Showing ID & signing in to buy OTC cold medicines?

[Minionman]

Very good fake IDs are easy to procure and, as stated above, "log book" entries are easy to fake. It seems to me like it will cost these meth dealers ~$150, but after that they're home free. The average citizen, however, will be the real one getting screwed here.

Then again, I'm of the opinion that legalizing all drugs and just heavily taxing them is the best way to go for the federal government... but that's just me smile.gif Not having to drop billions on the "drug war" and instead gaining billions in revenue seems like win/win to me. /shrug

Having your kids hassled by pushers outside schools would also be an added bonus /shrug

Having some intruder high on P come in and carve up your family with a Samurai sword* would be even better /shrug

*based on recent event.
[right][snapback]74029[/snapback][/right]

You would also cut down on robberies, fights between dealers, and mob/gang stuff, which may or may not cut a similar amount of violence as the drugs help cause.

Also, there's already a lot of drug treatment and education programs. Extra money from drug taxes could be used for more of this (Which is what I think should happen if some drugs get legalized). This will cut down drug use more. I agree that abuse is a problem, in cases such as more dangerous drugs, I would also be for some way of keeping track of people, to see if they need some kind of treatments, although an idea for soem system like this is hard to come by.

[Minionman]

The problem with only enforcing behavior after the fact is that it fails to prevent problems in the first place.

Kind of like the drug laws? wink.gif

And socialization that doesn't emphasize that people are in fact responsible for their own choices has allowed many problems to exist. Misbehaviour while drunk used to be one of those 'Boys will be boys' kind of things that was socially permissible.

I would argue that some form of 'the devil made me do it' has been all too common in our society as a permissible excuse. Sadly, I fear it is getting worse, not better, too. Having a paternal government tell you what is safe and what is not, by caveat, is part and parcel of the problem.

My argument is that there ARE drugs (whether we can agree on exactly which ones or not) that are inherently too dangerous; it is not possible to use them responsibly.  Therefore, it IS society's responsibility to ban those drugs, to the benefit of all.

I disagree. If the effects of recreational drugs are made known to the individual before they make their choice, then they, as individuals, should get to make that choice. Sure, there will be people who exercise poor judgement. (Like the guy who gave himself a heart attack with an overdose of Viagra.) What else is new?
[right][snapback]74099[/snapback][/right]

About me personally, I haven't used any illegal drugs (that includes cigarettes and alcohol), and I don't even drink caffeine or take aspirin or anything stronger much, and I don't plan on using any of the "fun" drugs.

I agree with the "need more responsibility in the culture". For me, the argument that "they might hurt other people" is a good one, and also if too many people hurt themselves really badly. However, when people cause themselves other problems with drugs, or even other things like sex or bad family decisions, they should be allowed to make their own decisions and screw up or succeed for themselves. So if someone wants to use drugs, they are free to use them, but they have no one to blame but themselves if they have job problems or relationship problems, and will have to get themselves treated and solve the problems themselves.

Personally, being responsible for yourself is one of the most important things to me, and effects a lot of my political viewpoints.

[gekko]

Did you really mean that?

You just equated drug use with drug abuse.  Or is any use of recreational drugs abuse in your book?

Some people are undoubtedly irresponsible, whether they are using drugs or not.  But it is a big leap to suggest that all drug users are irresponsible 'out-of-control' people.

And, do let us keep children out of the discussion?  The 'age of adulthood' has many ways to be defined, but protection of children is an issue that we can, I think, achieve agreement in principle, even if we might disagree on specifics.
[right][snapback]74141[/snapback][/right]

I don't think we can keep children out of this sort of discussion. Most drug experimentation is done by young teenagers. I would say that at that age, most teenagers don't have the mental capacity or control to make smart, responsible decisions about drug use. Between peer pressure and someone else having the brain cell that day, kids make really dumb decisions. The problem with drugs is that a string of stupid decisions when you're 17 can lead to a lifetime of drug abuse very easily.

I can't believe that people actually don't see a difference between hard drugs like cocaine and alcohol, for example. While it's technically true that people can become addicted to almost anything, it's NOT true that all addictions are equal. Drugs like cocaine are very, very addictive, and the effects of that addiction are very damaging, both physically and mentally.

