Taking action

[HeartCore]

Guess I post this here in the English speaking portion of Psychonauts.

Little introduction.

When I was 22 years old, I had my first psychedelic experience and it changed my life drastically. This was 14 years ago and my initial enthousiasm has since then only become bigger.

I am still baffled by how it is possible that government, churches or whoever, keep the lid on this thing. Another thing that bothers me, is that we, psychedelic users, are denied the right to choose our own religion. This is all swept under the carpet called war on drugs but in essence, it does not make sense at all.

The law has never stopped me from speaking out what I believe is right. And although I am dutch and live in the Netherlands and therefor am in a different position than, for example, americans, its still not done to come in on a monday and tell your collegues that you had this amazingly, mindopening trip this weekend (doesnt stop me from doing ).

Right, I dont want to make this opening post a long one so I move on what I have in mind.

I want to bring into the world a non-profit organization aimed to psychedelics. What I would like to do here, is together with all of you, find out what this org should be about, what its goal should be, what it should NOT be about etc..

So I'll start with some draft ideas:

goals
- promote the spreading of honest information about psychedelic substances.
- Offer a sacred place where people can have a psychedelic experience with experienced sitters present (this would be naturals only, probably limited to Ayahuasca/psilocybin.)
- Provide information on request to schools, parents etc..
- Promote psychedelic research.
- promite existing theories about psychedelics that seem to be forgotten (or unknown) by the majority of people (example: the excellent addition to evolution theory ruling out the need for a missing link by Terence Mckenna)

This are just some ideas, nothing is fixed yet.

Hope to get a nice discussion here with some good ideas.

Don't hold anything back because its to controversial, dangerous or whatever. Even if something is against the law now, it doesnt mean this will be like this forever. Keep in mind what Santo Daime did for Ayahuasca use)


HC

 

[Forkbender]

HC, I totally agree that it's about time to make some changes in the world regarding psychedelics. It is one of the means of the powers that be to control humans, next to, say, imprisonment and capitalism.

I guess it's important to have a clear message. Organizations cannot grow unless there is *some* form of (over)simplification, because otherwise people within it will not agree with each other and cannot make a fist. So to some extent you have to play the game the governments and the market are playing currently, otherwise you cannot grow and cannot compete with them for the truth (which in my opinion is constituted in practices). So we should have a standpoint that a lot of fellow psychonauts can agree on, which means we shouldn't be too specific. I think most of your points are stated pretty clear and agreable. I will try to think about other things in the next couple of days and report back to you.

Forkbender

PS, the evolutiontheory of McKenna is that the 'food of the gods'-theory? Or do I have to look elsewhere?

 

[Lotte]

Hi HC

I'll do the same as Forkbender, I'll give it some thought. I do very much agree with your point of view though. Honest and open information about drugs is needed. Just like more scientific research to break open discussions!

 

[HeartCore]

So we should have a standpoint that a lot of fellow psychonauts can agree on, which means we shouldn't be too specific

Yes agree. This could be something in the line as not linking any psychedelic to a specific group (like ayahuasca to Santo Daime, peyote to the native american church etc..). I don't see a big problem with that since most psychedelic users seem very open minded.

PS Yes, food of the gods, the book is nice, the lecture is GREAT. Downloadable in 8 parts from http://mckenna.psychedelic-library.org/ (8 files, Tree of knowledge)

I'll check back tonight for more replies.

 

[aynama]

back to the hard reality: money. that is what we are "sort of" pounding against, eh? - for we (or anyone at all who goes for an effort like discussed here) should realize the huge quantity of the stream which flows toward the money. it is big. believe me. the flow is not going to stop because someone says something right. ok, but to steer it, we would have to reinvent our public consumer strategics - sound only natural to ban certain companies, which are against the hallucinogenic culture (or call it what you like). so to make them see that we are against their pathetic boring lifestyles. against governments that provoke fashion rules, how we should live, what to drink (all the big companies do not care one bit if we start raving about understanding and free your mind - stuff), what to eat. stop smoking cigarettes, i know it must hurt, but the steering is made almost impossible, that is when we can believe we are on the right track.
almost went metaphysical so i shall stop about that.
the other way to me seems to ignore the whole race, to build an utopia with its borders, never mind the laws, but then again, if we keep ignoring the powers and the masters and mistresses, who knows, maybe that the world keeps going even more mad?
so to stop this silly message from pouring in all directions, i conclude:
we should reach with the campaigning in all regions of life, not just in discussions, debates, politics, marches, articles. our whole range of acts - these should indicate to those against this that we shall not be bent.

thanks for listening, back for more later,
yours,

aynama.

