FA+
Shop
I have a question for you...
12 years ago
General
I am a big conspiracy nut. Not in the fact that I believe anything that is presented, but rather maintain a neutral stance on a subject until I receive enough information to sort out the details, run it through logic, deduce a reason, cause and effect and finally come to a conclusion.
It's no easy task to try and decide what is part of a larger conspiracy, and what is not.
As with all journals I post like this, I cannot imbue all the thoughts I have on this subject, and to describe all that I have learned would take nearly a million pages of information, several large volume of research, and links to studies from the government and such. Instead I pose a question.
Why are drugs illegal?
Through our lives we are assaulted with the Mr. Mackey "Drugs are bad, M`kay" ideal of though. We are told that pot makes you stupid, LSD can ruin your brain, and we should all be good little robots and consume.
To be honest, I have never done a copious ammount of drugs. I love getting drunk, and I also love the opiates, oxycotton, oxycodone, ect. And as I am self regulating, I do not over dose, I do not take them to avoid depression. I use them recreationally and rarely. I may take a mg pill once every three months, and drink once a month. If i do partake in these things, it is because I have time off work and just want to feel good.
This mentallity has done a complete 180 degrees from where I stood a few years ago. I was at the point where I would tatto "DARE" across my forehead. And in my turn around, I would ask "Why?"
Why are these things 'illegal'?
Why are they controlled?
Why doesn't the government want us doing them?
The simple answer is control.
Our brains can only comprehend so much. The food we eat, the stuff we drink all turn into, on a base level, power. And our bodies need power to run. Carbohydrates, sugars and protein help us maintain consciousness. And with the principle that power in is equal to power out, we perform at a certain set level.
In order to increase mass, muscle or clarity we must diversify and increase our intake. If we intake different things, our power level, our perception is changed.
Our brains are a filter. Some people cannot operate in a noisy room. Too much stimuli to condense down and let our mental capacity function. In fact we become overloaded in such a situation. Sometimes we tune things out. Day dreaming, ignoring a persistent sound or voice. We do not notice things that others who are new to the situation would. We filter them out. Diminish out perception of the world around us.
My question is, What if these 'illegal' substances increase our perception?
What if they make us more aware of our surroundings, make us see things our brain does not have the capacity to understand on a normal level?
If some of these drugs allow us to enhance perception and see past the obfuscation that we live with during our regular lives, we can now begin to understand why they are illegal. With all the potential that these things may give, we can start to see some things we shouldn't.
Perhaps we would begin to see past the the lies of the Government and all their obfuscation, and waste they have.
Maybe the reason why they are illegal is because of the effect of some of these drugs would bring us to the level of consciousness and understanding to be able to think past the need for government. And the PTB's can't have that, the masses realizing that they are useless...
Just saying....
It's no easy task to try and decide what is part of a larger conspiracy, and what is not.
As with all journals I post like this, I cannot imbue all the thoughts I have on this subject, and to describe all that I have learned would take nearly a million pages of information, several large volume of research, and links to studies from the government and such. Instead I pose a question.
Why are drugs illegal?
Through our lives we are assaulted with the Mr. Mackey "Drugs are bad, M`kay" ideal of though. We are told that pot makes you stupid, LSD can ruin your brain, and we should all be good little robots and consume.
To be honest, I have never done a copious ammount of drugs. I love getting drunk, and I also love the opiates, oxycotton, oxycodone, ect. And as I am self regulating, I do not over dose, I do not take them to avoid depression. I use them recreationally and rarely. I may take a mg pill once every three months, and drink once a month. If i do partake in these things, it is because I have time off work and just want to feel good.
This mentallity has done a complete 180 degrees from where I stood a few years ago. I was at the point where I would tatto "DARE" across my forehead. And in my turn around, I would ask "Why?"
Why are these things 'illegal'?
Why are they controlled?
Why doesn't the government want us doing them?
The simple answer is control.
Our brains can only comprehend so much. The food we eat, the stuff we drink all turn into, on a base level, power. And our bodies need power to run. Carbohydrates, sugars and protein help us maintain consciousness. And with the principle that power in is equal to power out, we perform at a certain set level.