Again, I stress that there ARE drugs that can be used and not abused. Alcohol is one of the most accepted. However, there are drugs that cannot be.

gekko

[DeeBye]

One thing I haven't seen discussed is the fact that this proposed restriction wouldn't stop the shoplifters, which is a large source (the biggest perhaps?) of the over-the-counter precursors.

If someone is going to illegally manufacture meth, he's sure as hell gonna go through illegal means to acquire the ingredients for it. Putting restrictions on legal sales of these precursors isn't going to do squat to stop the illegal sources.

[ShadowHM]

I don't think we can keep children out of this sort of discussion.  Most drug experimentation is done by young teenagers.  I would say that at that age, most teenagers don't have the mental capacity or control to make smart, responsible decisions about drug use.  Between peer pressure and someone else having the brain cell that day, kids make really dumb decisions.  The problem with drugs is that a string of stupid decisions when you're 17 can lead to a lifetime of drug abuse very easily.

And a string of stupid decisions when 17 with a shiny new G2 driver's licence can get you dead, and the friends in your car dead too. And that outcome is more easily achieved than the string of stupid decisions that might lead to drug addiction. At least the latter takes some time - where parents can guide you to better decisions.

I can't believe that people actually don't see a difference between hard drugs like cocaine and alcohol, for example.  While it's technically true that people can become addicted to almost anything, it's NOT true that all addictions are equal.  Drugs like cocaine are very, very addictive, and the effects of that addiction are very damaging, both physically and mentally.

I have seen both forms of addiction, gekko. I cannot see that the outcome was better for the alcohol addict. And, as Doc said, I was around in the 70's and 80's. I have seen many drugs in use. Some personality types lose control and others do not. For some people, the cocaine can sit in a drawer for months until the 'right time and place' for using it. For others, that cocaine can be sitting in a drawer miles away in the custody of a dealer and it calls so loudly that they have to go find it. Some can recognize the problem and decide to tune out the call. Some cannot.

Again, I stress that there ARE drugs that can be used and not abused.  Alcohol is one of the most accepted.  However, there are drugs that cannot be.

gekko
[right][snapback]74154[/snapback][/right]

I am sorry, but I cannot agree. From where I sit, any drug can be abused. And I believe that there is no such thing as a recreational drug that fits the description of 'cannot be used without abuse'.

[gekko]

Some personality types lose control and others do not.  For some people, the cocaine can sit in a drawer for months until the 'right time and place' for using it.  For others, that cocaine can be sitting in a drawer miles away in the custody of a dealer and it calls so loudly that they have to go find it.  Some can recognize the problem and decide to tune out the call.  Some cannot.   
I am sorry, but I cannot agree.  From where I sit, any drug can be abused.  And I believe that there is no such thing as a recreational drug that fits the description of 'cannot be used without abuse'.
[right][snapback]74171[/snapback][/right]

*shrugs* We may have to agree to disagree on this one, then. I do believe that the drug laws in Canada and the US need some serious retooling. That being said, I find the idea that all of the drug-related problems can be solved by legalizing and taxing any and all drugs ludicrous. Drugs affect all people differently, but all drugs affect people differently, too. I don't want to absolve the drug user of all responsability, but I do believe that the drug plays a roll too - in the case of certain drugs, a very major role. Some substances are much more addictive than others. Do you honestly believe there is not a physical element to drug addiction? The physical effects of drugs like cocaine are immediate, long lasting and severe. It takes alot for the average person to overdose on alcohol to the point of death. It doesn't take nearly as much to overdose on cocaine.

Link

gekko

[ShadowHM]

From that link:

Regular users should ask themselves the following questions:

Can I also get in the mood without using cocaine?
Did I start to use more cocaine recently, and do I use more cocaine every time, at more places and more often?
Does it cost me more and more? Not only concerning money, but also concerning friends, work and school?
Do I think a lot about cocaine?
Have I changed since I started using cocaine?
Do I sometimes use cocaine to get rid of the adverse effects of last time?

Frankly, any drug user should ask themselves that question about the drug of their choice. I know a number of alcohol users for whom the answers to each of those questions would be a resounding 'yes'.