 

[Cyproxicus]

Hmz.. as much as i agree on the goals u set HC, it's (imo) best not to push things to hard/far. I prefer the slow process, wich works on the long-term. This means telling friends about it and give them a view in the world of psychedelic, from a personal point of view.
Sudden semi-national campagns for psychedelics might only trigger the gouvrenement in taking countermeasures (based on their ppl-control-fetish).

So if you wanna take action. Keep it local and personal. These are the best ways to reach ppl. (I experienced this to be true in during my study as a graphic designer (pretty much all about communicating) Even tho i often fantasize about doing a national campaign about this or that, its not realistic.)

- promote the spreading of honest information about psychedelic substances.
I would chanfe this into: Spread honest information about psychedelic substances among as many of friends, relatives and collegues as possible

- Provide information on request to schools, parents etc..
would be a great initiative (think many SmartShop-owners already fulfill this task tho.. but ok)

- Promote psychedelic research
I'd say; Do and Ask for.. psychedelic research Promoting it in any way might cause sceptics to question ur intentions.

Anyway, you got my offer to help you as a designer. I'd love create something to inform/interest ppl into psychedelics.

 

[HeartCore]

Hi all,

I have, and will be, busy for a few more days untill I have time again to really go into this topic again.

Cyproxicus: I disagree with your soft approach, I will go deeper into it so for now just the main reason:

Currently, laws prohibiting psychedelics are completely immoral and incorrect. We as 'users' have the right to receive valid education about them because there is no reason at all for rejecting this. Negative psychedelic experiences are mostly due to misinformation and prohibition. It is therefor our duty, as the inside people, to press forward this issue.

If this org is going to become real, and I currently see no reasons from my side why it shouldn't, it will be for real, no compromise, no political correctness, just the raw and clean scientific facts that, when looked at as they are, effectively show how ridicilous the drugwar actually is..

I'm not sure where you come from or where you live but I can understand why you make the points you do from a point of view of someone who lives in a more restrictive society than the Netherlands. But the Netherlands will be base of operation and it just doesnt make sense in my opinion to go for a soft approach from here.

I have more points but real life is happening at the moment and I will elaborate more on this later.

Thanks for your input so far!

HC

 

[Forkbender]

I agree with HC that most of the laws are immoral and incorrect, but how would one go about changing this? I think the best way is to change public opinion, so that there is support for your view. This can be done in a number of ways. Cyproxicus suggested the grassroots-level approach, where you just go about and try to convince people close to you. It has its advantages: it's safe and you can really convince people, because you are on a personal level with them. On the other hand, you will not create activists. HC's approach is an organization that gives (to take Fox news motto) "fair and balanced" information, which includes both the good and bad aspects of psychoactive substances. I guess this will work good as a way of publicizing and getting people to think about these things, but it will most likely also create a lot of opposition. If people think strongly about something, they don't care about scientific facts, they'll create their own truth. I think a combined approach could be very valuable. The fair and balanced information about drugs should in some way reach the media, so that people are stimulated to some extent to make their own decision about this. You cannot do this on your own, you will need some sort of organization.
I think the organization should at first just focus on legal issues and the spreading of the debate about drugs. It should not in my opinion offer a 'sacred place' where people can use them. This will only lead to more prejudice and it will make the organization easy to ridicule, as most people in society still think that "drugs are bad" (eventhough they use them themselves). Maybe a seperate organization could provide this place.
The promotion of psychedelic research is not on top of my list, although I think it will naturally arise once the goals of spreading the knowledge are getting realized.