In order to increase mass, muscle or clarity we must diversify and increase our intake. If we intake different things, our power level, our perception is changed.
Our brains are a filter. Some people cannot operate in a noisy room. Too much stimuli to condense down and let our mental capacity function. In fact we become overloaded in such a situation. Sometimes we tune things out. Day dreaming, ignoring a persistent sound or voice. We do not notice things that others who are new to the situation would. We filter them out. Diminish out perception of the world around us.
My question is, What if these 'illegal' substances increase our perception?
What if they make us more aware of our surroundings, make us see things our brain does not have the capacity to understand on a normal level?
If some of these drugs allow us to enhance perception and see past the obfuscation that we live with during our regular lives, we can now begin to understand why they are illegal. With all the potential that these things may give, we can start to see some things we shouldn't.
Perhaps we would begin to see past the the lies of the Government and all their obfuscation, and waste they have.
Maybe the reason why they are illegal is because of the effect of some of these drugs would bring us to the level of consciousness and understanding to be able to think past the need for government. And the PTB's can't have that, the masses realizing that they are useless...
Just saying....
And no, it doesn't stop at drugs.
Why?
What purpose does it serve?
And for what ultimate goal?
That explanation does not stand up, it's much more devious than that answer
The reason it hasn't been decriminalized is a combination of stubbornness and a legitimate concern for the safety of public health. All smoked drugs cause lung cancer, and many narcotics, hallucinogens and other psychotropic substances do have addictive qualities and harmful side effects. If it weren't for the historical precedent, alcohol and tobacco would probably be banned too. They're both harmful substances to the human body, and if they were discovered today as opposed to centuries and millennia ago, they would probably be prohibited as well.
Like Marijuana, LSD, and so many other drugs, the prohibition was worse than the problems it tried to avert.
While there is a case that the drug circulation behind Marijuana is worse than its medical effects (due to the industry behind it), I've not heard of reports of any LSD cartels. Care to explain further?
(Also: Interesting fact time: in Canada, DMT, LSD and Mescaline are all available with prescription!)
Monsanto and Dupont have poured billions of dollars into creating a synthetic canabanoid that cures cancer. They failed in finding a successful concoction. And thus use the standard chemical that will kill you instead.
The reefer plant, in whole, distilled and boiled down it it's base liquid can cure cancer. Not stop, not inhibit, cure. Actually destroy all the rouge cancerous cells and those alone.
They have tied to reproduce, combine, and make a cure for cancer they can patent and slap a million dollar price tag onto. So far they have been unsuccessful, for good reasons. It is the total combination of the plant's entirety, every ounce and molecule that works together to defeat cancer, as well as many other ailments.
The whole roadblock to it's legalization is that there cannot be a patent on a natural object, I/E the reefer plant. It has to be an invention of originality and hard work. And why have a legal drug that anyone can grow that cures cancer, a multi billion dollar industry selling sickness to the desperate, in the hopes that the cancer dies before they do. After all, is it not better to treat a patient multiple times instead of cure them with one treatment? That way they can come back, still sick for more treatment and spend more money. It's all a big bankroll scheme.....
The Nixon administration ordered a study on reefer, and told the lead scientist that they wanted a confirm able like that it causes cancer. Less than two years later they reported that it doesn't cause cancer, it cures it. They were furious, and buried the findings. Since then there has been no FDA studies on the effects of the plant. Mind you that the FDA is headed by numerous people during the decades, and most of them worked for Monsanto or Dupont at one point.... Conspiracy? Their cronies protecting the hard invested dollars in a treatment for cancer, not to be overthrown by 'weed' as it is so aptly named, growing nearly anywhere with no care. They wouldn't have a 30$ cure ruin their 90,000 treatment program for the sick.
We cannot study the effects, because the FDA will not approve any tests, for the reality that the finding on an FDA approved test would make those that seek to gain money from treatment null. They are ot looking for a cure, but a less deadly way to treat the cancer, so that in time they will have to come back and spend more.
Over the years all independent tests are conducted by the FDA, and sabotaged to appear useless. They are protecting their parent companies anyway by falsifying findings. They are not concerned with truth or cures, mainly the fact that they wish to push a treatment instead of a cure.
