There are interesting and complex legal and moral issues. Assuming that LSD causes a state that can be called divine psychosis, it may become an unsolvable ethical problem of whether such a state, the temporary insanity of Dionysian frenzy and the exploration of the limits of self-control, and transgression of constraints, could ever be legalized/decriminalized and thus "accepted" in a civilized society. Shall we legalize the freedom of divine psychosis? Freedom can veer into the mere disorder of anarchy, which is not necessarily what the fighters for freedom have in mind.
Will drugs turn out to be the central hub connecting all domains? I certainly think that psychedelics forcefully raise the most interesting problems that humanity knows, and tie into many issues. Psychedelics force the mind to confront issues of self-knowledge. Other drugs carry the mind away onto flights of imagination, but psychedelics tend to crash the mind in on itself.
If lysergic acid is dangerous, should it therefore be illegal even if sacred? Is its danger tied to sacred loss of control?
LSD is a temporary state of clinically induced schizophrenia. It is useful in curing alcoholism.
Some users don't like the fact that it's illegal but they do not want it to be freely available. They want it to be regulated by therapists.
Should people be put in jail just for using LSD? That is the insightful way that _Ain't Nobody's Business_ frames the question of legalization/decriminalization.
LSD is extremely potent, such that the thought of it being available at the corner quik-mart is unthinkable. But on the other hand, the United States government was not founded to control and protect people from danger; just because something is dangerous does not mean that we should automatically run to the government to enact a law, enforced by cops and slammers. It is better to let people endanger themselves and others to some large degree, rather than attempting to have big brother protect us, and rob us of self-responsibility and freedom. Life is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. We should not neurotically try to eliminate this danger by eliminating freedom.
However, LSD is dangerous. We need to research crimes committed due to temporary insanity from LSD. I have a philosophical hypothesis that the worst danger of LSD is the danger of having a divine insight about the shaky foundation of morality, and feeling forced, in the name of Truth About Morality and Self-Control, to wield the sacrificial knife on an innocent person.
The theory of religious sacrifice is an interesting area of current philosophical research. Jacques Derrida's latest book, The Gift of Death is about what was going through Abraham's head as he prepared to sacrifice his only, beloved son Isaac. Who told him to do this terrrible deed? Jehovah, the god of Truth and Justice. Derrida says that this virtual sacrifice -- stopped in the nick of time by an angel of God, and substituted by a convenient lamb -- was the genesis of the feeling of personal responsibility. So having an insight on acid about the nature of responsibility -- its divine authoritization, whether responsibility is logically legitimate or not -- could lead to mimicking the sacrifice which is the start of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- "the religions of the book." The Covenant that is Christianity is the covenant that God made with Abraham, who passed God's little "test of faith." That is how important divine sacrifice is, so there is probably something very intriguing about moral agency and transgressive sacrifice.
I know that more than one experienced person has apprehended such a logic of moral transgression or transcendence.
It is hard to fathom legalization of LSD for one and all, and impossible to justify criminalizing a substance that has, as one of its major properties, the highest sacramental potency. There are those who believe that LSD is one dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. A law against LSD is a law against such a person's religion, but "Congress shall make no law restricting religion".
Where, then, should divine psychosis stand, in Philosophy of Law?
And where could LSD stand for thinking Christians, who are voting citizens?
The legalization of LSD is potentially an extremely interesting issue in
Philosophy of Law.
>LSD can be dangerous. there is a lethal does - it is high (around 10,000 hits or more - you personally will never have enough acid to do it).
It is doubtful that the psysiological effects are what is dangerous. However, it can strain the heart - palpitations are common. If you have health problems, it might put a strain on some organs.
>It can bring out latent psychological disorders such as schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia occurs no more frequently in a population of users of psychedelics than in non-drug users. Of course some trippers go nuts -- some little league players do to. The theory that it can push over the edge, someone who would have been able to avoid madness, is difficult to substantiate. It's only a reasonable hypothesis, not a strong conclusion.
>You're rearranging how your thoughts are processed, and each time you take it, it changes the pathways just a bit. so yeah, there is danger in it. if you think there isn't you're pretty irresponsible.
There is danger in this substance that makes you temporarily crazy and illuminated about self-control and responsibility. I think that the true nature of the danger is neither physiological, nor psychotogenetic, but rather, metaphysical or existential, as in the terror of Truth confronted in the Eleusian mysteries.
Some people flip out and endanger people - but this is not itself the essence of the danger.
It is responsible to acknowledge that this is dangerous. Of course, just
because something is dangerous does not mean that it should be demonized. Real
men develop their souls by confronting danger.
Life itself is dangerous, but the government should not try to prohibit contact
sports and rock climbing.
Catholocism says drugs are harmful to the body and are thus not to be used (see the catechism). This is an absolutist health fascist attitude.
Absolutist attitudes are as unrealistic and unreasonable, as they are simple
and easy to propagate.