 

[JohnP.]

Wow, i think this is a really cool topic... Anyway, let me share my point of view with all of you...

I see and accept your point of view (even though i still haven't had a real psychedelic trip) and i totally agree with the general view on drugs and choice of religion.
But on the other hand i agree with cyproxicus, it's simply near impossible to actually take a big mass action on such a controversial topic and spread it throughout europe with such ease. But let me explain...

The tollerance towards drugs in Holland is a case only of that particular country, in Italy for example it would be near impossible to legalize soft drugs from one day to another. Simply because prohibitionism is so eradicate and for so many years that all these drugs have been outlawed that such an immediate change would create a lot of confusion. Legalization is something in europe is something to take care with gloves and it's also a slow process.
In Italy just recently the right-wing party made a new law that makes drugs even more illegal, with massive fines and imprisonment from 6 to 23 years if you have more than 10 grams with 10% THC (and that is shit-ash isn't it?). So my starting point would be to make it "more legal" with fines and punish the REAL pushers that give money to criminal organizations and not the individual consumers like ourselves, and continue slowlsy when we start seeing that this policy works and for example move on by makin them legal by Same thing with psychedelics, start slowly only to achieve a bigger result.

In all the rest i totally agree with your point of view that nowadays the general view on drugs and the state control on them is simply horrifying.
The state supposedly rendered certain drugs illegal becaus of their social impact and that they could be in ways life threatening for many people (and sometimes they can be right because certain drugs can lead to bad addictions or violent behaviour), but actually they wouldn't care a fuck.
The moral and god-like mission of the war on drugs is simply a better control on the population and to show the state's power that sometimes might seem so far away from us and our lives but actually is the massive Leviathan that Hobbes speaks about and that can eat us in any istance. We can see this with the profound contraddiction with many of drug laws.
For example: in italy when 2 months ago this new law came out it came with another "ad-hoc" law for the winter olympics in Turin that heightened the limit of doping substances permitted in your body for the olympics... I mean... wtf?

I would like to say much more but i realized i've written too much :lol:

 

[Cyproxicus]

Hmmz.. its interesting to how seriously everyone takes this. (Wich is a good thing.)
I'm from NL, btw HC. But still, if you shake things (drugs-topic) up to hard, politicians will interfere (counter-propaganda etc.).

I think a more efficient (but indeed softer) way is to promote the use (as oppose to abuse) in public. And in that way you'll wake up the activistics-genes amongst people. This provides a whider support and sympathy amongst non-users. (I think of my mom, she's anti-drugs. But when I tell her about the way i use shrooms, she's not worried that much and she might actually support me in my 'hobby' (dunno this, never asked)... just an example)


Starting of as an activists-organisation would only seem rebelious, instead of idealistic.

 

[HeartCore]

Cyproxicus: Damn I wish I had more time this week....

Activist organism: no, thats not what I have in mind, I do see and take serious your points though because they make a lot of sense and will reply more in depth.

Will be back hopefully tomorrow.

HC

 

[HeartCore]

Ok here we go.

I've read all your replies and would like to comment on them.

Cyproxicus: I do respect your opinion regarding a soft, careful approach but I do not agree with it. I think this is taking action based on fear. I am not advertising any radical activism, not at all.

Quote: I'd say; Do and Ask for.. psychedelic research Promoting it in any way might cause sceptics to question ur intentions.

I say: Bring it on! I am totally ready for any sceptic. What wrong intention could they possibly find? That we could like everyone to have this experience at least one time in their life because we believe that will help create a better world? Nothing wrong with that intention, backing it up with valid motivation can be a challenge considering the narrowmindedness of some antidrug people but still, my/our intentions are sane and valid. The more ‘they’ question us, the more we get a chance to engage into dialogue.

You see there are indeed different ways to take action. Safe and slow and locally, that could work fine if we had more time. We don’t have time, we may even already be beyond the point of no return considering pollution and such. Time is an asset, we don’t have, unfortunately. If we had time, sure, soft approach, low risk etc.