Even from a conceptual standpoint, cancer being cured by weed doesn't make biological sense. Cancer is just the uncontrolled growth of cells. Cells stop doing what they're supposed to be doing, and instead just constantly reproduce. The only theoretical action that marijuana could take in the body to cure cancer would be to either repair the mutation in the host's DNA that's causing the cell to skip the non-reproductive steps, or kill all of the cells in the body that are actively reproducing. The first one of these two options is literally impossible, and the second kills not only the cancer, but everything else. This puts marijuana on the same level of effectiveness as setting the patient on fire.
If you can provide any sort of proof that marijuana could theoretically act as a cure for cancer that "actually destroys all the rogue cancerous cells and those alone", I would love to see it, because it would contradict everything I know about biochemistry.
Smoking reefer doesn't cure cancer, rather the ENTIRE plant does.
Take a bunch of reefer plants, and put them in a pot (LOL). Use a liquid that will boil off and soak them in it. Do this untill there is nothing left but black goo. Siphon off the thicker liquid into vials. Consume for a week, and the stuff inside this boiled down plants will aid in your body to help destroy the cancer.
I am not a biologist, but the findings I have read that have been disavowed show that this works.
Proof? All proof has been buried by the FDA that it is only on the tinfoil hat wearing sites....
As I stated before, the FDA will not allow any test that prooves this, and if they did/do, they conduct their own 'test' that invalidates it.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/.....essional/page4
If the US government is trying to hide these study results, they're doing a pretty shitty job of it.
And yes, there are cancer-fighting agents within the plant:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/.....essional/page4
http://www.sfweekly.com/2013-04-24/.....stance-finley/
http://www.endalldisease.com/harvar.....-cures-cancer/
As for the results cited in your first link, they look promising. Not miraculous, but promising. It's only been demonstrated to affect one type of cancer cell (adenocarcinoma) and that's in vitro. In vivo, the same results have only been demonstrated in severely immunodeficient mice, whereas the tumors in immunocompetent mice had their growth stimulated.
The second and third articles pretty much rehash the findings of the study, with less accuracy and more anecdotal stories of miracle cures.
While this is a potentially promising finding, I'm fairly skeptical to about the same level as I am with every other proposed cancer cure that's been reported. As for the government hiding studies like the one you posted? Well, you did just link me to the NIH website.
More often than not, it was out of some concern that drug crazed blacks, Chinese, or Mexicans would rape white women. When that explanation no longer sufficed, they looked for other explanations.
They said the drugs would make people violent and disorderly.
They said the drugs would make people too passive to serve in a war.
They said the drugs would unleash "communistic tendencies."
They said the drugs would destroy our bodies and our minds and that it was a matter of public safety.
They kept changing the words, but the tune was always the same: that old melody of "let us protect you from yourself."
"Let us protect you from finding out the truth"
The will lie, and lead the public to believe whatever they choose. Whether that be that drugs are bad, the government is good, or go back to sleep you paranoid hippie.
Slowly I'm beginning to realize that the real 'hippies' were right..... *OUCH*... it hurts.... it hurts so bad.... but then again, the truth always hurts
One thing I will say about psychedelics though: your input directs the output. If it's garbage in, it's garbage out. If you go in trying to figure out "who am I and what am I doing here on this silly blue rock out in space?" you'll get some help on your journey; if you go in looking for shits and giggles, shits and giggles are all you're going to get.
It isn't an easy, effortless escalator to the divine, only a powerful tool to get your mind around something bigger than yourself, and that power can be misused.
For a prime example of what severe misuse can do, read "A Scanner Darkly" by Philip K. Dick. He was mostly popping amphetamines and only rarely did weed or acid, but he was around plenty of people who did all of those things in an abusive way.
Still, as much as people like to say it was the drugs that got him, it wasn't, I guarantee it. What got him was probably something we'll never fully understand.
My question is always "Why?"
If you ask that enough, you get down to the truth, or at the very least, clear out the lies
Take france versus america for instance.
In america it is flat out illegal for anyone under the legal age to drink. You cant even let your child have booze in the comfort of your own home without someone blowing a gasket. The rate of alcohol abuse in america is also very high among kids (not even touching the adult stats). I know myself, growing up, I was surrounded by people talking about getting plastered over the weekend when the parents were away. Hell, I still hear that today coming from kids a lot younger.
