You are a slave, but have a cig

[Acid_Flux]

If we look at ourselves as being under a government of distraction and control it becomes quite apparent why some drugs have been banned whilst others have not.

There is no doubt in my mind that cigarettes and alcohol are far more destructive drugs than weed, acid and shrooms…yet these drugs are legal whilst the latter ones aren’t. Why?

Alcohol is legal because it makes a great deal of money for huge corporations and the government. It also keeps us distracted and entertained without thinking. Getting drunk is a form of escapism that is needed in this cut-throat capitalist society, and so the government permits it. It dumbs down the masses.

Weed on the other is not permitted since it makes you “lazy” and “unproductive.” The government can not have a bunch of lazy unproductive citizens in their capitalist society. We need to work work work and make lots of money. “Lazy” and “unproductive” here are very relative terms. As Bill Hicks says;

"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference. Sure I could get up every day at dawn and go to a job that does not inspire me creatively at all. Or, I could get up at noon and learn to play the sitar' "

Cigarettes are legal because the government knows that we are constantly on edge and so stressed out running this 9 to 5 that we need some sort of coping mechanism just to get through the fucking day. And so these death sticks are legal.

LSD on the other hand, a drug that has only killed one person in the history of its creation (the guy shot up 10 0000 times the recommended amount into his veins) is illegal. And why? Because LSD makes you a questioning, free thinking individual. The government can’t have a bunch of enlightened rebellious people running around messing with their system.

Some people seem to think that these drugs have been banned because the government “cares about our welfare.” Do not fool yourselves. The government does not give a fuck about your welfare. Alcohol and cigarettes are probably the deadliest and most addictive substances out there, and they legalized those. Why would you assume they’d care enough to ban othes?

I do think that substances such as heroin , meth etc are rightly banned since they are physically destructive. Yet at the same time I don’t think the government banned them because of that. They were banned because, yet again, they make people unproductive. It veers people off “life” and the “American dream.” As they so aptly put it in Trainspotting.:


“Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed- interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit- crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing you last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?”

So I am probably wrong about all of this, and maybe, just maybe I am right.

I’m not saying that everything should be banned, nor am I saying that everything should be legalized…I just think it’s interesting to look past the propaganda and bullshit that is drug legislation and realise just why the government banned some substances and legalized others. It’s all just distraction and control.
__________________

[Coconut]

You're preaching to the choir. At least, you are with me, anyway.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

When people drink alcohol, they forget for a few hours how abysmally shit their 40 hour a week lives are, they forget the fact that they know their parents only pretend to be proud of them, that their lives are going nowhere, and that they are so disgustingly ugly. When they see beautiful people in romantic movies getting their hearts broken, they wish they could have their hearts broken because then at least their pain would be meaningful in some way. Instead, they know that their depression is just as ugly and as stupid as they are, and every time they catch a look at their life and themselves in a mirror, they know that they can never be happy and furthermore, that there's nothing the government can do to change that.

But I think the government honestly believe in the values they try to indoctrinate everyone with: that you should go to university, get a job, get married, have kids, and then die a "happy" person. The government are caught between tradition of banning drugs and the science of today which says they are not that bad. Of course, they are also worried about public opinion. Yes their propaganda is stupid and even a bit fascist and yes their ideals are irrational, but it is predictable and understandable and so it shouldn't be so frustrating. I want to be free but I know that if I act in a certain way I will just get thrown in jail.

The government did not "legalize" alcohol and cigarettes: they just kept them legal. There is a big difference. They do care about our welfare, but their idea of welfare is moulding us into a boring materialistic superficial consumer.

The hippie ideal to have pleasure without cost is overtly utopian. There are too many people in the world to survive without business, agriculture, industry and distribution. We can't all go and swim in lakes and live in trees. There aren't enough.

If you try to care about everyone, you end up caring about people who are unsavable. We are all born unequal. Find a place in your mind where you can swim in lakes and live in trees. Find a few people to let in so you can enjoy it together and don't give a seconds thought to the people drowning in mediocrity who are all around you.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very well put.

[nate81]

^^^awesome

[youdontknow]

The bottom line is money.

They simply wouldnt make as much money if they legalized everything.

No one gives a fuck about our welfare lol.

youdontknow added 6 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

We can't all go and swim in lakes and live in trees. There aren't enough.


That made me laugh.

But honestly, the main focus of every single government is one thing, staying in power. How do they stay in power? With weapons, how do they get weapons brings us to the last thing on the list, the bottom line, MONEY


If they gave two shits theyd trade out alcohol and cigs for pot and shrooms.

Trade out two cancer causing things for things that have no negative side effects and shrooms actually have research saying that they have positive long lasting efffects on optimism.