Aynma: we seem to be on the same line. What money does work against psychedelics? This is an easy one, consider this:

- scientific fact: 70% of ALL illness, is psychosomatic (has a psychological cause)
- The fish population near the big harbor cities in the US, are becoming sterile rapidly because of waste prozac compounds that find their way to the sea.
- Psychedelics are extremely powerfull candidates in curing certain mental illnesses in one or two sessions. We are talking real healing here, not the battling of symptoms with prozac or related compounds.
- Psychedelics like psilocybin have promising effects on Alzheimer
- LSD has cured several skin allergies (will scan and post pictures tonight)
- Natural occurring psychedelics are extremely easy and cheap to cultivate.
- There is NO big money in selling psychedelics.
- The pharmaceutical industry does not want to heal people, this is a simple fact, once you cure/heal people, the don’t need you anymore.

I have some close friends who have worked in the pharmaceutical industry and that have commited to give advise to this project.



Forkbender: If people think strongly about something, they don't care about scientific facts, they'll create their own truth.

Yes agree but that's their problem and not ours. We have the facts on our side and we have the luxury of having the internet to spread, something the people from the 1st psychedelic revolution in the sixties, never had.

Quote: It should not in my opinion offer a 'sacred place' where people can use them. This will only lead to more prejudice and it will make the organization easy to ridicule, as most people in society still think that "drugs are bad" (eventhough they use them themselves). Maybe a seperate organization could provide this place.

You are talking with your fear (no offense ).

As before, the facts are on our side. What are we going to do, be with ourselves and our close friends, have our trips and wait for the apocalyptic future that is evident if there is no change? I followed the road you proposed here, in five years, I have been able to convert two people, my new girlfriend and a retired accountant. As said before, time is not on our hands

 

[aynama]

yep. hc, thanks for a reply :wink:

the money .. i see that because there is no money in psychoactives, there is no need to sell them, (to accept them?) so this could support the way people ignore it as a non-profit way, which is both good and bad... bad because it keeps the companies in prozac, drug prescriptions... etc.
but if we would make the psychedelics money-oriented.. well that would just be insane!

so what we should instead do, is create need for the entheogens to be needed, as a cultural item..

to make people forget profit earning as an ideology etc.
well, not much to say except... these are needed, for freedom, to show the connection of mind and a plant...mmm. yes!

 

[Ilian]

Ok i have finally bothered reading this all..

HC i agree with you that something has to be done about those insane laws, but i think that you are more idealistic than realistic. We all wanna change this, and what you suggest would be great to do, but i dont think it will lead to changing laws.

You say cypro is thinking out of fear, but in fact he is being realistic. yes, we have the facts and the truth on our side, but as you said yourself:

a French delegation visited Holland and researched our drugpolicy. They reported the opendoor, Hollands policy works and is humane opposed to druglaws in most other countries. Ofcourse politicians put this aside.

you have to realise its a very dirty game theyre playing, they have the money and the media. they are not afraid of using them. they are the ones making big money with selling prozac and other crap, as you said they dont like "cures".
You're ideals are exactly the opposite of what the elite wants, so there is a small chance of succes.

i think there is also a difference in "a secret place" and "a safe and responsible tripcenter", of which the 2nd has a higher succes-rate i think.

i dont really agree with cypro either though, you are right, we dont have time to do some mouth-to-mouth advertising about psychedelics.

What i think should be done:
we need to act within the current system, dont try to start a revolution but promote psychedelic research, give speeches, write articles and talk about it on tv. you need to reach the masses to start a cultural change.
once the masses accept psychedelics you can start changing laws and perhaps starting a revolution ^^

 

[HeartCore]

we need to act within the current system, dont try to start a revolution but promote psychedelic research, give speeches, write articles and talk about it on tv. you need to reach the masses to start a cultural change.

I hope I'm getting the message through that I am not talking about activism or creating a revolution. My main inspirer is Terence Mckenna and he followed a very intelligent approach in my opinion. Presenting the facts as we know them, respond to incorrect publications or newsitems regarding psychedelics, giving speeches etc.. Bomski, you are telling me exactly what I have in mind

Wish I had more time.....almost done with this rl bullshit

HC

 

[JohnP.]

