn good money, to
    >put nutricious food on the table or even to come closer than 100 miles
    >to a terminal. Their curiousity takes them into the opportunities
    >presented to them by their station and fortune. And of course, you
    >might have expected I'd say something like this B^), everything
    >changes. Next year you might be totally bored. I hope not. I wouldn't
    >wish that on anyone. It's a fate worse than KP.
     
    Well, I guerss we'll have to differentiate between "consciousness"
    and "being conscious of one's surroundings."  Consciousness is,
    for me, a high state (not slang) and anything that degrades that
    is less than welcome (I even go to sleep slowly).  Circumstances
    sometimes _get_ boring, but I'd rather indulge in things
    (introspection, creative activities, study) than alter my conscious
    state.
    
    Now it's true that millions of people get bored.  But does that
    require a need to alter their consciousnesses?  My point is, there's
    a difference between a _need_ and a _desire_.
    
    Ah, well ....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .187
    
         Absolutely!  Boredom can be deadly.  Boredom can lead to
    depressions from which most never recover.  Life is meant to
    be lived.  While that life may only exist for some "in their
    heads", at least there is activity there.  No activity anywhere
    will lead to what you describe.  
         There was a Viet Nam prisoner of war who spent time in 
    a small windowless structure who says he was never really bored.
    What was he doing with his time?  He built a house from scratch,
    among other things, nail-by-nail, board by board.  While he
    didn't use his body, he certainly used his mind.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re: < Note 182.189 by MISERY::WARD_FR "Going HOME--as an Adventurer" >
                   -< Never to be a bored-again Christian. >-
        
   >      Absolutely!  Boredom can be deadly.  Boredom can lead to
   > depressions from which most never recover.  Life is meant to
   > be lived.  While that life may only exist for some "in their
   > heads", at least there is activity there.  No activity anywhere
   > will lead to what you describe.  
    
    And yet when we left the dangerous jungle for the security of cities
    we lost much of that jungle excitement, which in turn diminishes lifes
    excitement, which makes us feel less alive. I never feel more alive
    than when pursuing or being pursued. Does this argument logically
    conclude with--dangerous people like being dangerous because it's
    scary, ie. exciting? Probably. And continuing further with this
    example, is the dangerous person really more conscious, or are they
    following a genetic or neural program. 
    
    Gerdjeff said that most if not all waking people are really asleep
    following a program unconsciouslly. Are not drugs a way, good, bad, or
    ugly, to provide the programmed break out of the program? Obviously yes
    and no. 
            
   >     There was a Viet Nam prisoner of war who spent time in 
   > a small windowless structure who says he was never really bored.
   > What was he doing with his time?  He built a house from scratch,
   > among other things, nail-by-nail, board by board.  While he
   > didn't use his body, he certainly used his mind.
   
    I don't think his problem was boredom. He was working to stay sane.
    Any moment he could have been hauled out and tortured to death.

    
    Re: < Note 182.188 by LESCOM::KALLIS "Anger's no replacement for reason." >

   > Well, I guerss we'll have to differentiate between "consciousness"
   > and "being conscious of one's surroundings."  Consciousness is,
   > for me, a high state (not slang) and anything that degrades that
   > is less than welcome (I even go to sleep slowly).  Circumstances
   > sometimes _get_ boring, but I'd rather indulge in things
   > (introspection, creative activities, study) than alter my conscious
   > state.
    
    Sure. That's great. Now we get to ask ourselves, do we do what we do
    because it's creative and innovative or because in our consciousness we
    follow a neurological program? Life is a game? What are the rules?
    Which can I break and get away with? B^) 
                                            
   > Now it's true that millions of people get bored.  But does that
   > require a need to alter their consciousnesses?  My point is, there's
   > a difference between a _need_ and a _desire_.
                                            
    I think it's a need (or perhaps the distinction between need and
    desire disappears.) Who can define need if we can't define
    consciousness? Wanna' take a stab at that?? I dare ya'. B^)

Yep. It's definitely a rathole. Let me introduce another one. ;-)

Maybe I'm missing the point, so please let me know if I do. But what I
understood from this article about drugs is: "Since people are bored sometimes,
they take drugs. These drugs takes the boredom away from them for some moments,
so for them it's good".

What's the difference with: "Since people are bored sometimes, they play with
shotguns. Shooting at their fellowmen takes the boredom away from them for some
moments, so for them it's good"?

I really hope the article was meant as a statement of understanding.

Arie

    
    re .192
    
    Hmm.. I might shoot my mother-in-law (JUST A JOKING EXAMPLE!). This
    might very well take away the boredom in a good chunk of my life.
    ;-) However this doesn't take into effect the resulting actions
    of society in response to my form of boredom relief. That is why
    we have have laws reguarding the use of shotguns on people. Even
    though some actions are good... like removing stress ala shotgun...
    doesn't mean they are benificial to society as a whole. So the
    comparison between shotguns and drugs was never really made and
    might not even be kosher. You can shoot guns under certain conditions
    legally to relieve boredom. You cannot shoot drugs legally under
    any condition to relieve boredom. Is there a nurological reason
    to shoot guns? Is there one to do drugs? I dont think so... however
    I do think there is a reason that there is a need to relieve boredom.
    
    Are drugs shotguns? Do drugs relieve boredom? are they just an easy
    answer to disturbing questions? 
    
    I have always considered drugs as a temporary excape from my anything
    but boring reality. I found I could do the same thing via meditation
    for less money and not have the headache the next day. 
    
    I do believe we need changes of pace every once in awhile to better
    store and access information in our brain... Drugs I do believe
    do this... However their are other ways to do this without drugs.

    What seems to be the problem? Are folks not reading the topics replies
    before they reply?? 
    
    I already said that I wrote that clause and it could have been written
    better. But for some perverse reason unknown to myself it seems to
    generate discussion. 
    
    The shotgun/drug example is not valid because we all experiment with
    our counsciousness in ways that DO NOT involve others. The idea is to
    explore, not through involving others, but as an act of self
    exploration. 

    re: .195 (Mikie?)
    
         That gave me a good laugh!  (..about perverse reasons, that is.)
    :-)
    
         While we're nesting with the rats, try this one out.  This one
    probably cannot be proven, but it warrants thought.  Lazaris (yes, yes,
    that "guy") has told us that "ancients" (my word) lacked the
    imagination we have.  That is, they (generic "they" generalized to
    mean most of the people) had to be shown precisely what was meant
    by things that the rare imaginative person (shamans, e.g.) wished
    to convey.  In other words, the shaman could not tell the desert
    dweller about the vast sea; instead they would have to trek to the
    ocean, point to it and ascribe the knowledge that was sought for
    that particular event.  Why?  Because the "average spear-chucker"
    lacked the imagination necessary to visualize it (and I'm not saying
    it is only a matter of knowledge...but of imagination.)  This could
    be elaborated on more, but it isn't necessary to this "discussion."
         The point is that maybe, just maybe, the drugs were used as
    a means to fire up "atrophied" or undeveloped imaginations.  As Craig
    has pointed out, we (modern man) don't need drugs to do this.  We can
    read books, watch moving pictures, or, with greater evolution and more
    freedom, can create or generate these images in our minds...to the extent
    of being euphoric or hallucinogenic.  A good drug now and then can
    serve as a lazy-man's or experimenter's substitute OR it can even
    serve as a reminder...the danger as I see it is in reliance on that
    drug as the ONLY way, or even the prefered way, to achieve the
    altered state desired.
        Drugs responsibly used can be an asset...they should never be used
    as the only resort, in my o-rack-and-pinion.  And as has already been
    disgusted, I mean, discussed, there is probably something "wrong" or
    definitely out of harmony with someone who is so bored that drugs are
    the only thing that person can imagine to escape the boredom with.
    
    Frederick
    
    

    re .194
    
    
    Taking drugs is NOT a "victimless" crime.  (It can be, but only
    under special cirucmstances.)  The engineer who ran his freight
    out in front of the AMTRAK train in Md had been engaging in
    "victimless crime".  About a dozen victims, I think.
    
    Now, in a "lo tech" culture, where individuals do not have control
    of massive forces (ok mechanical forces...8)>>), and where, typically,
    there is a built up experience for how long the effects last, the
    situation is different.  In "our" culture most of us are in charge of
    some awesome forces (cars, etc).  "drugs" widely defined can and do
    interfere with "our" ability to control these forces/devices.  The
    length of the interference is not well defined.  The risk to others is
    real.
    
    I will not/can not/ought not make judgements on anyone's use of any
    method for "personal growth" or simple pleasure, SO LONG AS, the
    impact is on themselves alone.  "Drugs", unless used under
    particular and controlled circumstances DO impact others.  (at about
    100 mph, in the AMTRAK wreck...).
    
    thanks
    dave pierson

    re:     <<< Note 182.197 by CIMNET::PIERSON "Milwaukee Road Track Inspector" >>>
    
    Please read .194 again...  I stressed TAKING drugs.
    I didn't say anything about driving trains while high.
    
    Don't tell me or anyone else what to do with my body when I'm
    not driving your train.
    
    /bruce

    
    I can't think of one single incident where drugs helped anyone that
    I've known.  I think they are used by people to self destruct.  What
    is learned from drug experience doesn't apply in "normal waking cons-
    ciousness".  It doesn't even apply in it's own paradigm.  Anyone who
    has ever tried theorizing about anything while on drugs will realize
    that they only think the the ideas are fantastic because their mind has
    become so dead, slow, and numb.  Comparing drug conscious with "normal"
    consciousness is like comparing life on earth to life on the moon - 
    there is no life on the moon (sorry to burst your collective bubble
    :-) ).  I believe that there is a chaotic aspect of people that causes
    them to do things like drive recklessly, start arguments, do drugs, and
    otherwize abuse their own personal situation.  I am familiar with this
    chaotic aspect from my own experience - just look at some of the
    replies that I have written in the past.  I often see myself as a 
    "stirrer of the soup" - the soup of DEJAVU arguments/discussions.  It
    is others place in life to rationalize, I just try to spit out ideas
    to make people think, even if I don't actually appear to be a
    "controversial" personality.  We all have at least some tendency
    towards stirring things up.  A friend of mine from England calls me a
    "bumspoon".  Anyway, some people do drugs, and some don't.  I think
    that drugs are really a diversion for some folks who are trying to 
    hold off spiritual occurrances - with drugs or without, the end can
    be reached (which is really the beginning).  No particular way is 
    "right".  I wouldn't condemn someone for having done drugs, but I've
    avoided people to stay out of situations where drugs would be available
    or where pressure would be felt.  That seems to me where it does effect
    others - when they pressure others (i.e. "If I'm going down, we're all
    going down.")  It's a macabre communion in the darkness.  Of course, 
    I don't decide what's "right" for y'all. :-)
    
    Sorry I rambled...
    