In france, it is acceptable for your child to have a glass of wine with dinner. Alcohol is a family thing, not a taboo thing. Nobody goes 'nevah do eet! is BAD!' and nobody really cares.
You also don't see a whole lot of childhood alcohol abuse over there. Oh, I have no doubt that there is still some, but not nearly on the same level.
Speaking from personal experience, my household never taboo'd alcohol or drugs when I was a kid. Mom and dad didnt care what i did so long as my first time was around them just in case i had a bad reaction. Today I dont abuse shit. Booze is a whatever thing to me. I just dont care.
It has always been evident that when you tell someone they can't do something, that will make them want to do it all the more. You legalize it, educate people about it, and don't put a social stigma on it, then it looses it's taboo rebellion feel and people just don't care anymore. There will always be exceptions to every rule, but for the most part that's the way it is.
Now to make my view on the subject clear, I believe anyone should be able to pretty much do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt or effect anyone else. I really don't care if you snort cocaine off a hookers stomach, as long as you paid your drug dealer and the hooker it's fine by me. But I also think the person that does it, if he ruins his life by doing it; has no one else to blame but themselves.
Simply sending them to prisons has failed immensely. The trouble is, the public still thinks it's "somebody else's problem," and doesn't want their tax dollars going toward programs that might help them when their addiction becomes a problem.
So then they go to one of America's disgraceful prisons, and face a 70% chance of recidivism and (in many states) the likelihood of a life sentence for being a "repeat offender." By and by they become another person's problem. And another.
But the great tragedy is, it wouldn't have to play out this way. In many parts of the world where compassion for offenders is not considered a great social sin, wouldn't. Our recidivism rates are staggeringly high compared to other Western democracies.
And this is all because- in the backs of people's minds- they feel that they have no need to show compassion toward someone who made a mistake, and they feel that the use of public funds to help another person recover from bad choices is a greater evil than sending them out of sight, out of mind to be raped and beaten for years all because of one bad choice that led to another.
That is what I meant when I said, without the compassion to forgive mistakes, the freedom to make them is worthless. Legalizing drugs means changing our whole outlook on how society ought to work, and that is why most people in government shrink from the idea.
As far as prison systems go I'm not going to go into any sort of argument like that, I can tell that we would completely disagree on how that works and we could argue over for days and never convince each other that there wrong.
Also, the wars. Many soldiers were treated with morphine, and the amount of the people who got addicted to it grew into comprehensible numbers. And the gov't didn't do anything about it, so here you go. An army of addicts. Crime rate went straight up and the drugs were to blame. The same thing was with the outburst of crime in US in 90's when crack went into market. When it got less popular, the crime rate went down again (and propaganda said that it was due to 'no tolerance' politics).
All this constantly lead to the common opinion that drugs are bad and should be disallowed.
Every government of a (mostly) stable country has a balance to strike between citizen protection vs personal liberties. I mean, a government can't just back out and wash their hands of everyone- no anarchy state has ever ended well.
So, with considerations in mind about what will be an acceptable level of protection in acknowledgement of liberty, branches of a government will put in standards like speed limits, crash helmets, mandated education, gun control and narcotics regulation. It would be nice to think that every person currently living would have the personal wisdom to be able to take such things in their stride with common sense, and not have to live with the legal requirement of doing them, but unfortunately that is not the case in society today.
The question that is being put to the officials surrounding the issues of illegal drugs is one of whether legalization would overall be better than the current situation. And that isn't a change they can undo right away- putting that law into effect even to test it could mean up to decades of repercussions it proves a bad decision.
Trust me, if your government wanted to manipulate you into controlling your actions invasively, you wouldn't even know about it.
This is a good beginning question.
There are so many other things out there to fuck you up, or change your state of mind.... but why is reefer the biggest 'crime'? There is alot more than just the illegalization of it...
The idea is not that "People might learn something if they take these, better ban them!" It's "Well these drugs give you a good feeling for a while and if you take to much you'll die. Most people aren't able to tell themselves no after taking x amount, so we'll just ban it." If everyone was able to self regulate as well as the best, we wouldn't have rehab, Alcoholics Anonymous or support groups.