Thanks the replies man!
Anyway, that's exactly what i meant, not doing any revolutionary activism, but start by playing the game with THEIR rules; i mean by doing speeches and giving some conscience and something to reflect to to the masses of people who don't know... The main goal and starting point i think is to spread tollerance towards this subject and to take away the demonizing aspect... what i mean is that for years we lived in a so called democracy but actually they only gave us ONE point of view on this topic and there is much intollerance towards who see drugs in a different way like us and i know what that means because most of the time i face this in class everymorning. And another point is showing the REAL aspects of alcohol that everybody ignores: i mean in tv they show that the only risk in taking alcohol is when you drive... I mean what about the fact that you can ruin your taste-organs (sorry can't remember their name) and you can have tongue-tumor? Nobody speaks about that do they? The only show us one side of things, the most convenient one too... To tell the truth you must show two sides....

 

[Cyproxicus]

Hmmz.. does anyone have some more info on alcohol. I need some more agruments for the next time im discussing with someone about 'drugs'. Drinking away your sense of taste.. fascinating !

 

[Ilian]

Hmmz.. does anyone have some more info on alcohol. I need some more agruments for the next time im discussing with someone about 'drugs'. Drinking away your sense of taste.. fascinating !

if you make a new topic for it im sure people can help out :idea: :arrow:

 

[HeartCore]

Hmmz.. does anyone have some more info on alcohol. I need some more agruments for the next time im discussing with someone about 'drugs'. Drinking away your sense of taste.. fascinating !

Well one supposed faq of alcohol says that being drunk is actually caused by oxygen deprivation in the brain and dying brain cells. Also , alcohol is about 30 times as bad as heroin. Is this enough argument for you?

 

[Forkbender]

Forkbender: If people think strongly about something, they don't care about scientific facts, they'll create their own truth.

Yes agree but that's their problem and not ours. We have the facts on our side and we have the luxury of having the internet to spread, something the people from the 1st psychedelic revolution in the sixties, never had.

Quote: It should not in my opinion offer a 'sacred place' where people can use them. This will only lead to more prejudice and it will make the organization easy to ridicule, as most people in society still think that "drugs are bad" (eventhough they use them themselves). Maybe a seperate organization could provide this place.

You are talking with your fear (no offense ).

Yes, I was talking with my fear. But I think my fear is real: look at what happened to the hippies, most of them either live as total outcast or are incorporated in the corporate world. Having the facts on your side is of course important, but changing the beliefs of entire groups of people is harder than melting the polar caps (which takes us a lot of effort and time btw). I think this awareness should have priority, to then change laws. I totally agree with you that a good place to trip would be ideal, but in a non-religious setting (and I think you are aiming at this), this is hard to accomplish in current society. If, on the other hand, you want to have a religious setting, then people mostly would agree that this is not what they want (most people think that religion is something evil in holland nowadays). In either case, the acceptance would be minimal without a broad base of support. The facts don't matter, it's the fire of your argument, the spirit through which people get enthusiastic about something. You cannot argue with people who don't believe a single word you say.

I recently thought about an argument that could be used in favour of our cause. In most countries you have the right to freedom of expression and thought. This right, however is never really exercised by someone unless they change their mind about something. And how can one change their mind unless they broaden it first to come into contact with other points of view? In other words: this society stimulates us to stick to what we know, to be conservative in our judgment, while it states in most laws that we are free to change our mind. Psychedelics help us to change our minds, to find what we truly find important in life. How can the one thing (cause most other things don't help very much in changing our minds, except perhaps meditation) that helps us open our mind be illegal? To quote Rousseau: "Man is born free, but everywhere in the world he is bound to chains." Or Kierkegaard: "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." People want to say what they think, and to think what they were always thinking. The only possible way to change is to open your mind.

But yeah, I agree with you that something should happen. This is a very fruitful discussion, now lets take some action!