    Guy
    
    

         Reply to 182.199, Guy,
    
   > I can't think of one single incident where drugs helped anyone that
   > I've known.  I think they are used by people to self destruct.
    
         Surprise. I'm one they've helped. Now while some agents do cause
     people with dependent natures to self destruct, I saw that early and
     avoided those like the plague. To me these other non-selfdestructive
     substances are much akin to a metaphorical crowbar. The do just what
     some (non)fictional characters say they do.  They disturb normal
     perception until the individual knows the importance and tenousness
     of perception.
         
   >  What
   > is learned from drug experience doesn't apply in "normal waking cons-
   > ciousness".  
    
         Oh, how not so?
                       
   > It doesn't even apply in it's own paradigm.  
    
         Oh, how not so?
                       
   > Anyone who
   > has ever tried theorizing about anything while on drugs will realize
   > that they only think the the ideas are fantastic because their mind has
   > become so dead, slow, and numb.  Comparing drug conscious with "normal"
   > consciousness is like comparing life on earth to life on the moon - 
   > there is no life on the moon (sorry to burst your collective bubble
   > :-) ).  
     
         Andrew Weil, in _The Natural Mind_, deals with just this kind of
     bias toward drug usage.  Please note I did not say drug abuse. That
     is another matter entirely. Of course people can have negative or
     positive bias in this matter. That's Ok. It's important to remember
     that bias can distort fact. My grandmother used to say "don't try to
     change my mind; it's already made up." In short, I wasn't supposed to
     confuse her with facts. Facts? What facts? Whose facts? Facts for
     what reasons?
                
   > I believe that there is a chaotic aspect of people that causes
   > them to do things like drive recklessly, start arguments, do drugs, and
   > otherwize abuse their own personal situation.  I am familiar with this
   > chaotic aspect from my own experience - just look at some of the
   < replies that I have written in the past.  
     
         Great I was hoping someone might bring this up. You know there is
     a real place for chaos in our lives. When things get to restrictive,
     to stable, to BORING, the human animal's innate powers are dulled.
     Would you rather do something that scares the hell out of you, like
     skydiving for the first time, or consume a gram of mushroom?
     Personally I'd like to do both, (not at the same time silly B^), but
     don't have the time or money for skydiving.   
     
   > I think
   > that drugs are really a diversion for some folks who are trying to 
   > hold off spiritual occurrances - with drugs or without, the end can
   > be reached (which is really the beginning).  No particular way is 
   > "right".  I wouldn't condemn someone for having done drugs, but I've
   > avoided people to stay out of situations where drugs would be available
   > or where pressure would be felt.  That seems to me where it does effect
   > others - when they pressure others (i.e. "If I'm going down, we're all
   > going down.")  It's a macabre communion in the darkness.  Of course, 
   > I don't decide what's "right" for y'all. :-)
    
         I for one am not convinced there is a spirit, consequently
     spirituality becomes a form of ethical self-programming, a maturing
     of the soul.
         
         Mikie?

    
    Re: < Note 182.197 by CIMNET::PIERSON "Milwaukee Road Track Inspector" >

   >  Taking drugs is NOT a "victimless" crime.  (It can be, but only
   > under special cirucmstances.)  The engineer who ran his freight
   > out in front of the AMTRAK train in Md had been engaging in
   > "victimless crime".  About a dozen victims, I think.
   
    Alas you are confusing, perhaps deliberately, two different things. One
    the usage of marihuana and the other operating a large, dangerous
    vehicle under the influence of marihuana. The same risks and penalties
    apply as would operation of such a vehicle under the influence of
    alcohol.
    
    As for special circumstances... What so special about using something
    like marihuana as a gentle tranqualizer? This happens every night to
    about 30 million Americans, maybe a hundred million conscious, aware,
    sentinent, humans worldwide. So what's so special about that? 
                                  
    What's so special about consumiung something like mushroom, watching
    videos (comic videos are great!), ordering pizza and having a good
    time while *answering* the questions that confound normal perception?
                          
    What's so special about consuming mushrooms and going on a gentile (6
    hour) hike?  
                
    Mikie?

         Re: 182.196, Fredrick,

         [Set program break, goto process NewThought]
                  
    >   While we're nesting with the rats, try this one out.  This one
    > probably cannot be proven, but it warrants thought.  Lazaris (yes,
    > yes, that "guy") has told us that "ancients" (my word) lacked the
    > imagination we have.  That is, they (generic "they" generalized to
    > mean most of the people) had to be shown precisely what was meant by
    > things that the rare imaginative person (shamans, e.g.) wished to
    > convey.  In other words, the shaman could not tell the desert dweller
    > about the vast sea; instead they would have to trek to the ocean,
    > point to it and ascribe the knowledge that was sought for that
    > particular event.  Why?  Because the "average spear-chucker" lacked
    > the imagination necessary to visualize it (and I'm not saying it is
    > only a matter of knowledge...but of imagination.)  This could be
    > elaborated on more, but it isn't necessary to this "discussion."
     
         Imagination, it seems to me, can be leveraged by different things.
     Fer instance I really got off on the recent Star Trek where the good
     guys are confronted by the Boorg; the ultimate users. How would life,
     and more importantly consciousness, be different if I could plug my
     mind and all sensory apparatus into a grid that extends all them a
     hundred, no, a thousand times. Has this idea just precipitated an
     advanced metaphysic where the assisted human eye/mind can detect
     light (energy fields) in almost all spectrums? Would we see ghosts?
     God? Energy vampires? Fuzzy dogs in Panama hats? Mr. Roberts? A
     million, gizillion dollars? Mikie?
         
         This is both enticing and frightening. What makes it frightening
     is that we conceive the thought that the human race can take over the
     reigns of evolution, leave the Gods behind and mutate in the
     direction that benefits us most. Through the use of will and the
     vehicle of mind we can become the Gods of old, not just the foot
     servants of the imaginary. 
         
         This is what a chemical leverage for the imagination can do in
     the right mind. Ken Keyses wrote over half of _One Flew Over.._ while
     tripping. New associations are made and the connections run deep. Not
     every association is useful. Leary admits that 1 in 10 ideas he
     conceived while experimenting were useful. Yet that 1 changed his and
     our worlds dramatically. In this mode I see a way to think new
     thoughts that are not linear or in line with normal perception or
     consciousness. Leary and gang call it contilligence, conscious-
     intelligence. 
                      
    >     The point is that maybe, just maybe, the drugs were used as a
    > means to fire up "atrophied" or undeveloped imaginations.  As Craig
    > has pointed out, we (modern man) don't need drugs to do this.  We can
    > read books, watch moving pictures, or, with greater evolution and
    > more freedom, can create or generate these images in our minds...to
    > the extent of being euphoric or hallucinogenic.  A good drug now and
    > then can serve as a lazy-man's or experimenter's substitute OR it can
    > even serve as a reminder...the danger as I see it is in reliance on
    > that drug as the ONLY way, or even the prefered way, to achieve the
    > altered state desired.
      
         True, very true. But how hard is it to think a truly original,
     truly creative thought; a thought _no_one_ has thought before?
     Pretty damn hard I'd say. The human mental/emotional program has to
     be escaped out of at the proper place to achieve the greatest
     results. 
         
         In this situation drugs could be used as fertilizer. No wonder
     they call it $hit. B^) And just like any other lever it has to be
     watched carefully. With a lever and fulcrum large enough one could
     move the planet, with a lever and fulcrum interesting enough one
     could change history and perhaps evolution itself. But then again
     we'd have to wake from our waking-dreaming states. Who wants to do
     that? Gurdjeff and gang did that for a while without chemical levers.
     It was a pain in the ass though and not a permanent change (as far as
     I can tell).
                    
    >     Drugs responsibly used can be an asset...they should never be
    > used as the only resort, in my o-rack-and-pinion.  And as has already
    > been disgusted, I mean, discussed, there is probably something
    > "wrong" or definitely out of harmony with someone who is so bored
    > that drugs are the only thing that person can imagine to escape the
    > boredom with.
    
         Probably true, but who wants to live in danger just to keep their
     skills honed?

    Mikie?
    
    Return from process NewThought
    Start process AsleepAndDreaming

    Re:Note 182.202                   
NEXUS::MORGAN "Celebrating the Cybernetic Age."      
         
       >  [Set program break, goto process NewThought]
        
    	Thats good! However the real progress isnt in breaking the program
    	to start a new process but lies within the magick of applications
    	software and ergonomics.                     
    
    	In using mind expanding drugs... It appears to me that one gets
    	to experiance different aspects of his brain. There are no new
    	circuts created however there are new ones found or new
    	schematics on multiple levels explored.
    
    	So it would appear to me... that drugs offer divergence of brain
    	patterns to patterns not commonly used.
    
    	Cant the same thing be done by offering ones self a rapidly
    	changing lifestyle of great diversity? What happens when an
    	experianced Carpenter learns Programming? Or a Prize fightor
    	takes up the hobbie of building bird houses? Or a accounting
    	clerk takes up weightlifting or an Operator takes up Printing
    	Masonry and writing. He or she brings the commonly used circuts 
    	of the brain from one section into cluster with another section. 
        
    	Most great people who have brought us things that have changed
    	our life have not thought of NEW things. They have only combined
    	existing devices/materials/thoughts together from different
    	locations.
    
    	The terminal you are reading this off of was not though of or
    	created in an original thought. Someone thought of the keyboard
    	from the typewriter... someone else a few years down the line
    	invented the picture tube... and some idiot put the two together
    	and made a bundle... or something like that. Edison invented
    	the light bulb... however when you take a closer look... he
    	only combined different sciences together.
    
    	My scientific history is rather screwed up but I remember some
    	physics guys getting upset that some chemist made a breakthrough
    	they had been working on for some time?? Cant recall if it was
    	the A-bomb or Superconductors. ;-) (Whats the dif??)
                                            
    	I am not saying drugs are all that bad... However I am saying
    	that their use for expanding the mind is silly. One has more
    	control over the direction he or she wishes to go if the person
    	maintains control, dicipline and focus, and travels through his
    	own mind at a pace in which he will both remember and use his
    	discoveries to the benifit of all. 
                                                                   
    	Dont have ca$h? get a second job doing something completly
    	different than what you are doing now. Then use the $ to release
    	more of the boredom via some other project...and make life easier
    	on yourself.
    