Some substances are much more addictive than others. Do you honestly believe there is not a physical element to drug addiction?

I made no claim that there was no physical addiction involved. I do, however, believe that there are 'addictive' personalities that are far more prone to taking enough to get to the physical addiction. Physical addiction is not instantaneous, to any drug, including cocaine.

It takes alot for the average person to overdose on alcohol to the point of death. It doesn't take nearly as much to overdose on cocaine.

And your point would be? Lethal doses of other products are small in quantity too.

gekko, I admire your concern. I still believe that, once given the information about the drug, adults should be free to choose their own poison. I believe that the 'war on drugs' is a scandalous waste of my tax-paying money, and it threatens otherwise perfectly law-abiding responsible adults by having them take their transactions underground. I don't know where the lines in the sand should be drawn for access. (As with anything, the devil is in the details.) But I do strongly believe that adults should be responsible for their own behaviour, not regulated by a paternalistic government.

There are many other societal issues at stake here too. The supra-normal profits of illicit trade are wrecking the economies and societies of a number of other countries, just because our government is moralistic about the choices we get to make as citizens. Heck, Canadians have been at the receiving end of some bellicose commentary from south of the border because we are considering 'de-criminalizing' (not even close to legalizing) marijuana.

However, all that said, I cheerfully will agree to disagree with you. Perhaps the passage of time will bring one or both of us to a different viewpoint. :)

[Minionman]

*shrugs* We may have to agree to disagree on this one, then.  I do believe that the drug laws in Canada and the US need some serious retooling.  That being said, I find the idea that all of the drug-related problems can be solved by legalizing and taxing any and all drugs ludicrous.
[right][snapback]74172[/snapback][/right]

No matter what people do, not all drug problems will ever get solved, especially by one law at a time. It's going to take law changes and cultural changes to cut down on the problems from drugs. What taxes and legalization are supposed to do is cut down on some drug related crimes, get more money, and save other things like time that people spend enforcing the laws. Other things to deal with drug problems can also be tried.

Also, "legalizing" drugs doesn't mean that simply anyone can walk into a store and get some. There will probably be laws similar to alcohol and cigarette laws for drugs, and different types may be treated differently. It also doesn't mean that people will stop trying to keep addictions down. IT just means that laws outlawing possesion, selling, etc. will go away.

[Zingydex]

I made no claim that there was no physical addiction involved.  I do, however, believe that there are 'addictive' personalities that are far more prone to taking enough to get to the physical addiction.    Physical addiction is not instantaneous, to any drug, including cocaine. 

I beg to differ. Some of the more powerful so-called "recreational" drugs, including heroin and the crack form of cocaine, are capable of addicting the user on the very first use.

And on the point of using these potentially deadly chemicals "responsibly", it's my personal belief that any semblance of responsible behavior ends when use begins. If the first half-dozen results of a Google search on "addictive drugs", "illegal drugs", "recreational drugs", et cetera doesn't turn someone off the notion of deliberately exposing themself to these toxins, or allowing others to do so, their brain isn't functioning properly.

[Griselda]

I beg to differ.  Some of the more powerful so-called "recreational" drugs, including heroin and the crack form of cocaine, are capable of addicting the user on the very first use.
[right][snapback]74179[/snapback][/right]

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that statement. I used both of those substances just one time, actually (well, I didn't inject myself, but still). Of the people who did go on to develop a dependency, I'm sorry to say that they seemed to have a glamorized view of what drug addiction would be like (become a better artist, be "cooler", or whatever). Because of that, they weren't able to be as cautious or as aware of what was happening to them. By the time that they were, of course they had developed a physical dependence that made it much harder to break the psychological dependence.

Perhaps it might be better to define the term "addiction." I simply can't believe that the body would develop a psysiological dependency on a substance the first time it encounters it.

Some drugs are hard to "come down" from. Even if one doesn't have a physical dependence on the substance, it can be very tempting to take some more just to avoid the inevitable crash. But that can't be the definition of addiction unless everybody who has ever had a bloody mary the morning after a night of drinking is considered an alcoholic.

I still can't imagine that somebody would develop a mental depencency on a drug the first time they take it, unless they set out with the intention of becoming a drug addict the very first time they try something. :unsure:

This page seems to support my positon that these drugs are not instantly addictive.