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of Reason in that it makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded - A. Lincoln Dec. 1840"
Loss of control on LSD. Inspires thinking about their potential ability to wreak havoc, but serious acting out is rare
>If you research crimes committed under the influence of LSD, remember what Albert Hofmann said: those who claim their violence was a result of an acid trip are "lying". LSD doesn't incite violent tendencies. unless you're speaking of crimes like urinating in public, climbing fences, hiking in restricted areas, throwing someone else's laundry out of a machine to "save it", etc. those are better examples of LSD "crime".
One guy online told of how he flipped out and trespassed and brandished a knife
at a stranger in his house. I don't think that LSD makes people hostile or
angry -- that mood is associated with alcohol and, they say, PCP. However,
I have ample evidence that LSD causes people to think alarmingly about
the possibility of flipping out and transgressing self-constraint. I am
sure that the LSD frame of mind emphasizes thinking about the nature of
self-constraint, taboo, morality, and transgression, rather than on impulsively
taking action. It is more like the terror of standing on the edge of a
cliff, thinking deeply and vividly, and realizing that you could throw
yourself over, rather than thoughtlessly and impulsively throwing yourself
over. LSD gives the apprehension of the possibility of doing terrible things -
more of a philosophical existential terror than an actualized terror. A
fear of doing something terrible, rather than the action. Not to say that
such action is impossible, but rather, the emphasis is on vividly, tangibly
confronting the hypothetical and real possibility, as a possibility.
Should people be put in jail just for using LSD? That is the insightful way that _Ain't Nobody's Business_ frames the question of legalization/decriminalization.
LSD is extremely potent, such that the thought of it being available at the corner quik-mart is unthinkable. But on the other hand, the United States government was not founded to control and protect people from danger; just because something is dangerous does not mean that we should automatically run to the government to enact a law, enforced by cops and slammers. It is better to let people endanger themselves and others to some large degree, rather than attempting to have big brother protect us, and rob us of self-responsibility and freedom. Life is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. We should not neurotically try to eliminate this danger by eliminating freedom.
However, LSD is dangerous. I am about to research crimes committed due to temporary insanity from LSD. I have a philosophical hypothesis that the worst danger of LSD is the danger of having a divine insight about the shaky foundation of morality, and feeling forced, in the name of Truth About Morality and Self-Control, to wield the sacrificial knife on an innocent person.
The theory of religious sacrifice is an interesting area of current philosophical research. Jacques Derrida's latest book, _The Gift of Death_ is about what was going through Abraham's head as he prepared to sacrifice his only, beloved son Isaac. Who told him to do this terrrible deed? Jehovah, the god of Truth and Justice. Derrida says that this virtual sacrifice -- stopped in the nick of time by an angel of God, and substituted by a convenient lamb -- was somehow the genesis of the feeling of personal moral responsibility. So having an insight on acid about the nature of responsibility -- its divine authoritization, whether responsibility is logically legitimate or not -- could lead to mimicking the sacrifice which is the start of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- "the religions of the book." The Covenant that is Christianity is the covenant that God made with Abraham, who passed God's little "test of faith." That is how important divine sacrifice is, so there is probably something very intriguing about moral agency and transgressive sacrifice.
I know that more than one experienced person has apprehended such a logic of moral transgression or transcendence.
It is hard to fathom legalization of LSD for one and all, and impossible to justify criminalizing a substance that has, as one of its major properties, the highest sacramental potency. There are those who believe that LSD is one dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. A law against LSD is a law against such a person's religion, but "Congress shall make no law restricting religion".
Where, then, should divine psychosis stand, in Philosophy of Law?
And where could LSD stand for thinking Christians, who are voting citizens?
The legalization of LSD is potentially an extremely interesting issue in Philosophy of Law.
The complex issues in the philosophy of law regarding responsible agency and temporary psychosis should not be allowed to complicate the decriminalization debate. After all, we must strive to be as reasonable as we can possbly be. Thank God that America is a country in which the free will of the autonomous individual reigns supreme.
It's easy to say that LSD should be illegal because oneself or others could be harmed during the temporary sacred psychosis (one enter's Abraham's world, ready to return to religious sacrifice; one loses the delusion of being a purely self-governing responsible agent). So many people think it is reasonable to make LSD illegal. But putting people in jail and destroying their lives -- the current policy, the current version of that illegality -- is draconian. If LSD is illegal, it should not really be punished much.
Personally, without being certain, I feel that the most coherent approach for a free America would be to make LSD perfectly legal, but intensely inform people about its risks. And no, do not medicalize it. People should be able to trip at home whenever and as often as they like, just as with alcohol, without some authority standing over them.
We have a reasonable, rational alcohol policy; this same policy should be used for LSD.
This site informs everyone about the risks and deepest, most disruptive insights of LSD. LSD and society will never be the same after society understands fully and rationally the insights it leads to.