    	If you have the cash... send it to me...;-) or go do some
    	volunteer work at a hospice, mental institution, or nursing
    	home. No horsie ride can compare with the new circuts you
    	can manually open... if you dare. ;-)
    
    	I am not saying that I dont want drugs in society, or that
    	they dont have a place in society... They were an important
    	factor in my life, and I enjoyed them.... I still take
    	cafffffffieeen and smoke "hack-hack".... however I have come
    	to think that when I want a real trip... all I have to do is
    	look inside of me and free something up then RUN AWAY!! RUN
    	AWAY!  RUN AWAY!!! till I figure on a way to face it. Then
    	patent or at least record the results for future ref.
    
    	Have I discoved any world changing discoveries... Well.. I have
    	found some life changing ones... and if I have changed one life
    	chances are that in some way I have changed the world. 
    
    	;-)
    
    >     Probably true, but who wants to live in danger just to keep their
    > skills honed?
     
    	"But momma, thats where the fun is!"
    
    >Return from process NewThought
    >Start process AsleepAndDreaming
     
    Drugs can only temporarily rattle the crib. If baby wants to go
    back to sleep... thats up to baby. ;-)
         

     Re: a few back (Mikie?)
    
  >> I can't think of one single incident where drugs helped anyone that
  >> I've known.  I think they are used by people to self destruct.
    
   >     Surprise. I'm one they've helped. Now while some agents do cause
   > people with dependent natures to self destruct, I saw that early and
   > avoided those like the plague. To me these other non-selfdestructive
   > substances are much akin to a metaphorical crowbar. The do just what
   > some (non)fictional characters say they do.  They disturb normal
   > perception until the individual knows the importance and tenousness
   > of perception.
   
        From both my experience and reading I have found that what 
        some folks say about drugs opening the sixth and/or seventh
        chakras is true.  But drugs slowly erode the etheric web, 
        something which is not easily repaired.  This includes alcohol,
        nicotine and caffein (sp?) as well as "regular drugs".  So by
        opening these chakras too far (which is just as unhealthy as
        having them too closed) you overstress them - they can't work
        quite the same again under normal conditions.  Therefore you
        would require more stimulation from drugs to achieve to same
        results.  There may also be consequences of opening these chakras
        "out of sequence" or before their time or not in accordance with
        the other chakras.  As ?::CBROWN said these things (in my terms
        these "things" are/is the awareness level equated with the chakras)
        are possible without drugs.  And more importantly you will be
        much better able to integrate them with your experience and
        growth spiritually because you will see readily how they coin-
        cide with THIS consciousness.  Unless you plan to be on mushrooms
        constantly the information is of almost no use.  Go ahead and
        use drugs to expand your awarness - I just hope you don't dis-
        cover that your awareness (THIS consciousness) has been eroded
        to the point where you think life is boring (if your chakras,
        a natural part of this awareness, over time, are completely shot
        then perhaps you have "sold your soul" for the the sake of a
        flashy experience).

          As Neil Peart of RUSH once wrote:
      
             It's not how fast you can go 
             The force goes into the flow
 
                        &
              One moment's high
              And glory rolls on by
              Like a streak of lightning
              That flashes and fades in the summer sky

                 *****

     No I don't think he meant that kind of high, but the analogy is there.
 

      
   >>  What
   >> is learned from drug experience doesn't apply in "normal waking cons-
   >> ciousness".  
    
        > Oh, how not so?
                       
   >> It doesn't even apply in it's own paradigm.  
    
        > Oh, how not so?
  
              Some things do apply, like the things I just discussed above.
              What doesn't apply are rationalizations, and theories as you
              have evidenced yourself by saying that only 1 in 10 ideas are
              useful.
   
   >> Anyone who
   >> has ever tried theorizing about anything while on drugs will realize
   >> that they only think the the ideas are fantastic because their mind has
   >> become so dead, slow, and numb.  Comparing drug conscious with "normal"
   >> consciousness is like comparing life on earth to life on the moon - 
   >> there is no life on the moon (sorry to burst your collective bubble
   >> :-) ).  
     
   >      Andrew Weil, in _The Natural Mind_, deals with just this kind of
   >  bias toward drug usage.  Please note I did not say drug abuse. That
   >  is another matter entirely. Of course people can have negative or
   >  positive bias in this matter. That's Ok. It's important to remember
   >  that bias can distort fact. My grandmother used to say "don't try to
   >  change my mind; it's already made up." In short, I wasn't supposed to
   >  confuse her with facts. Facts? What facts? Whose facts? Facts for
   >  what reasons?

         
           I don't believe that I have the monopoly on the "few facts,
           lots of bias" market.  I have my experiences, as do you.       


   >> I believe that there is a chaotic aspect of people that causes
   >> them to do things like drive recklessly, start arguments, do drugs, and
   >> otherwize abuse their own personal situation.  I am familiar with this
   >> chaotic aspect from my own experience - just look at some of the
   >> replies that I have written in the past.  
     
   >      Great I was hoping someone might bring this up. You know there is
   >  a real place for chaos in our lives. When things get to restrictive,
   >  to stable, to BORING, the human animal's innate powers are dulled.
   >  Would you rather do something that scares the hell out of you, like
   >  skydiving for the first time, or consume a gram of mushroom?
   >  Personally I'd like to do both, (not at the same time silly B^), but
   >  don't have the time or money for skydiving.   
    

            Chaos can be the spice of life.  I think we need to be 
            conscious of how much our own chaos filters into others lives.

              
   >> I think
   >> that drugs are really a diversion for some folks who are trying to 
   >> hold off spiritual occurrances - with drugs or without, the end can
   >> be reached (which is really the beginning).  No particular way is 
   >> "right".  I wouldn't condemn someone for having done drugs, but I've
   >> avoided people to stay out of situations where drugs would be available
   >> or where pressure would be felt.  That seems to me where it does effect
   >> others - when they pressure others (i.e. "If I'm going down, we're all
   >> going down.")  It's a macabre communion in the darkness.  Of course, 
   >> I don't decide what's "right" for y'all. :-)
    
    >     I for one am not convinced there is a spirit, consequently
    > spirituality becomes a form of ethical self-programming, a maturing
    > of the soul.
     
            
              A soul but no spirit?  I don't understand.  I thought the two
              were the same critter.  Spirituality to me is not ethics, is
              not programming.  It is something quite beyond words.  In 
              some ways it has more to do with *getting rid* of programming
              (as well as aquiring and assimilating more or new programs)
              but confining a discussion of spirituality to the programming
              aspects would be, at the same time, inadequate *and* cumbersome.

              Especially my spirituality, which we all know is such a 
              wonderful thing. :-)

 Guy

   P.S.  No serious flaming here, though it may appear to be.  Just
         a subject that gets my ire up...
 
        

         re: 182.204, Guy,
         
         [Please imagine me chuckling, snickering and engaging in friendly
     jib.]
            
      >  From both my experience and reading I have found that what 
      >  some folks say about drugs opening the sixth and/or seventh
      >  chakras is true.  
       
         Chakras? I'm not really concerned about chakras. Chakras and
     Spirit are both metaphorical, undetectable and possibly nonexistent.
     We could debate that in another note. [I feel a Divine Anchovy
     coming on.] B^)
                    
      >  But drugs slowly erode the etheric web, 
      >  something which is not easily repaired.  This includes alcohol,
      >  nicotine and caffein (sp?) as well as "regular drugs".  
       
         Etheric web? Another metaphorical item?
           
      >  So by
      >  opening these chakras too far (which is just as unhealthy as
      >  having them too closed) you overstress them - they can't work
      >  quite the same again under normal conditions.  Therefore you
      >  would require more stimulation from drugs to achieve to same
      >  results.  
       
         This is called building a tolerance. There's nothing mystical or
     magickal about it. Chakras need not be considered when talking about
     tolerances.
           
      >  There may also be consequences of opening these chakras
      >  "out of sequence" or before their time or not in accordance with
      >  the other chakras.  As ?::CBROWN said these things (in my terms
      >  these "things" are/is the awareness level equated with the chakras)
      >  are possible without drugs.  
       
         Possibly, who can tell?
           
      >  And more importantly you will be
      >  much better able to integrate them with your experience and
      >  growth spiritually because you will see readily how they coin-
      >  cide with THIS consciousness.  
       
         Perhaps it'd be better for me to admit that I don't think spirit
     exists. Period. Consequently NO spirituality, just humans working on
     their ethics, making themselves feel better, which serves them well.  
         
      >  Unless you plan to be on mushrooms
      <  constantly the information is of almost no use.  Go ahead and
      >  use drugs to expand your awarness - I just hope you don't dis-
      >  cover that your awareness (THIS consciousness) has been eroded
      >  to the point where you think life is boring (if your chakras,
      >  a natural part of this awareness, over time, are completely shot
      >  then perhaps you have "sold your soul" for the the sake of a
      >  flashy experience).
         
         Again, not pertinent to me in this discussion. 

      >    As Neil Peart of RUSH once wrote:
      > 
      >       It's not how fast you can go 
      >       The force goes into the flow
      > 
      >                  &
      >        One moment's high
      >        And glory rolls on by
      >        Like a streak of lightning
      >        That flashes and fades in the summer sky
      >
      >           *****
      >
      >  No I don't think he meant that kind of high, but the analogy is there.
 
         Again, not pertinent as he was probably talking about power
     trippers. What album and trac was that?
               
         >> Oh, how not so?
  
             > Some things do apply, like the things I just discussed above.
             > What doesn't apply are rationalizations, and theories as you
             > have evidenced yourself by saying that only 1 in 10 ideas are
             > useful.
  
         Did you purposefully ignore the other dynamic 10% or was that just
     an accident?  B^)       
              
   >>      Great I was hoping someone might bring this up. You know there is
   >>  a real place for chaos in our lives. When things get to restrictive,
   >>  to stable, to BORING, the human animal's innate powers are dulled.
   >>  Would you rather do something that scares the hell out of you, like
   >>  skydiving for the first time, or consume a gram of mushroom?
   >>  Personally I'd like to do both, (not at the same time silly B^), but
   >>  don't have the time or money for skydiving.   
    
           > Chaos can be the spice of life.  I think we need to be 
           > conscious of how much our own chaos filters into others lives.

         True. Is this the general warning and social alarm we hear all
     the time. I kinda' get tired of hearing the same old thing. Got any
     new (real??) data? [Bedie, bedie, bedie, got any data, Buck?]
                       
             > A soul but no spirit?  I don't understand.  I thought the two
             > were the same critter.  Spirituality to me is not ethics, is
             > not programming.  It is something quite beyond words.  In 
             > some ways it has more to do with *getting rid* of programming
             > (as well as aquiring and assimilating more or new programs)
             > but confining a discussion of spirituality to the programming
             > aspects would be, at the same time, inadequate *and* cumbersome.