But, thats not gonna happen

[riaahacker]

What the government is denying people is the freedom of thought. When you ingest a psychoactive substance you alter your consciousness and control your thought process. Government imo tends to exert the more coercive elements of a collective society, turning their presumptions of moral behavior and punishable acts into extreme and sometimes very destructive force. Capitalism with a state will also lead to extreme force as the state can act out this force for private interests instead of public interests. The state within a "capitalist" society acts as a monopolistic business that takes over the services of force and arbitration. I am almost amazed at the double standards of our society, if I make methamphetamine and sell it than I'm a drug dealer or the scum of the earth, but if I get a government seal or FDA approval I'm a pharmaceutical business operating under the morals of a so called free market society. Psychoactives effect us in profound ways, psychedelics modify behavior and expand our bounds of perception, stimulants elimiate fatigue and sometimes gives a mood boost, depressants relax us and allow us to view life without the anxiety and fears that cloud our view. I hope one day there will be a time where anyone can explore their consciousness in anyway they see fit.

[waytoofertile]

Originally Posted by Acid_Flux

LSD on the other hand, a drug that has only killed one person in the history of its creation (the guy shot up 10 0000 times the recommended amount into his veins) is illegal. And why? Because LSD makes you a questioning, free thinking individual. The government can’t have a bunch of enlightened rebellious people running around messing with their system.


“Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed- interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit- crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing you last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?”

So I am probably wrong about all of this, and maybe, just maybe I am right.

I’m not saying that everything should be banned, nor am I saying that everything should be legalized…I just think it’s interesting to look past the propaganda and bullshit that is drug legislation and realise just why the government banned some substances and legalized others. It’s all just distraction and control.
__________________

You just quoted From Trainspotting my favorite thing EVER said in a movie. It is so dead on accurate it's eerie.
One question though about what you said about LSD. Swim has never tried because am a very anxious paranoid person and spouse said most likely would freak out as swim does when attempts marijauna. So how could only one person have died in the history of it? What about people who like swim's ex thought they were in a video game and when came around found thier stupid selves in a river up to thier chest? Can't LSD cause you to do harmful things on accident?
PS didn'tmean all LSD users are stupid, just swim's ex boyfriend.

Other than that question I agree with everything you said, as I usually do, lol.

[cannabis-sam]

You just quoted From Trainspotting my favorite thing EVER said in a movie. It is so dead on accurate it's eerie.
One question though about what you said about LSD. Swim has never tried because am a very anxious paranoid person and spouse said most likely would freak out as swim does when attempts marijauna. So how could only one person have died in the history of it? What about people who like swim's ex thought they were in a video game and when came around found thier stupid selves in a river up to thier chest? Can't LSD cause you to do harmful things on accident?
PS didn'tmean all LSD users are stupid, just swim's ex boyfriend.

Although it's off topic, the fundamental thing with LSD or any psychedelics time, place and mood at the time effect how you will be, if you are in a comfortable environment in which you feel safe, with someone sober to look after you (probably the most important part) things should work out fine. Most of the bad stories from LSD come from people who are ill prepared to deal with the experience or do it at the wrong time or place. And know your drug do your research beforehand. Read the forums.

As far as this topic goes, I think one of the big pressures on keeping drugs illegal is the alcohol industry, we all know what a crappy drug alcohol is don't we? For the vast majority of the population alcohol is the psychoactive drug of choice, now if drugs were legal and people were free to take an ecstasy tablet instead of getting pissed would most not choose the euphoric drug that makes everything feel fucking lovely or would they choose the drug thats going to leave them with no memory of the previous night, probably being sick and doing something regrettable. Or Would people choose the pub environment over the coffeeshop enviroment, the choice of sitting in a relaxed environment, without any fights smoking some fine herb over getting pissed shouting at people and getting into a fight outside a night club with your equally drunk misses screaming "No dave leave it out, he aint worf it babes".

If drugs were legal many people would change their drug of choice from the standard alcohol that everyone does to the drug that suits them most.

[Acid_Flux]

One question though about what you said about LSD. Swim has never tried because am a very anxious paranoid person and spouse said most likely would freak out as swim does when attempts marijauna. So how could only one person have died in the history of it? What about people who like swim's ex thought they were in a video game and when came around found thier stupid selves in a river up to thier chest? Can't LSD cause you to do harmful things on accident?

I'm talking about the direct effects if LSD, as in it's toxic value...and not the things people decide to do after taking it. For instance, a drunk person may decide to jump headlong into a bush and break his neck. In this case he died from a bush-diving accident, and not from alcohol poisoning. Same goes for acid, some people may kill themselves by leaping off a building (which, by the by, never happens. WATCH BILL HICKS!) but then one should blame the idiot, and not the acid. He died from falling off a building, not from acid "poisoning." get what I'm saying?