Most cocaine addicts in treatment report some control over their use for the first two to four years, giving them the illusion that addiction will not develop.

Change the last word in the link to "heroin", and there's some information about heroin, although in a brief glance I didn't see anything about the length of time that it takes for addiction to develop.

Please keep in mind that I'm not claiming that these drugs aren't dangerous or addictive! I am disagreeing with the claim that somebody can become instantaneously addicted.

I think it's important that correct information about drugs is available, and that we try to avoid scare tactics. I think that overstating the risks of a drug can be a big problem, because when people find out that some of the things they've been told about drugs aren't true, they may be likely to believe that some of the *very real* risks aren't true, either.

Shadow, that link also has some more information on the difference between cocaine and crack. Crack is more common in inner-city environments, whereas powdered cocaine tends to be used more often by middle-class people. One reason might be that crack is a lot easier to deal in a streetcorner-type environment, because the rocks hold together and don't need to be bagged. It's also probably a lot easier to swallow them if the cops are coming, especially if you're not using baggies.

In the US, crack cocaine has been demonized, and the sentences are much more severe for crack than for powdered cocaine. This is one of the factor that leads to the higher proportional incarceration rates in the US of people of color (who also happen to be more likely to live in an inner city environment).

[ShadowHM]

Shadow, that link also has some more information on the difference between cocaine and crack.  Crack is more common in inner-city environments, whereas powdered cocaine tends to be used more often by middle-class people.  One reason might be that crack is a lot easier to deal in a streetcorner-type environment, because the rocks hold together and don't need to be bagged.  It's also probably a lot easier to swallow them if the cops are coming, especially if you're not using baggies.

In the US, crack cocaine has been demonized, and the sentences are much more severe for crack than for powdered cocaine.  This is one of the factor that leads to the higher proportional incarceration rates in the US of people of color (who also happen to be more likely to live in an inner city environment).
[right][snapback]74184[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, Griselda, for helping clear up some of my confusion. My main exposure to cocaine was from the early '80's, when I worked in a corporate environment. The users there would qualify as 'middle to upper-middle' class.

[Mithrandir]

Wow, this thread sure blossomed into a beautiful flower while I wasn't looking :) Too many posts above me now to respond to individual points, so I'll make a more broad reply.

Let's be frank here people, drugs are easy to get. I could get any drug I wanted and put only a modicum of effort into procuring said drug... and my campus is nowhere near as bad as some others I have experiences first hand. Drugs being legal or illegal would hardly change their availability to anyone who wanted to get some.

Which brings up another point, people seem to have this paralyzing fear that if drugs were legalized, the nation would collapse in on itself and everyone and their grandmother would be shooting up on street corners. I have all these "hard" drugs available to me and how many have I actually even tried? Zero. Zip. Zilch. I just have no desire to (pot and booze is enough for me :) , no need to move on to LSD, coke, heroin, etc.). In fact, even though drugs are easy to acquire for basically anyone on campus, the relative number of individuals who actually use hard drugs is very small.

Tobacco are far more deadly and addictive than pot is (marijuana myths and facts: http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/ )... but tobacco is the one that is legal. Why is this? Society has arbitrarily decided that tobacco is okay but marijuana is not. Alcohol killed more people per abuser in 1985 than cocaine did:

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statis...ics_info1.shtml

Deaths per user:
Alcohol = 100,000/140,000,000 = .07 %    or 70 per 100,000
Cocaine =  1,000/ 12,200,000 = .008 %  or  8 per 100,000

Deaths per abuser:
Alcohol = 100,000/18,000,000  = .56 %  or 56 per 10,000
Cocaine =  1,000/  250,000  = .40 %    or 40 per 10,000

The hypocrisy of the Big Brother wannabes in this country astounds me. "We must protect the herd from itself, because people are too stupid." Social Security, drug laws, seat belt/helmet laws (the ultimate insult as far as I'm concerned). Sentences handed down for drug-related felonies can exceed those given for *murder*. Possessing 4 ounces of cocaine gets you 15 to life? Where's the justice in that? "Drugs" is just a rally cry for our society's demagogues to screech from a pulpit to distract the masses from the true issues at hand. Politicians and lawmakers, for the most part, don't care about doing what's right - they care about getting reelected... and the more entranced your constituents are by the magic tricks you play, the longer you stay in office.

http://hrw.org/reports/1997/usny/

Our country had its moral cherry popped a long, long time ago. Anyone who doesn't see this is just in denial. Our own damn Presidents #$%& they secretaries and do coke and weed. They make me sick that in their hypocrisy they pass judgement down upon others when by their own standards they are repugnant individuals. And no one seems to notice.