         No I don't think so. I equate soul with the illusion of
     consciousness created by mind, perhaps the ego itself. For the most
     part in my direct experience spirituality is just another name for
     'feeling good by doing the right thing'. I'm wondering when people
     will recognize and admit their own hedonism.
                  
             > Especially my spirituality, which we all know is such a 
             > wonderful thing. :-)
         
         Hey! As long as it works and feels good, right?

         Mikie? Master of AITG::Religion and Silly Hedonist At large...

    
    
    
    
    My, My quite the minefield...
    re .198 (re .194 me...)
    /bruce:
    Never tried to tell you what to do with your body.  Below is extracted
    from .194 (me), with emphasis added.
    
    >I _will_not/can not/ought_not_make_judgements on anyone's use of any
    >method for "personal growth" or simple pleasure, SO LONG AS, the
    >impact is on themselves alone.  "Drugs", unless used under
    >particular and controlled circumstances, DO impact others.
    
    And a bit of clarification:  "special and controlled" was not a
    reference to medical supervision, but rather to make sure the
    user is back, all the way back...., which can (as I understand it)
    take days (varying with the the "drug" involved.  This sort of time
    lapse is typically not available in "our" culture on a regular
    basis.
    
    Two difficulties arise (conventional explanation follows):
    
    Chemical reactions (once started), run, there is no off switch.
    There is no way to "come back" because its time for work.
    
    The second is that "drugs" by defintion alter (note: "alter"
    not "destroy, damage, hurt, injure...") the judgement.  as such
    they _alter_ the judgement as to whether the "experience" is over
    and conventional activities can be resumed.

  re: Mikie?
   
    >Alas you are confusing, perhaps deliberately, two different things. One
    >the usage of marihuana and the other operating a large, dangerous
    >vehicle under the influence of marihuana. The same risks and penalties
    >apply as would operation of such a vehicle under the influence of
    >alcohol.
    
    As to confusion, I think not.
    
    This gets to a philosophical matter of "different things".  I would
    suggest, given  the "persistent" effects of drugs, and their judgement
    altering capabilities (see above on both...), that this becomes
    "one thing".  Further, that taking them by choice followed by a
    "criminal act" is itself a separate "criminal" act.
    
    As to the parallel with alcohol, of course.  Thats why "drugs"
    appears thruout, alcohol is included as a "Drug".
    
    I think also we may be getting tied up in "criminal".  Maybe I
    should have objected to "victimless "act"".  By Observation
    (one example cited...), in enough cases to have substantial
    social cost, the people involved can't handle the situation,
    and its effects on themselves and others.
    
    It may not be "criminal" but I can't accept "drug" use as
    "victimless" without qualification.  Perhaps I should have
    said "knowledge", rather than "special circumstances.
    
    Heavy equipment was a particular example.  Pick something light.
    What does a scalpel weigh?
    What about someone running the lab tests for a doctor?
    Or writing control code for an industrial process?
    "judgement altering..."
    
    Understand, please, i am not an antidrug zealot.  I would be much
    happier if "we" (society at large) could adopt a generalized
    legalization, somehow, and a live-and-let-live approach.  BUT
    until that happens, and everyone understands the risks that do
    exist, and as long as the proven hazards of experimentation are
    as large as they are, I feel a need to speak out about
    (IMHO) oversimplifications like "victimless "act"".
    
    have a good day
    
    dwp

    RE:
    Note 182.206                    
    CIMNET::PIERSON "Milwaukee Road Track Inspector"    
    
    >My, My quite the minefield...
    
    I think mindfield would be a better/friendlier term. ;-)
    
    >And a bit of clarification:  "special and controlled" was not a
    >reference to medical supervision, but rather to make sure the
    >user is back, all the way back...., which can (as I understand it)
    >take days (varying with the the "drug" involved.  This sort of time
    >lapse is typically not available in "our" culture on a regular
    >basis.
     
    *DAYS*!! What sort of drugs are you talking about... where do
    they come from... and how much do they cost??? ;-) I think a more
    realistic estimate on time for common drug duration would be
    4 to 6 hours. There are some drugs (like I believe THC and chemical
    drugs commonly called *acid*) that can be stored in fat tissue
    over a period of time. Release of the drug then occurs when the
    fat cells are used but unless the user used a large amount over
    a long period of time... there will be no meaningful effect felt
    or even noticed.
    
    You do however bring up a good point. More education... not paranoia
    are needed in all aspects of society to make people aware of what
    drugs do... how long they last ect... Unfortunately or fortunately
    the government isn't willing at this point to stand up and regulate
    drug quality or get serious and release what is known about these
    drugs or investigate them further.
    
    >Two difficulties arise (conventional explanation follows):
    
    >Chemical reactions (once started), run, there is no off switch.
    >There is no way to "come back" because its time for work.
     
    Silly rabbit. Do you leave your house to go see a movie at 7:00
    when you know you have to be at work at 8:30? Drug usage is a
    responsibility... one that our government thinks we cant handle.
    A responsible user... (if there is such an animal) would plan
    a time much like one would plan to go see a concert or go to a movie. 
    
    >The second is that "drugs" by defintion alter (note: "alter"
    >not "destroy, damage, hurt, injure...") the judgement.  as such
    >they _alter_ the judgement as to whether the "experience" is over
    >and conventional activities can be resumed.
     
    That is why many pro legalization folks are wanting the government
    to step in and regulate quality and do research resulting in
    releasing documentation on what the effects are. 
             
    Both arguments are valid... however they are points that the
    pro-drug legalization folks are also fighting for.  
    
    >This gets to a philosophical matter of "different things".  I would
    >suggest, given  the "persistent" effects of drugs, and their judgement
    >altering capabilities (see above on both...), that this becomes
    >"one thing".  Further, that taking them by choice followed by a
    >"criminal act" is itself a separate "criminal" act.
     
    Well this isn't a philosoupey conference... but I too think you
    are deliberatly confusing two things. There is a time and place
    for everything.
    
    >It may not be "criminal" but I can't accept "drug" use as
    >"victimless" without qualification.  Perhaps I should have
    >said "knowledge", rather than "special circumstances.
     
    Is anything "victimless"? Is driving to work in a car that is
    creating pollution victimless? Is hunting or fishing victimless?
    Is watching TV victimless? You can always point to somebody or
    something that is suffering because of something we are or are not
    doing. It is tricky ground but thats what life is.  A great Master
    once wrote something similar and I conclude that the only way to
    not create victims is to be dead. 
    
    >Understand, please, i am not an antidrug zealot.  I would be much
    >happier if "we" (society at large) could adopt a generalized
    >legalization, somehow, and a live-and-let-live approach.  BUT
    >until that happens, and everyone understands the risks that do
    >exist, and as long as the proven hazards of experimentation are
    >as large as they are, I feel a need to speak out about
    >(IMHO) oversimplifications like "victimless "act"".
     
    What??? "proven hazards of experimentation" ????
    I dont understand. Perhaps you mean to say... The proven hazards
    of being irresponsible.?? If one is irresponsible and has a job
    depending on responsibility... chances are that there will be
    a resulting error possibly resulting in a loss of human life.
    
    Over all I dont understand your arguments against drugs and take
    all you have written as more of a tirade against irresponsible
    people. This is a thing that ticks me off also... however I see
    it here as only a rather redundant and repetitive and a repeat of
    what has already been written, replied to and discussed in this
    topic and subject and society and the world around us as well.
    
    Perhaps a topic on "why folks have a desire to be irresponsible
    is society" in an appropriate conference or perhaps "Why people
    create irresponsibility in their own realities" would be a good
    topic to follow up on in this conference?? There is a point
    where everything ends and irresponsibility begins.. ALL things
    included.(leisure activities, or work) Can drugs be moderated
    (alcohol, cigs, ect included) by us as individuals on an independent
    level? What exactly is... "A Drug" is it only a biological substance
    causing a physical reaction? If so... could things like pornography
    or the Bible or anything be a drug?
                                       
    Craig ;-)                          

Operating a train or a car in a dangerous fashion is likely to result in
harm to yourself and others whether you're on drugs or not.  Do you ever
drive when you're angry about something?  Doesn't it seem as if your
normally good judgment is "altered" and that you put yourself and others
in more dangerous situations?

But no one would suggest that we pass a law against being angry.  When
it comes to drugs, people have a tendency to make excuses for the person
who acted in an irresponsible and harmful way and put the blame on the
drug.  At one time this actually worked to make sentences for drunk
drivers more lenient--now the pendulum has swung the other way entirely.
So it's less the crime that the person actually committed than what we
perceive to be their moral turpitude for drinking or taking drugs that
causes us to punish them severely.

The philosophical argument against anti-drug laws is that it's none of
government's business to anticipate (or guess) what might make me hurt
someone else, be it drug use, pornography, owning guns, or whatever.
Only when I'm actually hurting someone else can government step in and
put the handcuffs on me.  That's the extreme libertarian view.  I would
tend to temper that a bit with things like public nuisance laws (which
used to be used to control the drunk and disorderly element somewhat,
but which now are rarely enforced).

A pragmatist might take the approach: what do we want to accomplish by
anti-drug laws, and _are_ we really accomplishing it?  Prohibition of
alcohol was tried and found tragically wanting on this score.  It's
plain that prohibition of drugs (in the form of the current laws) is
also less than successful, and may even be as counter-productive as
alcohol prohibition was.  Is there a better way?
								paul

    
    Speaking of drug use and pornography... ;-) 
    
    There is an interesting artical on drugs in the June issue of
    Penthouse. It more or less points out that we have a desire to use
    drugs... and that drugs are harmful to us. It then says that before
    real legalization can take place we have to make drugs "safe". I
    really havn't read over the whole thing yet but it makes sense to
    me. I just looked over the issue this weekend... Ill have time to
    actually READ it this week, and will comment on anything note-worthy.
    
    Legalization now would cause lots of health problems to users...
    we have the technology to make drugs safe by eliminating harmful
    qualities of the drugs. Would this, along with counseling of
    irresponsible folks and drug education be enough to consider
    legalization? If the drugs were "safe" would there be as many users?
    How do we define "safe"..... Cigarettes were safe once upon a time..
    "more Doctors smoke camels..." (old radio add) How does this topic
    relate to this file? 
    
    Just wondering...
    

    And there is the cultural bias generated by avialibility of substance.
    
