Taking action

[Ilian]

ok, so it seems everyone agrees we need to start de-demonising the drugs first in a legal way? getting some acceptance..
how?
1 religion - drugs being used in rituals
2 health - drugs being used for physical and mental healthcare
3 freedom - drugs being used openly because the taboo/prohibition doesnt make sense
i think the 2nd option would have the biggest chance of succesl but i think its also the hardest way to go (any doctors here? )
the last option would be too 'rebellious' i think, and the first one will simply not be accepted i think.
perhaps a mix of those..
anyway lets wait for hc's diagram

 

[HeartCore]

but in a non-religious setting (and I think you are aiming at this)

I realize that it's not very clear what I have in mind so I will elaborate.

Non-religious, no that't not the intent. For me there is no other use than religious psychedelic use. And before you break this remark down, please consider what your definition of religion is and what you think mine is (hint: mine has nothing to do with dogma's and mythical figures stolen from other cultures and censored writings )

More replies on the way...

 

[HeartCore]

Bombski: Why would the second argument have the most chance on succes? I think you make a thinking error there (I made the same one sometime). There will be a lot of resistance against psychedelics used in therapy simply because it works... Help someone heal themselves from mental illness and you'll never sell them prozac ever again....

Personally I see more in the 'psychedelic use through religion' although its a somewhat tricky path. You see by saying this, I present myself as a believer, a religious guy and most people have very restrictive meaning linked to this term in their own personal internal dictionaries. But what I propose is simply the best way to use these things. Other cultures have been building on frameworks, concepts in which these substances have been used. What most people see as chaotic dance and singing under the influences of some drug, are in truth carefully crafted rituals/settings that enable you to have the best possible experience (best in a sense of beneficial, not persé a positive experience).

Also if you look to recent history, those organisations that presented themselves as a religious institution, have been very succesful in getting their sacrament legalised (Santo Daime & Native American Church). Please consider this carefully and try to get rid of you preconceptions about religion and know that I'm not talking about anything related to the pathetic stuff we dare to call religion in our society.

No really, religion should be added to what we are going to do. Remember also that European law gives us freedom of religion and that this could help us a lot in getting normalization of this experience.

Even if DMT, psilocybin, mescalin remain schedule 1 substances, sacramental use may be allowed by law, this has been proven more than once already.

Maybe we should start a seperate discussion and try to define what religion is

I have much more to reply on and will do soon..

 

[Forkbender]

Non-religious, no that't not the intent. For me there is no other use than religious psychedelic use. And before you break this remark down, please consider what your definition of religion is and what you think mine is (hint: mine has nothing to do with dogma's and mythical figures stolen from other cultures and censored writings )

I totally agree with you. I think that psychedelics if taken correctly are always religious. So this would be a sort of 'church' that promotes scientific research? Interesting!

 

[HeartCore]

I totally agree with you. I think that psychedelics if taken correctly are always religious. So this would be a sort of 'church' that promotes scientific research? Interesting!

Cool!

Yes indeed!

The church construct makes it easier to get some sort of permit to use these substances in a given context.

Scientific research is a different story though. In general, research with psychedelics has two distinct directions: biological/chemical and experiental. I don't see a role for biological/chemical research for a churchlike org but experiental (IE: creating a navigational system/maps of the experience) is a perfectly valid thing to do. And also much needed. How this would practially work is something we would have to discuss in depth. For one, we have a lot of information to go on from sanctioned use of these substances in other cultures. If you take ayahuasca and psilocybin, we are talking literally hundreds of years of use in other cultures.

This is still very open for discussion though....

At work at the moment so I will be back tonight

 

[Ilian]

i understand that it can be a religious experience, but i think we should first get drugs accepted by the masses instead of pushing our freedoms and make us a religious minority.
drugs being used in therapy might be "not wanted" but at least there are facts that show that it works. therefor i think its the best wat to get social acceptance and with that we can change laws. if we let them know that drugs have great results then people will want to know more about it and perhaps start using them, making a 'new' religion (which will be known as a drug-religion) wont get much support from the public..
i think it works the other way around, you have to play the game by their rules.. first promote the therapeutical use (they cant do much against the truth?) and then start a new religion. if you start a religion it will just be bashed and people wont even pay attention to what you have to say.

 

[Forkbender]

i understand that it can be a religious experience, but i think we should first get drugs accepted by the masses instead of pushing our freedoms and make us a religious minority.
drugs being used in therapy might be "not wanted" but at least there are facts that show that it works. therefor i think its the best wat to get social acceptance and with that we can change laws. if we let them know that drugs have great results then people will want to know more about it and perhaps start using them, making a 'new' religion (which will be known as a drug-religion) wont get much support from the public..
i think it works the other way around, you have to play the game by their rules.. first promote the therapeutical use (they cant do much against the truth?) and then start a new religion. if you start a religion it will just be bashed and people wont even pay attention to what you have to say.