[Petethemeat]

I disagree with the belief that prohibition is all about money and that there is a big conspiracy against legalisation.

I think Governments accept that more money would be made through legalisation, indeed the UK government has formally accepted this point, and it is one of the more hardline in its approach. I believe that the tobacco and alcohol industries are truly against competition in the form of legalised drugs, yet I feel most others have a less conspiratorial, simply ignorant approach to drugs.

For the last hundred years the world has been culturally dominated by the west. Drugs like alcohol have religious significance for the Judeo-Christian dominations, and have hundreds of years of acceptance and mainstream use. Therefore people see alcohol as fun in moderation and a mere vice in excess, the horror with which they perceive drug use is not present with alcohol, indeed at least where I come from, it is seen as somewhat cool to be able to consume a great deal of alcohol.

Other drugs are either new and scary (most synthetic drugs) or have racial and historical prejudices to overcome (Cannabis etc). Drugs that tend to make people deviate from accepted culture and zeitgiest are seen as dangerous and subversive- and subject to ridicule and scare stories by the media.

Drugs are also pretty much the one topic where the media is allowed, even encouraged to be sensationalist and non-objective. Drugs and youth are a potent combination in a tabloids arsenal, due to natural fearfulness and ignorance in regards to children. In the case of cannabis, it is easy to demonise a drug many of it's readers may have tried by presenting it as super-powerful and in no way connected to the youthful high jinks its readership might have engaged in.

To summarise, I believe it is ignorance, unfamiliarity and fear that causes peoples aversion to legalisation. I do believe that things are changing however, and that the prohibitionists hold on drug policy is not going to last forever.

[Jimmehboi]

The world craves and demands conflict.

The people who don't give two shits about this planet and the bacteria that lives on it are the people who want money and power.

Unfortunately, the people who care are the ones who don't make the money and power, because the exclusive job for making yourself rich and powerful is the one that demands you to crush the Earth.

A lot of things will need to change for this to happen.

The ones who control humanity are the ones who make more money the better they do it.

Of course the government want to choose the two drugs which harm you the most- it adds more money into the economy, and the more money it's possible for them to earn, the more powerful they will be.

[SunMoon]

Originally Posted by Acid_Flux

If we look at ourselves as being under a government of distraction and control it becomes quite apparent why some drugs have been banned whilst others have not.
[bla bla]
I’m not saying that everything should be banned, nor am I saying that everything should be legalized…I just think it’s interesting to look past the propaganda and bullshit that is drug legislation and realise just why the government banned some substances and legalized others. It’s all just distraction and control.
__________________

So during prohibition time in the US the government wanted "the masses" to be smart?

[damo86]

In England 'binge drinking' as the government call it is a huge problem, many times larger than all the drug issues put togeather, and if any of you live in england you'll know that they're now going after alcohol, trying to raise the prices and age limit (again!!). Maybe in other countries some of the things in the above posts are correct but in my country the truth is this:

1. The government is full of old boring dicks.
2. The government dont want us to have fun, meaningful lives but rather us have financial productive lives which are taxable.
3. They know drugs aren't as big a problem as they make out.
4. Our country is run by people who have never taken drugs and hence have never had their tiny worlds expanded by the awesome power of shrooms or felt the irrational but intense love of a decent E, they've never contemplated the meaning of everything stoned off their tits . They simply cant comprehend what we know to be the truth DRUGS RULE!!!!!! END OFF!!!!!!

[cra$h]

old news. I could give you a book on why each drug is illegal, and each has its own story. A lot of racism, money, and ignorance, aka capitalism.

[Eivissa]

I think you hit it bang on , i dont belive the gov do anything at all in our interests when it comes to drugs . There lack of knowledge about it is discusting and rotten they should get with the times and find out more about the real people and the people that take drugs

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by damo86

In England 'binge drinking' as the government call it is a huge problem, many times larger than all the drug issues put togeather, and if any of you live in england you'll know that they're now going after alcohol, trying to raise the prices and age limit (again!!). Maybe in other countries some of the things in the above posts are correct but in my country the truth is this:

1. The government is full of old boring dicks.
2. The government dont want us to have fun, meaningful lives but rather us have financial productive lives which are taxable.
3. They know drugs aren't as big a problem as they make out.
4. Our country is run by people who have never taken drugs and hence have never had their tiny worlds expanded by the awesome power of shrooms or felt the irrational but intense love of a decent E, they've never contemplated the meaning of everything stoned off their tits . They simply cant comprehend what we know to be the truth DRUGS RULE!!!!!! END OFF!!!!!!