    In the Old World there are only about half dozen species of
    hullucinogens. In the New World there are about 40 species. In the
    rational, Christian, intellectual Old World, nature is something to
    beware of, to be avoided. In the connected, holistic, tribal New World,
    nature is something to be experienced and enjoyed. Scholars aren't sure
    why there are so many more in the New World but Andrew Weil suspects
    that should New World natives be placed in similar environments in
    Africa they'd quickly find previously unknown hullucinogens. 
    
    As has been noted before Soma was probably consumed into regional
    extinction by Indian cultures. It's resonable to think that other plant
    substances could have been consumed out of existience to the point
    that the Old World just lost interest in them.            
    
    Andrew Weils sugestions for drug use, as opposed to abuse...
    
    o	Use the drug in natural ways, in their natural forms, not
    processed, they should be either ingested or smoked. This eliminates
    the problems caused with processing, ie., increased strength, and
    unwanted elimination of accompanying compounds that make the natural
    item more fun; and unatural introduction, such as intervenious usage
    which sidesteps the natural processes of the body employs to defend
    itself against unwanted organisms. 
    
    o	Use drugs ritually. Set a schedule, define times of the day
    or week or month that you choose to employ the substance. The criteria
    could utilize times, places and purposes the substance is used.
    This helps eliminate the unstable and anti-social effects of
    indiscriminate drug use.
    
    o	Seek advice from people who know what they are talking about. The
    National Insitute of Mental Health is NOT an organization to ask. Ask
    those that have experience with the substance. Get to know the
    substance before ingestation. [The NIMH has been extensively quoted by
    the press but has no direct experience with the substances themselves.
    Further they test only the major compounds in absence of the natural
    accompanying comounds, and worse they chose methods of testing that
    users would never engage, ie, intervenious or intermusclar injections
    of THC when marihuana smoking is the usual method.] 
                          
    o	And most importantly, use the substance for positive reasons.
    This is self explanitory. Remember "Set and Setting".

RE:
Note 182.210                        
HYDRA::LARU "Surfin' the Zuvuya"                  
                 -< it's MY choice whether to rust or burn... >-
    
    
>    I think there is a tendency for us to forget that life is
>    inherently fatal.  It seems that we define "the good life"
>    as one without any risks, without any pain, without any death.
>    So we protect people against themselves...  no swimming without
>    lifeguards.  no driving without seat belts.  no motorcycling
>    without helmets.  no taking unsanctioned (untaxed) drugs.
>    shielding children (and adults) from death.  from "obscenity."
>    from the truth.            
 
    ;-) I have no desire for you anyone to protect you from yourself...
    I do however have a desire for someone to protect me from you.
    If your child swims in a town pond... and drowns... you can sue
    the town and collect big bucks... and my taxes go up. Seatbelts
    cause less fatalities...(when worn) If everyone drove with them
    on.. there would be less serious head injury accidents and my insurance
    premiums wouldn't have to be raised. 
    
    	If you take illegal drugs... and happen to get a bag of some
    weird mix of chemicals and get seriously ill... Who will pay your
    medical bill?? I will... Now if you promise that no matter what
    harm you cause on yourself... you will not in any way shape or form
    take my money.... I will let you jump off the water tower in my
    back yard and land on your head if you want.
    
    	I dont care what you do to you... but when you start legal
    action against folks who I am paying for a service... causing my
    bills to go up... Because of your/or someones desire to be free...
    I get ticked and will gladly throw your personal freedom out the
    door. ;-)
    
    >this seems to me to be leading toward a vanilla-flavored,
    >socially approved life-path that allows one to have only
    >socially approved experience, to learn only socially
    >approved truth.
     
    Well as society and population grows... our "space" is naturally
    limited. We will have to be more creative in imagining new recreational
    activities. I personally dont see a "vanilla-flavored" lifestyle
    for "me" however I do see one that does not harm others and yet
    allows me to be as creative as I will to be.
    Why dont you look into some "religion"? they dont cost me that
    much and some can even scew you up more than a bad accident! ;-)
    
    >  somehow we've forgotten that that pioneers
    >are needed to explore new paths to avoid stagnation.
    >that individuals have the need and the right to learn for
    >themselves what they wish and need to learn.
     
    But do the pioneers have a right to tax those who do not wish
    to explore?
    
    >rust or burn?  neither is inherently better.  
    
    I would rather you rust... Burning costs me money when you or your
    parents sue someone or you have to go to some rehab clinic to have
    someone put you out. 
    
    >in every path.  it is the individuals's right to choose
    >whether to rust or to burn.
     
    But you also have the responsibility for choosing actions that
    do not effect me or others in a negative way. 
                                                   
    If you choose to take an action that harms me... I will try to stop
    you from doing that action. "SANE" legalization... alowing you to go 
    to your room an do some "safe" (non costly to me...not you) drug... 
    or to a drug house providing a safe enviornment and perhaps audio 
    visual boosters?
    
    I myself am for legalization because I dont use drugs... and I
    would like to see my taxes go to something I could benifit off
    of or could use. Several billion a year could educate a lot of
    folks... or go to enviornmental projects ect. When I see 25K or
    more a year going just to house some kid who repeatedly sells drugs
    it disturbes me. Not that he is doing it over and over again...
    (heck the kid is making more $ in a week than I will in a year)
    but that we (society) isn't getting in on making the money too!!
    Isn't the business of America, "Business"? There is profit here..
    wots the problem! Why are we throwing good money on top of bad??
    
    Let American Business get a hold of the drug trade and those
    "Drug Lords" wont have a chance! ;-)
    
    Craig (Republican/Libertarian) ;-)

    
    RE: .211
    
    	what does ole Andrew have to say about man-made drugs?
    	Some of the chemical drugs are pretty popular... and legalization
    	of just the natural stuff wouldn't stop a black-market for
    	the man made "other" drugs.
    
    	Also... Could we or should we chemically alter the drugs to
    	devrease the negative aspects of the drugs? If a drug limits
    	hand eye coordination for 8 hours regularly... would it be
    	reasonable to perhaps chemically alter the drug to lesson
    	this aspect to last for only 4 hours? 
    
    	We are getting to the point that we can almost tailor make
    	a drug for every season or mood. Decreasing the side effects
    	or negative headaches... nausia ect... Should we alter this
    	or keep them completely natural? 
    
    Craig                  
    

    re: .212
    
    well Craig,  every moment I and millions like me exhale
    more carbon dioxide into the air, which certainly has
    the potential for causing you some inconvenience
    at some point in the future.   I think you should
    probably take out your UZI and eliminate all of us
    who might ever possibly victimize you in some way.
    What a wonderful reality you can have all to yourself!
    
    /bruce
    
    

     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sooner or later, one way or another, everybody pays.  Its the nature
 of existence.   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        It is much more costly to the average taxpayer to keep drugs
    illegal Craig.  The fastest growing occupation in America today
    is Corrections Officer.  A record 627,402 men and women were
    in federal and state prisons at the end of 1988, an increase of
    7.4 percent over the previous year, according to a report released
    by the Justice Department.  Prison construction can not keep pace 
    with the inmate population and its getting worse.  Our judicial
    systems are clogged.  Our police are over extended.  We can pour
    money and resources into the situation and still not come close
    to a resolution.  There is no resolution.
    
    Have you ever stopped to consider how much it is costing you (as an 
    individual taxpayer) to keep organized religions in a tax-free status?
    They are probably costing you personally (as a taxpayer) a great deal 
    to subsidize.  Do you know how much it will cost you to bail out
    the Savings and Loans?  Our tax money has and continues to be used
    for many things that we (as individuals) might not approve. 
    
    Also, America has more lawyers than any other nation.  You can be sued
    for anything today.  Restricting another's personal behavior won't
    protect you.   Nothing can really protect you from a law suit.
    
    There are no guarantees in life.  We cannot live our lives in fear of
    losing control.  The Law of Entrophy will see to it that the chaotic
    element increases with the complexity of life in society and we cannot 
    legislate it away nor can we contain it.  People must assume individual
    responsibility for their lives and decisions.   It is a futile,
    meaningless and destructive exercise to legally restrict the use of
    drugs within society.  It makes it impossible to teach the children
    a proper respect for the plants or how to protect themselves. 
    
    Humans have been using drugs since the beginning of time.  Pot seeds
    have been found in ancient sites.  The plants are not evil.  It
    is said that it's the abuse of plants (as in the processing of cocaine)
    that focuses the plant energy in a destructive manner.  Humans are
    so out of touch with nature and spirit that we often perceive anything
    that is not made and/or controlled by man as evil.  We even want
    to control each other.  How sad, for we cannot.  Repression never
    solved anything... Gorbachev can confirm that_:-)
    
                                            
    Mary
                                                       

    
   >>> well Craig,  every moment I and millions like me exhale...
      
    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WORLD POPULATION!!! DONT TELL ME I ALREADY
    KILLED OFF 9 BILLION OR SO!!!
    
	RE: .214
    	Well Bruce, I actually considered that for a bit... but then
    	I figured the cost of shells, the enviornmental impact of getting
    	10 billion or so bullets worth of gunpowder... the ear damage
    	from hearing so many "BANGS!", the illnesses I might catch from
    	all the rotting corpses, the inhaled carbon, ect...ect... It
    	just didn't make sense economicly..What is the price of copper
    	now anyway???...
    	So instead Ill work on the little reality I have all to myself
    	and just have those around me breath a tad slower. ;-)
    
    Craig

    
    
    RE:        
    Note .215           

    	Mary,
    
    > Sooner or later, one way or another, everybody pays.  Its the nature
    > of existence.   
 
    I am more than willing to pay for my freedom and my foolishness...
    However I have no desire to pay for yours when you do not value
    it nor take responsibility for it.
    
    >    It is much more costly to the average taxpayer to keep drugs
    >illegal Craig.  
    
    	I agree 100%!! It is far more costly to keep drugs illegal
    than it would be to legalize. I am in no way saying I am against
    legalization... I am only saying that I do desire some sanity
    to be considered by you along with legalization.
    
    	There are some folks who live by us who were spraying RAID
    	Hornet killer on Cigarettes... letting them dry... and then
    	smolking them to see if they could get high. Should I pay 
    	their medical bills? 
    
    	I dont care if people do crazy things... as long as they are
    	willing to take on the problems they bring onto themselves.
    	I dont like having to pay for others irresponsibility... causing
    	myself to be burdened so that they can "be free". 
                     
    Why cant we adopt a policy that says that anyone can do any kind
    of drug. However physical damages caused by the drug cannot be covered
    by insurance or state/federal funded agencies. Then put the money
    that used to go into law enforcement into education.. or socially
    helpfull organizations/plans.? (or something like that?)
    
   >     Have you ever stopped to consider how much it is costing you (as an 
   > individual taxpayer) to keep organized religions in a tax-free status?
   > They are probably costing you personally (as a taxpayer) a great deal 
   > to subsidize.
    