- Every drug has different reasons;
- In some cases, such as opium, prohibition was a legitimate reaction to bona fide drug scourges that threatened to tear apart the fabric of society somewhere;
- In some cases, thoughts like "these neighbors are not like us and they use this drug" prompted the usual knee-jerk "they must conform" reaction;
- In some cases, it's guilt by association;
- In other cases, during historical periods of naivite someone had something to gain and the power to manipulate public opinion. There's no conspiracy behind the curtain with that one, it's all well-documented.
At this point, there's so much money being pushed around to fuel the "War on Drugs" that it'd be foolish for any locality to attempt to stop, and it gives law enforcement an easy "probable cause" to suddenly receive an anonymous call reporting drugs.
People who say pot doesn't fuck you up have clearly never met someone who smokes a lot of pot. It will fuck you up. Changes the way you talk, think, act and behave. SO does alcohol, but at the very least alcohol is pretty damn simple a chemical and the effects are predictable. Even with pot you might get a effect with different strains, its hard to regulate.
Regulation is for peoples safety. Yes its to control them, but its often to control them from doing something ill informed and stupid.
I accept that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and nicotine (probably combined). The heavier stuff starts to make me a little worried. That may just be the conditioned response, but seeing addicts really gives you pause (seeing alcoholics also gives me pause when it comes to booze, but at least that's supposed to be limited to adults and has high-ish duty on it over here). Once it's "prescription strength" stuff being used non-medical I worry about dose and self-control and "what are you going to do for your next fix?". A little hyperbolic for people who are able to regulate and keep it recreational only, I admit.
I can see why people would say "it's all about control. THEY want to control US". But that doesn't work for me. They're not using. I see it as what laws were designed to do: Keeping people safe. It's not working, but I'm not sure "anything goes" would work better. Decriminalizing "personal" quantities would be step 1 (which Portugal has done for EVERYTHING) to see if it's better allowing hard drugs.
I don't think pot should be criminal (certainly not at a Federal level in USA). I would like personal quantities of everything else to be non-criminal (not sure if I want them to be "legal"; confiscation is not a terrible punishment).
I think tobacco should be banned or "cleaned" a lot more than it is, certainly pushed to plain packaging and not on display in stores. Nicotine products, like e-cigarettes, are drastically safer (but still habit forming and addictive). I don't mine nicotine, can't stand that tobacco is as legal as it is.
Hard drugs... addiction is the biggest problem I have. It can cause people to become violent to get cash for the next fix. It can ruin people. So can alcohol, so there is room for them to be legal. But right now, I'd rather they stayed off limits for a while longer.
Huge doses of LSD can cause a "permanent altered" state, but I don't think you're likely to hurt others. Shrooms can cause delusions and paranoia to the point you might hurt others. Crack and heroin have the absolute worst rep and I'm not sure that's the minority of users speaking. Ecstasy would be a lot safer if legal and I don't think is bad.
But I'll weigh in with my two cents: did you know that in the U.S., the thirteenth amendment permits slavery if you've been convicted of committing a crime?
Did you know that a large number of prisons in the U.S. are owned and operated by private corporations for profit?
A large proportion of people in American prisons are there for drug related crimes.
A whole lot of people in prison are people of color, too.
Why?
Me in my belief, I believe the fact of current drugs being rulled illegal or regulated through consumption control is due to the fact that Insurance companies do not want to be held liable for their customers mindset being compromised. For Example: Cigarettes are permitted during ones 15-minute/ Lunch break is allowed to "ease stress", where-as smoking pot is not because it is a stronger substance that clouds judgement to a higher degree. Imagine someone having a "Joint-Break" prior to operating heavy machinery/ driving a school bus, performing brain surgery? You really want someone to do such serious things in a non-controlled manner? Now yes, some folks can handle their tonic more than others....but, it still can compromise the safety of themselves and others.
If/ when such drugs as Marijuana is made legal, I see hundreds of laws being enforced to regulate peoples usage of it as to when/ where/ and how much. In the end...they will find ways of keeping folks fearful of using them.