Abso-fucking-lutely. (Or should that be ASBO-fucking-lutely?)

Something else that's funny about the current gubbermint, and a few of the Tories as well, is how a little while ago there seemed to be a trend for 'admitting' (or rather, claiming) to have smoked cannabis once or twice in one's youth, a la Bill Clinton. But it was good old-fashioned harmless wacky-baccy in those days, not the "25-times-stronger" KILLER DEATH SKUNK that makes 14-year-olds stab each other and rape old ladies. So basically they're desperately trying to appeal to da yoof (cf. iPods, current pop bands, Twitter etc.) while simultaneously distancing themselves from drug use today, which they can then of course carry on demonizing as usual. Bigoted, self-righteous pricks that they are.

[doggy_hat]

In order to keep people in line, to do their job, and help contribute to the growth of the economy(because there's no such thing as too many TV's or expensive clothes) we have to sacrifice our freedom. I'm convinced that for the most part(3rd world dictatorships being a counterexample), the lack of freedom is directly correlated with the size of the economy. In order to increase in size and efficiency we have to work harder and harder, and lose less individuality. As the economic system that our entire lives are devoted to feeding, grows ever bigger, we in comparison become smaller and more insignificant. In order to a keep a machine running smoothly, all of the cogs must be uniform, and perform their task predictable. And in just the same way, we too must be stripped of our individuality, shut up, and listen to the boss. Altered consciousness is not ideal, it's like replacing one of the cogs with an acorn. In order to sustain our economy and technologically advanced society we've stripped our selves of dignity and have been domesticated like cattle. We can have freedom and be allowed to do as we please, or we can have McDonald's and Videogames, but we can't have both. I think it's a futile effort to get drugs legal, because our entire civilization is flawed, and needs to be scrapped in order to regain freedom.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by doggy_hat

In order to keep people in line, to do their job, and help contribute to the growth of the economy(because there's no such thing as too many TV's or expensive clothes) we have to sacrifice our freedom. I'm convinced that for the most part(3rd world dictatorships being a counterexample), the lack of freedom is directly correlated with the size of the economy. In order to increase in size and efficiency we have to work harder and harder, and lose less individuality. As the economic system that our entire lives are devoted to feeding, grows ever bigger, we in comparison become smaller and more insignificant. In order to a keep a machine running smoothly, all of the cogs must be uniform, and perform their task predictable. And in just the same way, we too must be stripped of our individuality, shut up, and listen to the boss. Altered consciousness is not ideal, it's like replacing one of the cogs with an acorn. In order to sustain our economy and technologically advanced society we've stripped our selves of dignity and have been domesticated like cattle. We can have freedom and be allowed to do as we please, or we can have McDonald's and Videogames, but we can't have both. I think it's a futile effort to get drugs legal, because our entire civilization is flawed, and needs to be scrapped in order to regain freedom.

Indeed, the classic negative freedom vs positive freedom debate...

I think that the problem arises when people take an objective distinction of free and unfree (from a negative freedom perspective) and add their own subjective value judgements onto it. For example, a man alone in a desert would have total negative freedom, but his freedom would be said to be worthless or "without value". Of course, adding subjective value judgements to objective distinctions logically clouds any issue but this one in particular. I think that you have to distinguish between what freedom actually is (freedom from restraint, coercion, and so on), and what you would like to do with it (the subjective values you hold).

Of course... it could be that free and unfree is a false dichotomy and freedom is just another subjective concept... Regardless, where value lies, that is where objectivity is not.

[lostmente]

as above, so below

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

Indeed, the classic negative freedom vs positive freedom debate...

I think that the problem arises when people take an objective distinction of free and unfree (from a negative freedom perspective) and add their own subjective value judgements onto it. For example, a man alone in a desert would have total negative freedom, but his freedom would be said to be worthless or "without value". Of course, adding subjective value judgements to objective distinctions logically clouds any issue but this one in particular. I think that you have to distinguish between what freedom actually is (freedom from restraint, coercion, and so on), and what you would like to do with it (the subjective values you hold).

Of course... it could be that free and unfree is a false dichotomy and freedom is just another subjective concept... Regardless, where value lies, that is where objectivity is not.

Lots of good points here. Also worth mentioning that there's no such thing as absolute freedom (unless, as in the case of the guy in the desert, it's a worthless sort of freedom), and that such a freedom would not necessarily be desirable if even it were possible. For example, I think it's certainly a good thing that I don't have the freedom to go around stabbing people, raping women and abducting small children, if that's what I wanted to do, as having that right would impinge on the rights of others not to be stabbed, raped or abducted.

[Acid_Flux]

I command you............. RATE MY POSTS!