I agree with you that it might result in a religious minority that is only known as druggies. But what you say about science and truth is simply not true (sic!). Science holds on to their truths as much as the church does. Only by paradigm-breaking hypotheses can this be changed. These hypotheses can only come up if science is in crisis. (I recommend the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn for an elaboration of this argument).
Right now, science is not so much in crisis. People put their faith in it. The truth about drugs is simply not part of the general acceptance of science. In this way, science is just as ignorant as the church, be it in a whole other way. All I'm saying is people are pragmatists: as long as their opinion works for them, they will not change their mind about it. Right now the general opinion "drugs are bad" works. There are cracks in the surface that we need to exploit, but this will take a very long time.
If we want to take action immediately, I'm on the side of HC, we need to offer information and a safe place for usage, while all the time arguing against the stereotype that is prevalent in both science and society in general.

 

[Ilian]

Our goal is basicly to legalise drugs, to legalise them you have to have social acceptance for drugs.. So our new goal is to convince the people that drugs arent bad, right?
Its not about "Taking action", its about "getting results". People would rather listen to a doctor which studies therapeutical benefits than a religious druggy. a religious druggy might even add to the "drugs are bad" mentality which wont get us any results..
I am wondering how you would start a new religion, i dont think a safe place to use aya, cacti and shrooms will simply be legalised because its your freedom..

 

[HeartCore]

Although I agree with what you say Bomski, the fact is that Santo Daime has gotten a steady foot on the ground with their sacramental use of Ayahuasca. This is precedent, the lawyer who did work for Santo Daime, sees no issues in getting the same result.

Now please think about this.

Once you establish a 'church' and get legal permission to use your choosen sacraments, once politics decide to criminalize psilocybin again, this law will not influence our organisation. (refer to sacramental use of the native american church in the US. Peyote is still illegal BUT for members of that particular church). It will be much harder to get permission for sacramental use once the legal status of psilocybin gets changed to more restrictive.

Also, good luck in getting foot on the ground with therapeutic use. Have you any idea how long it takes to get a medicine registered? Yes I agree with you, the facts speak for themselves, there is a lot of evidence that supports the claim that psychedelics help people heal. We would need psychiatrists, pharmaceutic people etc.. I'm not trying to argument with you for the sake of argument, its just that I've been thinking about the different types of action/organisation for a long time, and the medical just seems much more complicated than the church. Besides that, no pharmaceutic company will be willing to dedicate time into a drug that costs almost nothing to produce and will be used incidentally by people.

The Silvia Millecam story comes to mind if you get what I mean.....

Coincidentally, I am very close related to a respectable man that has founded a very succesful (non psychedelic) church in the Netherlands and is willing to help with founding ours.

Yes people will have things to say about a church. I don't care since I know it's based on pre-judgement and ignorance. If we go for a church like org, people will be less alarmed than if you start some therapeutic centre based on the psychedelic experience.

Maybe its possible to do both, I don't know...

Will think about it some more but fucking work is getting to me atm

 

[Ilian]

OK, i can get into that..
lets just get this straight: do you want to legalise LSD and other psychedelic chemicals, and do you want to use them at the safe place?
or do you want to limit the use to legal (in nl) drugs? such as shrooms, cacti and aya..
starting a church with legal substances could be succesfull, in means of us not getting busted. And yes, perhaps we could be able to use it if they criminalize it afterwards. But isnt that also talking in fear? "if they criminalise it" ? You are preventing something that, i think, is not going to happen soon.
My idea was to legalise all drugs, and i think a church which uses LSD simply wont be accepted.

 

[Guest]

Wow what an amount of text....
I've plowed through it and have to let the information sink.

A friend of mine actually had the same idea, founding a church so that IF for example the use of psylocibine would be restricted, that we don't have anything to worry about.
That would be great. BUT, that doesn't clear the legalise plants thing...

I'm thinking of some good ideas to post but I can't really come up with something usefull to say, so I think I'll come back at this soon...

 

[Cyproxicus]

...

 

[HeartCore]

But isnt that also talking in fear? "if they criminalise it" ?

Well it depends part on next elections in Holland I guess. It's not fear, it's observing what's happening with the priviledges we have, look at the coffeeshop policy, if one owner stops, the coffee shop will disappear.

How long you think, will we have coffee shops?

You are preventing something that, i think, is not going to happen soon.

Maybe it will not happen soon but I can tell you this, one or two guys that jump of a building under the influence of a psychedelic, and abuse is high on the policical agenda right away.

My idea was to legalise all drugs, and i think a church which uses LSD simply wont be accepted

Legalise all drugs, I completely support that.

I never talked about a chuch which uses LSD. Aside from the fact that LSD as a substance doesnt hold a lot interest for me, it will be very hard to build a churh around this. That's why I believe psolocybin is a good candidate because we have records of human use that go at least hundreds of years back.

Thanks for discussing here all btw, it really helps to test some ideas and to get inspired

 

[HeartCore]

Goddamnit I typed a long reply but lost it...

will be back