    Thats ok. I dont mind my money going for that... I get a great deal
    of enjoyment out of organized and unorganized religions. Many provide
    a service to the local community and they keep me out of trouble.
    
    >There are no guarantees in life.  We cannot live our lives in fear of
    >losing control.  
     
    I agree. Many folks are terrified of losing control but yet in some
    ways we are equally as terrified in having to take responsibility.
    ;-) Legalize and let the American People through American Business
    handel it. 
    
    >  Humans are
    >so out of touch with nature and spirit that we often perceive anything
    >that is not made and/or controlled by man as evil.  We even want
    >to control each other.  How sad, for we cannot.  
    
    I agree again... We cannot control each other.... I cannot control
    you... yet how do I get you to take responsibility for yourself?
    Do I let you wither and die slowly? Do I exterminate you and get it
    over with quickly? I nor anyone I know or associate with... wishes
    to control another.... what I do wish however is for you to control
    yourself... using your own judgement. What are we to do with those
    that decapitate themselves in the name of freedom and then run to
    society demanding help... claiming that they were only "innocent
    victims of the cold hard world, that the streets were harder than
    they were... ect... ect..." 
    
    I dont wish to control anyone...  the common "love" (for
    lack of a better word) I have for mankind causes me to hurt when
    I see that you or anyone is hurt... Yes... you have the right
    to hurt yourself... but how can I or anyone teach the world that
    we are responsible to ourselves for the hurt or pain we feel.
    It all makes up life and we all have the right to experiance it
    from the greatest to the least. Thats great..... but why do you
    run to me (me=society) when you are hurt and then keep to yourself
    when you experiance pain?
    
    I guess what I am saying is that we all have to take responsibility
    for ourselves... good and bad. We have to take responsibility for
    for the good trips we have and the bad ones. We have to take
    responsibility for the negative effects caused by the drugs we
    use. We have to be in control of ourselves and responsible for our
    own actions. Until that happens there can be no legalization on
    a sane level.
    
    >Repression never
    >solved anything... Gorbachev can confirm that_:-)
     
    Lets give Gorby a few years till we start deciding what he can and
    cannot confirm. ;-)
                                            
      Craig ;-)

     
Note 182.217                         
USACSB::CBROWN 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I am more than willing to pay for my freedom and my foolishness...
>    However I have no desire to pay for yours when you do not value
>    it nor take responsibility for it.

Value and responsibility are very subjective words Craig.  What do you
consider to be of value?  What behavior do you feel is responsible?
Since I have never asked you nor (to my knowledge) have you ever paid
for anything concerning me or my life, my children or my home, I fail to
understand how I am costing you money.  Could you please explain this
strange statement to me?  

I'd also like you to explain how I have "not taken responsibility".
I've raised two children by myself, worked all of my life and pay my
mortgage regularly.  I pay taxes like everyone else.  I've never been
on welfare nor have I ever received any kind of government help or 
subsidy.  Where have I failed in my responsibilities Craig?  Where and 
how have you been called upon to fill in for me?


>    	I agree 100%!! It is far more costly to keep drugs illegal
>    than it would be to legalize. I am in no way saying I am against
>    legalization... I am only saying that I do desire some sanity
>    to be considered by you along with legalization.

Sanity?  Whatever do you mean?  What we are doing now is insane.  You can
pass legislation against acts (such as murder or drunken driving) but you
cannot legislate behavior.  Didn't you ever study about Prohibition in school?
    
>    	There are some folks who live by us who were spraying RAID
>    	Hornet killer on Cigarettes... letting them dry... and then
>    	smoking them to see if they could get high. Should I pay 
>    	their medical bills? 

Were you asked to pay their bills?  Are they your children?  Your parents?
I would say you are well within your rights to .... JUST SAY NO if they 
ask you to pay their bills.  Why doesn't their insurance company pay
their bills, their parents probably have been contributing to the insurance
company for years.  Do you pay for the overweight man who has a heart attack?  
Do you pay for the AIDS victim?  Do you pay for the malnourished child or the 
diabetic?  Take care of yourself Craig and let the rest of the world worry about
themselves.

>    	I don't care if people do crazy things... as long as they are
>    	willing to take on the problems they bring onto themselves.
>    	I don't like having to pay for others irresponsibility... causing
>    	myself to be burdened so that they can "be free". 

The only way you will not be burdened by someone in some way is to leave
society and live by yourself.   America's children are educated by your
property taxes whether you have children or not.  Social Security is
used to assist the elderly whether you live to be old or not.  There
will always be those who are malnourished and orphaned and sick and 
in trouble.  If you do not want to contribute to the well being of
society (as a whole) then you must go and create your own society on
your own terms.

I don't like subsidizing the governments covert activities in South
America but as a member of this society, my money is used for things
of which I may not personally approve.  Thats the way it is Craig.  

>    Why cant we adopt a policy that says that anyone can do any kind
>    of drug. However physical damages caused by the drug cannot be covered
>    by insurance or state/federal funded agencies. Then put the money
>    that used to go into law enforcement into education.. or socially
>    helpful organizations/plans.? (or something like that?)

Because we could then expand on that policy to say that anyone who is 
overweight and has a heart attack is not covered by insurance, anyone who
has AIDS is not covered by insurance, anyone who smokes is not covered by
insurance, anyone who is a type A personality is not covered by insurance,
anyone who has a history of cancer in the family is not covered by insurance,
anyone who drinks is not covered by insurance, anyone who is young and gets 
pregnant is not covered by insurance (as pregnancy is high risk for teenagers).

What afterall, is the purpose of insurance?  Do the people who do drugs
also pay insurance premiums?  Why should they pay for you if you have a 
nervous breakdown or an emotionally related cancer or anything else?  

Everyone who has insurance pays insurance premiums Craig.  I've been paying
for the 12 years I've been at DEC and I've never been seriously ill.  Should
I object to paying for the guy who is chronically ill or to the baby born
premature requiring expensive care?  The nature of insurance is that we are
all in it or none of us are.  Insurance companies may well decide not to
pay for any drug related illness, they already are screening for AIDS and
(I've been told) for cigarette smokers.  

Why don't you take some personal responsibility and shop around and find an 
insurance company that will consider this policy?  Why must all of society
be restricted to ensure your financial comfort?

>    Thats ok. I don't mind my money going for that... I get a great deal
>    of enjoyment out of organized and unorganized religions. Many provide
>    a service to the local community and they keep me out of trouble.

Ah, but *I* do not.  Why should I pay for you to get a great deal of enjoyment
and stay out of trouble.  I don't particularly care if you enjoy yourself
or if you get into trouble.  Why shouldn't I restrict your activity in order
to suit myself?  Why should *I* have to pay for *your* pleasure and freedom
of religion?  The law is blind and must work both ways.  Why must I pay for 
your enjoyment and well being?

>    I agree. Many folks are terrified of losing control but yet in some
>    ways we are equally as terrified in having to take responsibility.
>    ;-) Legalize and let the American People through American Business
>    handle it. 

It appears that we both agree about everything except the definition of
responsibility.  Responsibility means more than playing your game in your
way.  Responsibility means that I take care of myself, not that I live
my life in a manner that you approve of.
    
>    I agree again... We cannot control each other.... I cannot control
>    you... yet how do I get you to take responsibility for yourself?

You have yet to prove to me in any way that I am irresponsible.  
You seem to think that you have all the answers Craig.  That you know best
how everyone should live.  That your way is the only way.  Have you ever
stopped to consider that you may be wrong?

>    Do I let you wither and die slowly? Do I exterminate you and get it
>    over with quickly? I nor anyone I know or associate with... wishes
>    to control another.... what I do wish however is for you to control
>    yourself... using your own judgment. 

And that is exactly what I am doing, using my own judgement.  My judgement
however does not lead me to your conclusions.  My judgement does not tell
me that I must live my life according to your beliefs.

It is not your place to exterminate those whose lifestyles you disagree 
with.... although its been done before.  There is always someone or something 
that someone else doesn't approve of.  With Hitler it was the Jews, in South 
Africa it's black people, with Israel it's the Palestine people.  
Someone always disapproves of someone else's religion, background, habits, 
family, neighborhood.  Why should we legislate and police to force people to 
conform to another's opinions when that opinion may prove in coming years to
be archaic and destructive?

My death is my own business and responsibility, as is my life.  It is not
your business nor that of your friends to exterminate me.  I will die in
my own way and my own time and I promise you personally that my death will
not be a financial burden to you anymore than your death will be to me.

I live my life in my own way, I pay my own way, I mind my own business and
I will not change to please you.


>    What are we to do with those
>    that decapitate themselves in the name of freedom and then run to
>    society demanding help... claiming that they were only "innocent
>    victims of the cold hard world, that the streets were harder than
>    they were... etc... etc..." 
    
I don't know anyone like that.  Everyone I know has a head.

American society doesn't greatly extend itself to help anyone.  We have one
of the highest infant mortality rates of all the industrialized nations.  We
discourage birth control and abortion and then condemn our young girls for
being pregnant and a burden on society, discriminate against them and often
deny them a basic education.  

You need not help anyone Craig.  You can turn your heart and close your mind
to those 'innocent victims of the cold hard world'.  They are not your 
brothers, your mother, your sisters and friends.  Take care of yourself
and the rest of us will do the same.  What goes around comes around and
I've never regreted the times I've extended my hand to help another.  You
make your own decisions and live your own life in your own manner.

Those of us who choose to reach out and help with no questions and no strings 
will continue to do so.  Those of us who don't mind sharing what little
we have will continue to do so.  Those of us who are happy and content with
friends and family will be happy and content even if we have no money at all.

In the final analysis, we all must live our lives as best we can, making
our own choices along the way.   We face death knowing that we drank our
fill of experience and have lived the life we selected.  We lived life our way,
not Craig's way  and we will have few regrets and little fear of the unknown
because the unknown is not a terror to us.


>    I don't wish to control anyone...  the common "love" (for
>    lack of a better word) I have for mankind causes me to hurt when
>    I see that you or anyone is hurt... Yes... you have the right
>    to hurt yourself... but how can I or anyone teach the world that
>    we are responsible to ourselves for the hurt or pain we feel.

Craig, you don't always listen but please listen to me now.  I am not
hurt.  I am very happy.   From what I can figure out, things that hurt
you do not hurt me.  I lead a wholesome and productive life.  I've 
managed to raise not just my own children but other children with 
parents who (for whatever reason) abandoned them.