I believe in this novel idea that laws should be designed to protect civil liberties, and not be a set of morals forced upon individuals. Your morality is not my morality - if I'm not infringing upon your rights, don't shove it down my throat. You would not like the same treatment from me.

For my closing thoughts, I'm going to have to quote the eloquent 2Pac:

And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace
It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs
so the police can bother me

Why do drugs cause inner city violence and gang wars? Because they're illegal. There's no longer any profit to be made from them by gangs if they became legal. The United States spent $19 billion on the war on drugs in 2003. $19 billion and inner city violence still runs rampant and people can still get hatever drug they want whenever they want. Something isn't right here.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

It boggles my mind to think how much better off our nation would be if that $19 billion was instead pumped into education. Plus the profits from a federal "drug tax". Boggles my #$%&ing mind.

[jahcs]

Why do drugs cause inner city violence and gang wars? Because they're illegal. There's no longer any profit to be made from them by gangs if they became legal. The United States spent $19 billion on the war on drugs in 2003. $19 billion and inner city violence still runs rampant and people can still get hatever drug they want whenever they want. Something isn't right here.
[right][snapback]74205[/snapback][/right]

Drugs do not "cause" inner city gang wars because they are illegal. There are gang wars and violence because they cost money and things that cost money people make money on. Gangs protect their turf for more reasons than just drugs, althoguh it is probably top among them. Legalizing drugs may reduce the profit margin of dealers, but it won't drive it low enough they get out of the business. I also don't see it changing some of the methods used in that business.

People try drugs.
Some people want more drugs.
Those people buy drugs.
Some of those people use more drugs than they can afford by stealing/prostitution etc. More crime goes along with drugs than just the drug crimes.

I don't have the answers. There are good reasons for legalizing drugs. There are bad reasons to legalize drugs also. Sometimes good and bad reasons just aren't enough to change the way people feel.

And as far as seat belt and helmet laws go, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you drive on public streets and interact with other citizens you should take steps to insure you do it in the safest manner possible, and take action to reduce possible injury.
I would have also have no trouble with making people, that so choose, to sign a waiver, that would hold up in civil and criminal court, where if they got hurt in a crash while not wearing a seatbelt or helmet the other party is not responsible for the costs and consequences of any injury they may incur.

[SetBuilder]

driving is a privilege, not a right
[right][snapback]74217[/snapback][/right]

Only because that is what the law says.

If I go out and purchase a bike, and proceed to maintain the bike (like, the pedal kind), and do everything necessary to learn everything to keep myself alive during it's usage, as well as any necessary safety laws, I have taken all steps necessary to have the RIGHT to ride that back. It's MINE. Who are you to tell me not to ride it?

I own my car. I maintain my car (at great cost, sometimes). Not you, not anyone else. I know the safety laws, and I pay for insurance. Why are you telling me I don't have the right to use my own property as I see fit?

In fact, isn't there a constitutional amendment that allows for freedom of transportation?

Driving is only "a privilege, not a right" because there are those who feel they are smarter than everyone else, and should dictate how everyone else lives. #$%& those people. They are the stupidest of them all.

Those people are the reason that someone can be seen walking down the street with a dime bag of meth, or cocaine, or heroine, or anything you want, for personal use, not even in their system, and suddenly BLAM! They are in jail, 3-10, bunked with murderers, rapists, and other "hard" criminals. What did they do wrong? Tried to get something to give them a lift before/after work.

So much for FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Among other civil liberties that are non-existant.

[ShadowHM]

If I go out and purchase a bike, and proceed to maintain the bike (like, the pedal kind), and do everything necessary to learn everything to keep myself alive during it's usage, as well as any necessary safety laws, I have taken all steps necessary to have the RIGHT to ride that back. It's MINE. Who are you to tell me not to ride it?