I am assuming 500-1000 micrograms, not a single blotter square, which is typically about 67 micrograms (merely 2/3 of a "hit"). I'm talking about full-on LSD sessions with 5-10 hits. Fingertip tremors are commonly reported for these.
LSD raises unique issues. If LSD causes deep insights about loss of control or lack of genuine control, is it philosophically coherent to hold an LSD user responsible for acts committed during the sacred peak period while there is full realization of the illusory nature of moral agency? Even if LSD does cause a transcendence of responsibility, in a free country people must be punished for the specific harm they cause others, rather than for what they ingest. We must tell people: LSD destabilizes self-control and calls your accountability into question; if your self-control is destabilized you are susceptible to harming someone; if you harm someone you will be held accountable and punished despite your philosophical insights that led to your sacred transgressions. It is up to you, as a free Citizen, to decide whether to take the risk.
LSD also causes fine tremors especially at the fingertips - I didn't mention that before. It also causes a cold sweat - feelings of being too cold then too hot. It does cause erratic heartbeat 2/3 through the trip with strong doses -- as heard in Cygnus at the end of Farewell to Kings, in one channel (important trivia research question - whose heart is that - Peart's?).
Another short-term effect -- there are so many -- is the feeling of instability of personal control. In the ultimate mystic rapture, one feels raped by God or the ground of being; instead of pulling one's own string, the mystic perceives himself as a helpless puppet controlled by a hidden, higher-level controller.
Some online writers have clearly reported that they have had definite long-term perceptual distortion. Go there, read and ask for awhile, and you might see these concerned questions, as I have. For the typical brain, LSD is safe, but some people have a different reaction. Not everyone reacts the same way. This is no different than other powerful drugs -- a minority of people have different reactions or side-effects. As I said, more research is needed before we can estimate with confidence what these risks and population curves are. It is reasonable to suggest that for a minority of people, LSD can cause long-term effects -- it is a very powerful trigger.
It is possible that some of the acid casuality tales are true -- more research is needed before we can sort out the facts and determine whether or not there have been at least a few people who have had some long-term effects. The more I read -- and I have read "everything" about LSD -- the more I realize that we really don't know just how rare long-term effects are. Some people are destined to become schizophrenics without using LSD, some are bound to be borderliners. What happens if these groups take LSD? Will schizophrenia occur earlier, more intensely? Later? We do not know. More research is needed.
>Pot should definitely be de-criminalized. Hemp is a valuable recourse and actual Pot is a very mild psychoactive drug that was originally outlawed by Harry Anslinger in order to discourage migrant farm workers from trekking North. Beside the medical benefits for seriously ill people, it is much better to relax with a joint after work than to go get tanked at the local pub. Besides...it ain't gonna go away. If it were actually 'legalized' as opposed to 'decriminalized' it would be a valuable form of tax revenue. Long term MODERATE use of pot doesn't tend to have a negative effect on one's life-style. Of course in excess it can lead to some pretty serious lack of motivation.
>Hard drugs such as speed, XTC, PCP, Her-on, coke, etc truly are for the experimental individual. However these drugs DO ruin a vast amount of lives. As such, and as they don't seem to have any medical benefit, I personally think they don't have a responsible place in our society. I went to the Netherlands several years ago and Junkie Park was one of the most pathetic places I have ever seen.
You have avoided or shirked the question. You say that hard drugs -- you don't mention LSD -- ruin many lives. Before, you said LSD has no long-term effects, but you here imply it ruins a significant number of lives. You say that since hard drugs ruin many lives, and don't have any medical benefit, they "don't have a responsible place in our society". This is evasive language. Should LSD be criminalized, or not? If a drug "doesn't have a responsible place in our society", should people be jailed and severely punished for possession or use or selling it? Should it not be sold at the corner convenience store?
For someone so familiar with LSD, you make some huge, shaky generalizations. You say that hard drugs don't have any medical benefit. Opium and morphine have recognized medical benefits and morphine is found in U.S. hospitals. LSD psychotherapists claim LSD helps cure alcoholism, a major problem.
There is a tremendous difference between saying that something is detrimental, and saying that people should be thrown in the slammer and have their lives ruined, their employability permanently destroyed, and all their property taken away.
LSD is dangerous because of the short-term risks, more than the long-term risks; self-control becomes unstable and unreliable. It's not very dangerous physiologically, but there are alarming heart palpitations, breathing irregularities, cold sweat, missed periods, aches and pains, etc. that might put excessive stress on an unhealthy person.
There are nothing but lies and rumors going around about all drugs, so why treat angel dust as any different? The editor of a psychedelics zine said they would cover it, that it's been slandered, that it's only what you make of it. But they haven't covered it. Does it make you radically violent?
On LSD, people confront the frightening possibility of transgressive acts, but less often do they carry out such acts. Is PCP different? The stories about it are comically extreme. They make the LSD propaganda sound like the complaints about delinquency in the '50s.