Perhaps this is a mother's lesson... that love does not give one the
right to live another's life for them.  Love does not buy you the soul 
of the other.  Love brings only joy and sorrow, not control of another's
life.  Love buys you only love in return, not the right to make decisions
for the other.    
You are not here to change the world to your liking, you are here (like
the rest of us) to experience life yourself... personally.  To make
personal decisions of your own about how you want your life to unfold.

The world knows that we are responsible to ourselves for the hurt and 
pain that we feel.  Why then do you blame others for your own hurt and pain?
Don't look for scapegoats for the nature of existence.  Live your own life
as best you can, make your own decisions, find your own happiness, and let
the rest of the world carry on as it always has and always will.  This is
a world of opposites, of hot and cold, of pain and pleasure.  This world
could not exist if the opposites were not present.  They are a part of the
nature of reality.  Stop trying to save the world and save yourself.

>    It all makes up life and we all have the right to experience it
>    from the greatest to the least. Thats great..... but why do you
>    run to me (me=society) when you are hurt and then keep to yourself
>    when you experience pain?

I don't.  I never have.  I believe that the great majority of people take
care of themselves.
    
>    I guess what I am saying is that we all have to take responsibility
>    for ourselves... good and bad. We have to take responsibility for
>    for the good trips we have and the bad ones. We have to take
>    responsibility for the negative effects caused by the drugs we
>    use. We have to be in control of ourselves and responsible for our
>    own actions. Until that happens there can be no legalization on
>    a sane level.
    
There is a great deal of propaganda being spread around today but I believe
that for the most part people do take care of themselves.  Those who do not
are jailed and then we build more jails and lock up more people and more and
more and more.  What more do you want?  There are no guarantees in this life.

>    Lets give Gorby a few years till we start deciding what he can and
>    cannot confirm. ;-)
                                            
I like him and as far as I know you don't pay for my opinions so I am entitled
to them right?_:-)_or can you find a justification for eliminating freedom
of opinion as well.... it could conceivably cost you tax money to pay the
censors to ensure that no one disagrees with you.  Ah, the price of freedom.

Mary

RE:Note 182.219                  
HKFINN::STANLEY 
   
  Mary,

>  What do you consider to be of value?
	
That which I take responsibility for.

> What behavior do you feel is responsible?

My own.

*BREAK*

Mary, When I use words like "I" or "YOU" I do not mean YOU=Mary
I mean to only be addressing the thought pattern addressed in
what is written... and I am writing in reply with my current
percieved thought pattern... to "YOU=World who share or these type thought
patterns" ALL ideas, concepts, possible realities, ect must be challenged 
and explored. I guess the reason I am writing this is that I
fear that I am being taken more seriously than I take myself.
All that is written here is just ideas, beliefs, truths and lies,
I do not take any of those too seriously. I am in no way refering to
you individually but to your note as if it came from "a piece of humanity"
If I ment to address you as the individual I would do so off line.
I apologise if anything said was taken by you as a personal stab...
I tend to write knowing that a whole bunch of folks are also reading
this and it has been effective for me to use terms like "you" to
address the potential reader. Again I apologise... I am only addressing
the thought circuts not the individual.

*BACK TO THE SHOW*

>Since I have never asked you nor (to my knowledge) have you ever paid
>for anything concerning me or my life...  
to..
> Where have I failed in my responsibilities Craig?  Where and 
>how have you been called upon to fill in for me?

I am commenting on the messed up socialization of State and Federal
programs that cripple a communities or a community members ability
to heal ones self while hurting the community. THE SCREWED UP
WHOLE SYSTEM and the thought patterns/ways of life they are creating.
However I do find your reaction interesting and not uncommon... ;-)
"NOT ME!!" and yet we all are part of it. (even me ;-) We are all
the abuser and the abused.

>Sanity?  Whatever do you mean?  What we are doing now is insane.  You can
>pass legislation against acts (such as murder or drunken driving) but you
>cannot legislate behavior.  Didn't you ever study about Prohibition in school?

Isn't every "act" passed an attemt to legislate behavior? Laws only
work if the theory behind them is already accepted behavior. Law is
only a guidline of what actions we as a majority believe to be acceptable
behaviors. Buracracy/time is a means for us to filter out "trendy" 
behaviors. 

When Legalization of alcohol took place Quality Control measures were
put in place to help business consolidate and make a profit. Straight 
legalization would do nothing or very little economicly for business
to consider getting involved.    

>Were you asked to pay their bills?

I am not asked where I wish my tax money to go or money I pay for bills.

 > Do you pay for the overweight man who has a heart attack?  
>Do you pay for the AIDS victim?  Do you pay for the malnourished child or the 
>diabetic?  Take care of yourself Craig and let the rest of the world worry about
>themselves.

Yes.

What ever happened to "we are the world.. we are the children ect..ect.."
;-) an internal policy of Nationalism leads to a policy of Isolation
which eventually leads to war due to misunderstanding or ignorance.
I pay for the pain in the world... I feel it's triumphs too... they
are "I", maybe I wrote a 100+ line entry establishing what I didn't
like about myself. Maybe you wrote a 200+ entry doing the same. ;-)
We all have to fix it from the inside out... but what we feel about
the outside is a good indicator of what we feel about ourselves. Let
the inside reflect the outside. If we turn our back on the world and
the problems we have with individuals... we are only turning our backs
on ourselfs... not a smooth move in my book.

>I don't like subsidizing the governments covert activities in South
>America but as a member of this society, my money is used for things
>of which I may not personally approve.  Thats the way it is Craig.  

I choose not to believe that. "Thats the way it is" is a dead end
to thought. It is also a dead end to ourselfs. Perhaps idealistic
views are only in the young... maybe in 24 years I havn't found
that it is written in stone yet. I believe I can change my world
into something just for me with all my actions going to efforts
that I decide and believe in. It's corny as hell and will take
many errors and trials... but it can, i believe... be done. I hope
I always do believe that.

>Because we could then expand on that policy to say that anyone who is 
>overweight and has a heart attack is not covered by insurance, anyone who
>has AIDS is not covered by insurance, anyone who smokes is not covered by
>insurance, anyone who is a type A personality is not covered by insurance,
>anyone who has a history of cancer in the family is not covered by insurance,
>anyone who drinks is not covered by insurance, anyone who is young and gets 
>pregnant is not covered by insurance (as pregnancy is high risk for teenagers).

Your catching on! Why dont we just get rid of insurance? I have not gotten
sick in 5 years and have never missed more than a day of work due to
illness. I also have no insurance...(except car liability /manditory by law)
because I take value in myself and take responsibility for my body. I listen
to it when it tells me things and I believe my lack of insurance has bettered
my health. 

>What afterall, is the purpose of insurance? 

I havn't the slightest idea. but my experiance would suggest that it
is a way for people who feel they have put something into society...
to get more than their share back. ;-)

> Do the people who do drugs also pay insurance premiums?  

some do.... some dont.

>Why should they pay for you if you have a 
>nervous breakdown or an emotionally related cancer or anything else?  

I dont believe they should pay via insurance. I would like to see a
community structure in which, If I am ill, the community from which
I belong will care for me as I have for the community. 

>Everyone who has insurance pays insurance premiums Craig.  I've been paying
>for the 12 years I've been at DEC and I've never been seriously ill.  Should
>I object to paying for the guy who is chronically ill or to the baby born
>premature requiring expensive care? 

Thats good Mary... bring emotional issues in... nex I am sure to hear
"That sounds like something Hitler would say." but anyway... throwing on
a smile I will have to say... "Thats up to you."

In Sparta... way back when... When a child was born he was placed
befor the father. If the father picked up the child... the child was
kept. If he didn't... it was placed outside on the street with the
other garbage. 

What I am saying is that we are mortal. We are all going to die.
Is it justifyable to spend 100,000.00 dollars on a heart transplant.
We have to bring the value of life in perspective with the value of
human life to the community and ourselves. Is there a point in which
we sacrifice the good of the community for the good of the individual.
Is there a point where we sacrifice the good of the world for the good
of the country. Is this Right or Wrong or just the "the way things are"
and are they the natural way they should be... or the best that they
can be. 

 

>  Why must I pay for 
>your enjoyment and well being?

you shouldn't.
     
>You have yet to prove to me in any way that I am irresponsible.  
>You seem to think that you have all the answers Craig.  That you know best
>how everyone should live.  That your way is the only way.  Have you ever
>stopped to consider that you may be wrong?

:-) Wrong?..Me? Of course I am... all the time... about everything
under the sun and beyond. I dont have all the answers... I dont have
even one of them. Answers are lies... so I am only searching for
questions now. If you draw conclusions from what I write.... those
conclusions are wrong. 
 
>And that is exactly what I am doing, using my own judgement.  My judgement
>however does not lead me to your conclusions.  My judgement does not tell
>me that I must live my life according to your beliefs.

Than change your judgement and your beliefs. ;-). Consider new judgements,
consider new beliefs, consider invalid answers as valid and vaild ones
as invalid. We are limited to hardware... however we can change software
numerous times... via drugs... via religion... via political outlook...
via meditation or lack there of. We are all a bit of Hitler, Stalin,
Israel, Palistine, Africa, Asia, Northern Hemisphere... ect..ect..
and we only disapprove of ourselves.

>I live my life in my own way, I pay my own way, I mind my own business and
>I will not change to please you.

You dont have to change to please me... you only have to think new thoughts
every now and then and continue to make me do the same. ;-)
    
>I don't know anyone like that.  Everyone I know has a head.

Unfortunately I find many think they do... but under close examination
I have found serial numbers linking them to a common manufacturer...
Only the gods know where there real heads are!! ;-)

>Those of us who choose to reach out and help with no questions and no strings 
>will continue to do so.  Those of us who don't mind sharing what little
>we have will continue to do so.  Those of us who are happy and content with
>friends and family will be happy and content even if we have no money at all.

Will continue to do so, will continue to do so... "Bahhhhh" "Bahhhhh"
"Bahhhh" Sounds like... "Nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong..."
"continue action... disengage brain..." This one paragraph scares me more
than anything else... because it is so accepted as "Thats the way it is".
Unfortunately... people abuse will also continue and all the negative
things we dislike about society. And we will go along Bahhhh Bahhhh Bahhh
following the Prime Minister across the Bridge ;-). You dont like "Craig's
Way?" then show me your individual ways! Lets discuss them and see if
we can come up with something better!! 

>In the final analysis, we all must live our lives as best we can, making
>our own choices along the way.   We face death knowing that we drank our
>fill of experience and have lived the life we selected.  We lived life our way,
>not Craig's way  and we will have few regrets and little fear of the unknown
>because the unknown is not a terror to us.