I own my car. I maintain my car (at great cost, sometimes). Not you, not anyone else. I know the safety laws, and I pay for insurance. Why are you telling me I don't have the right to use my own property as I see fit?


[right][snapback]74239[/snapback][/right]

Ignoring most of your rant to address the issue of 'driving as a privelege':

Do you own the roads you drive on? Do you pay for their upkeep directly?

AFAIK, you can drive on your own property with no licence at all. You only need a licence to drive on publicly owned roads, created and kept up by your government, funded by public/taxpayer monies. If that government sets rules for the use of those roads, to ensure public safety, there is no contradiction at all.

Further, you do not have the 'right to use your own property as you see fit' in quite a lot of areas - all of which come under the 'unreasonable effect on others' criteria. You do not have the right to dump chemicals on your land. You may or may not have the right to build a factory on your land. The list goes on.

[Occhidiangela]

In this case, I'd say find the facts for yourself, as I've found that even if the website I pull the info from is a .gov website, the information is nearly always accused of being false, so for you to believe the information, you need to find it yourself.

You are the one making assertions, back them up or put a sock in it. :P Society has, arbitrarily, chosen to condone some forms of brain alteration, within "x" limits, and not others. That social conditioning will have an impact on the frequency of who use what mind altering substances.

Cars are more dangerous than drugs. Most accidents are NOT caused by persons under the influence, which is a significant change from my High School years, when 2/3 fatal accidents were directly related to alcohol use.

Good grief! You cannot compare sex with minors to using a drug.

I could not agree more. I also find curious the status of minor and its state by state variance. In my day, the age of consent in Virginia was 16. Time changes things.

A smart person doesn't use meth and then go hang out with a bunch of strangers.

Aye, indeed, but seems that smarts are rarer than we might desire in society at large. :(

They usually keep themselves in a locked house, either with people they know or alone, and as long as left alone, they leave everyone else alone.

Something worth remembering. Drugs used recreationally each have different impacts on behavior. Dope and alcohol, and for that matter heroin, tend to slow folks down, though first they reduce inhibitions and fracture judgment.

Speed tends to wind people up a notch. Caffeine is a form of speed, as is dear old Red Bull done to excess.

I find your assertion that folks doing Crystal Meth/Ice tend to hide indoors puzzling. I've run into too many speed freaks in my life who were not hiding indoors to buy that. Likewise, during the coked up 70's and 80's, I encountered far too many folks speeding along after a snootful, in a car, for my liking, and came home from parties in the back of more than one car with a cokehead at the wheel. Yes, I am lucky to be alive.

Furthermore, were you to legalize it, so so many people aren't getting ripped off, so that it's not so dangerous to produce (do to lack of proper equipment),  so that it doesn't require every penny a person has to afford even a small quantity of it, much of the property theft and violence revolving around aquiring it would more than likely vanish.

Well, if we could put together an intelligent system for regulating the sale of a variety of recreational drugs, such as pot, like we do tobacco and alcohol, and could put together a legally sanctionable "breathalizer" type control measure, I'd be happy to take the risk and see if we can't drop the price, raise some tax revenue, and possibly ensure folks get a purity standard like they can expect from beer. Not sure if it would solve or worsen the drug problem, but I'd like to see us give it a try under the constraints mentioned.

What is going on now is not, to my view, working all that well. It has increased our jail populations, which merely increases the population density of our criminal class. Bloody wonderful.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Trying to open the doors to perception and all that. I once took way much acid... Entirely to much. I was trying to "force a door open" and I took the acid in Tacoma Washington. I came to a couple of days later down in San Jose in California with no recollection of how I got there.

Looking back, now that I am older but I don't know about wiser, I would say what I did constitutes abuse.
[right][snapback]74142[/snapback][/right]

I'd call it a lapse of judgment. The social setting and encouragement to experiment with mind altering substances was massive in that period. There were a lot of silly bits of conventional wisdom in those days about the harmlessness of a number of substances that encouraged folks to try stuff out.

Overusing acid is, to my mind, a bit like having had a couple of beers too many. It is bound to happen now and again if you are using the substance for recreational purposes. Over doing heroin, of course, could put one to sleep forever. Caveat Emptor. Finding one's limits is one way to learn when to judge "eh, I think that's enough for me . . . hey, are you really a musk ox, or is that just three days not shaving?" :P

Occhi

[Doc]

I'd call it a lapse of judgment.  The social setting and encouragement to experiment with mind altering substances was massive in that period.  There were a lot of silly bits of conventional wisdom in those days about the harmlessness of a number of substances that encouraged folks to try stuff out. 

Overusing acid is, to my mind, a bit like having had a couple of beers too many.  It is bound to happen now and again if you are using the substance for recreational purposes.  Over doing heroin, of course, could put one to sleep forever.  Caveat Emptor.  Finding one's limits is one way to learn when to judge "eh, I think that's enough for me . . . hey, are you really a musk ox, or is that just three days not shaving?"  :P

Occhi
[right][snapback]74248[/snapback][/right]

Occhi my friend, some people took to much acid. They pushed whatever door they found a little to far. And whatever laid in wait on the other side came through that door and devoured their mind. There are other senses that lie dormant (And for good reason) in our brains. It's my understanding is that it's very hard to get real LSD these days, most of what they have now is a poorly made synthetic that typically damages the mind. The real chemicals are, from what I understand, tightly controlled substances that are nearly impossible to get your hands on. And for damn good reason.

I was with a woman one time, and we were both totally bombed on some very powerful LSD. And I could smell what she was thinking. Was it pheromone response? Who knows.

Dr. Timothy Leary, where art thou?

We can't stop here... This is bat country!

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi my friend, some people took to much acid.
[right][snapback]74270[/snapback][/right]

Yes indeed, and one of my best friends from High School died of a heroin overdose at Haverford College. (Brain foggy as to which year late 1970's, trying to fit it into the other events and revelations of the summers I was home.) Another freaked out at UVA, rumor was too much acid, and tried to hang himself. Luckily, he fuxored that up and is still with us today, older and wiser.

Buddy of mine from the HS soccer team ran his dad's Porsche into a tree, stoned, and died. And so on.

It matters not the substance, you can take the brain out for a walk that it may not come home from, which leaves the body and soul without a cruise director. And most of life is shoal water.

Occhi

As to Timothy Leary, he's dead. Or, maybe he's just outside, looking, in. :D

[Doc]

Yes indeed, and one of my best friends from High School died of a heroin overdose at Haverford College.  (Brain foggy as to which year late 1970's, trying to fit it into the other events and revelations of the summers I was home.)  Another freaked out at UVA, rumor was too much acid, and tried to hang himself.  Luckily, he fuxored that up and is still with us today, older and wiser.

Buddy of mine from the HS soccer team ran his dad's Porsche into a tree, stoned, and died.  And so on.

It matters not the substance, you can take the brain out for a walk that it may not come home from, which leaves the body and soul without a cruise director.  And most of life is shoal water.

Occhi

As to Timothy Leary, he's dead.  Or, maybe he's just outside, looking, in.  :D
[right][snapback]74293[/snapback][/right]

On the subject of Timothy Leary, from Hunter S. Thompson.

"We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled that 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."

Like flies into a bug zapper, they came into that light. Those of strong mind survived. Somehow. I took I think a whole blotter of high powered non diluted LSD the time I mysteriously found my self in San Jose. Or maybe it's not having a strong mind. Maybe those with the strong mind, unflexable, unyielding, broke and fell into what ever lies beyond. And the weak minded only grew weaker, their mind broken down by manufactured illusions and the bitter reality that usually follows as the dream becomes a nightmare, which spills into the waking world. I don't know how I came through as intact as I did. Perhaps it is because I was already quite insane and just didn't know it, and the acid allowed me to come to grips with it, embrace it, and make it my own choice of how I viewed reality. I know I am odd. I always have been. I also know after a couple of those trips, how I viewed the world, viewed people, viewed time and space was, well, altered. Different somehow. Not broken, just different. I got lucky. I intentionally pushed to the outer limits and I lived to tell the tale. I will confess to my lunacy. Everybody who knows me best here, like Occhi and Shadow, Lord knows how they put up with me, could probably confirm that I am a bit... Strange.