"the life we selected" why do I hear "That's the way it is Craig" again.
The pig has few regrets because he has never known anything other than
the butcher. The slave has no regrets because he has never known what free
is. Contentment is a lie and a trap. A life of contentment isn't a life.
At least not a human one according to my belief at the moment. But
of course this isn't a common view. ;-)
    
>You are not here to change the world to your liking, you are here (like
>the rest of us) to experience life yourself... personally.  To make
>personal decisions of your own about how you want your life to unfold.

You dont know why I am here... or why I am doing what I am doing...
although I think I did it and do it pretty damn well!! ;-) And
in doing so I am changing the world... personally. 

>The world knows that we are responsible to ourselves for the hurt and 
>pain that we feel.  Why then do you blame others for your own hurt and pain?

it's a learning tool... a stage in everyones development.

>Don't look for scapegoats for the nature of existence.  Live your own life
>as best you can, make your own decisions, find your own happiness, and let
>the rest of the world carry on as it always has and always will.  This is
>a world of opposites, of hot and cold, of pain and pleasure.  This world
>could not exist if the opposites were not present.  They are a part of the
>nature of reality.  Stop trying to save the world and save yourself.

The SIN of DUALITY!!!! AHHHH!!!! Your contaminated!!! AH! AH! AH! AH!
By saving or upseting/altering the world and it's people do I not
upset/alter and save myself?

>I don't.  I never have.  I believe that the great majority of people take
>care of themselves.
 
I disagree... I dont think most people even know themselves let alone
care for themselves.
       
>What more do you want?  

give me just the world and myself and I will be happy. ;-)
                                            
>I like him and as far as I know you don't pay for my opinions so I am entitled
>to them right?_:-)_or can you find a justification for eliminating freedom
>of opinion as well.... it could conceivably cost you tax money to pay the
>censors to ensure that no one disagrees with you.  Ah, the price of freedom.

I can justify anything with time... and I might even find a way to use your
money to pay you off. ;-)

Craig

Hi Bruce, ;-)    

>    The community is the sum of the individuals.
    
>    Dimish the individual and you diminish the community.
 
    Thats very nice, however you are assuming that all the individuals
    are positive factors. ;-) If an individual was negative, Deminishing
    him would increase the sum of the community.   
    
    Is "community" based on Pos or Neg factors that can be added to
    or subtracted from. Or is community based on common factors that
    have no value other than being common?
    
    If the individuals have no common factors... are they the communities
    concern or even part of the community?
    
    How many common factors do infinite numbers have? Positive and Negative?
                                                                    
    :-)

    I wish to belong to a community that has as its goal to
    maximize the potential and opportunity for growth of
    each member of the community, with growth being defined 
    by the individual.  
    
    If an individual happens to be convicted of being physically
    destructive of the community, then the individual should be isolated.
    (Let's not argue about jail/capital punishment here, OK?)
    I don't believe in preventative detention.  We cannot predict
    an individual's behavior.   If I don't want my freedom restricted,
    I cannot restrict that of anyone else.  Such is the nature
    of a free society.   
    
    Life naturally includes risk, pain, death.  We cannot legislate
    or eliminate risk, pain or death.  We can only try to maximize
    ourselves and not impede others.  I don't believe in a "debt"
    to society.  My social obligation is to develop myself as best
    I can in a non-destructive way.  By being MY best, I make my maximum
    social contribution.  If I succeed, then I may also be an example
    for others to follow; if I fail, then I may be an example for
    others to avoid.   The choice is mine, and theirs...
    
    
    /bruce

    Words can be very effective for altering states of consciousness.
    It looks to me as if the participants of this conference were
    overdosing. 
    	Recently, I talked to one of my father's friends about prohibition
     He was saying that there was a tremendous drop in crime, to the
    point that many small time police forces had nothing to do. A black
    market was created, but the vast majority of Americans were law
    abiding. We have a different situation with drugs today. Attitudes
    about obeying laws preclude a prohibition approach to drugs. Even
    after prohibition was appealed oops, reppealed (this editorstinks)
    high taxes were placed on alcohol. Inflation has reduced them to
    nothing, at least compared to the social cost of alcohol. Prohibition
    works extremely well in Saudi Arabia, but this is a closed society
    with a strong anti-alcohol religious viewpoint. I suspect that Saudis
    compensate with caffiene, nicotine and THC.
    
    	Research about drugs is to some extent misdirected. People will
    find drugs to use.  witness AA meatings with clouds of cigarrete
    smoke.(v*&f@ a this editor!). The research might better be directed
    to finding drugs with fewer harmful side effects. I think the ideal
    drug would be self limiting,only mildly addictive and fairly short
    acting. Coffee is a good example of a self limiting drug, higher
    doses becomes unpleasant, besides who ever heard of smokeable caffeine.
    For those who drink in moderation, alcohol works well, but it is
    far to damaging to the abuser to be ideal. THC is metabolized so
    slowly that chronic use is probably not wise. Soo.... Where are
    any better choices?
    
    	Actually, the discussion has gotten rather far afield from the
    central theme of this conference. Ethical issues are important,
    but are a very personal matter. I am more interested in how people
    have learned from or been set back by their experiences. It is very
    understandable that people would be reticent to talk abut personal
    experiences, but these would be more helpful. I suggest that we
    try to focus the discussion on specifics.
    
    	About twenty years ago I ( I feel free to talk about my young
    and foolish youth) I took 3/4 of what was represented to me as a
    4 high tab.(LSD) I would guess the dose was 300 micrograms. During the
    peak of the experience visual perceptions were distorted enough
    that I could not identify clothing very well- it kept changing.
    During the latter part of the night if I sat quietly I would hear
    a heavy thundering. The next night I slept about 15 hours, awaking
    in a sort of dream state where my physical orientation was unknown
    and I couldn't seem to breathe. Gradually, over the next few months,
    I began to have occasional OOBE's, however, I never was able to
    enter them at will. Usually, these experiences would be like a flying
    dream with full conscious awareness. For awhile, I experienced a
    strong burning sensation at the base of my spine. Over the years
    the energy flow became less violent and I began to see patterns
    of light in my head(3rd eye?) I think the only thing left now of
    this experience is an aura of flickering if I awaken during the night.
    The largest frustration was never gaining any conscious control
    so that I could try the various techniques suggested in the literature.
    Most of these experiences were very short as any attempt to direct
    my attention to any task or perception would awaken me back to a
    normal state of consciousness. Since that time I've only tried LSD
    once with no apparen effect on these experiences. The end result
    has been of little use to me. I just suffered through a lot of unknowns
    anxieties and pain. Would I reccomend the experimentation with drugs
    for enhancing altered states? NO! Not unless there is a knowledgeable
    person available to guide and deal with potential problems. I do
    suspect with the right kind of help this experience could have been
    useful. Banning these drugs and halting research seems foolish,
    but free availability isn't the answer either.
    
    				 john
    
    avefv HO ku b

re: .226

     > (v*&f@ a this editor!). 

     Try SET PROFILE/EDITOR=(<editor of choice>,CALL)

     Terry

    I've heard of STP, LSD, MMDA,THC, but what's editor, Terry? Just
    kidding, the vt320 was set for vt100 mode and I couldn't remember
    the esc sequence for delete as the the regular key wouldn't work.
    
    
    john

    JOhn,
    	I tried that stuff way back when...   Even grew my own mushrooms.
    But for me, even though I might not have been aware of it at the time,
    it was more of a spiritual exploration and not a means to an end. My
    experimentation was short lived because I felt the perfect "trip" didn't
    need to be repeated. What this exploration did help me do was
    understand that the world didn't necessarily exist as I thought it did,
    tht perhaps the universe isn't limited by Euclidian principles.  And
    the experimentation did sort of open the way to me for seeing that perhaps
    there might be more to the idea that pain, and death is a continual
    process, not limited to our physical body. The last  "perfect trip" I took
    didn't cause me to want to keep taking drugs to try to repeat the
    situation; on the contrary, it got me to thinking that there must be a
    way of creating this peak without the use of artificial means. And,
    because for the most part, I have accomplished this, I believe that my
    use of hallucinogens was positive because it opened me up to my present
    path. What I have learned is that the perceptions I had while under the
    influence of the hallucinogens, was not necessarilyu any more
    hallucination than the perceptions I get while experiencing Euclidian
    reality.
    	That's not to say that I believe that it's the right thing for
    everybody, on the contrary, it can be very dangerous, depending on our
    own reasons for utilizing these chemicals.  They cannot be used as
    "means to an end" just as work, dining, alcohol, religion, et al  cannot
    be used as a means to an end- to provide escape from the immediacy of
    our perceived pain and suffering. 
    
    
    Ernie

    Well said Ernie.

	This seemed the most appropriate note for this, so I'm
    cross-posting it.. apologies to those who now encounter it twice.
    
      Also, the December '92 issue of GNOSIS magazine is devoted to Psychdelic
    Drugs, and how they do/do not relate to Spirituality. Included are 
    articles, interviews (incl. Ram Dass & George Fueurstein), and essays 
    representing several different viewpoints (everthing from "LSD *is* God" 
    to "It will take you 7 incarnations to repair the damage to your aura 
    caused by a single LSD trip", as well as more moderate viewpoints in 
    between). Very enjoyable reading.
    
    						chuck
    
    
Note 1771.64               The Clinton Administration                   64 of 65
BSS::C_OUIMETTE "Don't just do something, sit there" 20 lines  22-DEC-1992 18:20
                       -< pointer to further reading... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	As an aside, since we're digressing here anyways.... :^)
    
    For those interested in possible reasons for *controlled* 
    decriminalization of drugs, you may want to read "Storming Heaven" by
    Jay Stevens. Fairly scholarly history of drug usage, with an emphasis
    on LSD's history, esp. "the 60's", Tim Leary, etc.
    
    Good documentation of results such as 90% alcoholism cure rate
    after 1 "controlled" LSD trip, etc., lend some credence to the
    perspective of decriminalization of some drugs for controlled 
    psychotheraputic use, irrespective of one's feelings re:
    "self-medication". 
    
    Again, not an opinion, merely a pointer to some very enjoyable reading
    which can provide further food for thought on this issue. 
    
    				Happy Holidays,
    
    					chuck
                                                              
                                                     

    
    I'VE JUST SPENT ABOUT 3 HOURS GOING THROUGH THIS DRUG SECTION AND WAS
    WONDERING IF ANYONE IS WILLING TO CONTINUE THIS INTERESTING TOPIC.
    
    		ALSO COULD SOMEONE REPLY AND LET ME KNOW HOW TO OPEN A NEW
    TOPIC. IT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED.
    
    					THANKS.
    						TERRY