Pretty Lady formally announces that today is Free-For-All day on her blog. Please suspend any former requests of hers to behave with open-minded civility, and insult one another as freely and creatively as you like. Feel free to wax sarcastic about the imbecility of your neighbors; engage in long-winded rants about media bias, bigotry, fascism, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, naivete and rank stupidity in any area you like. Get it all out of your systems.
Go on. Go ahead. What are you waiting for?
Oh! A topic. Let us see...let us pick something controversial and inflammatory...hmmm...okay. How about, "Homosexuality is not immoral"? Pretty Lady saw something about Hillary Clinton making this bold and controversial statement, recently.
Pretty Lady's view is that a State of Being cannot be immoral, because it simply Is. And if we are to predicate Existence upon a benign Creator, then Existence cannot be immoral, because the fact of Existence must conform to the laws set down by the force which allowed it to Exist in the first place.
No, by Pretty Lady's reckoning, only actions can be immoral. And although it is possible to argue that a homosexual action might be immoral, according to Laws set down by the Creator, Pretty Lady finds it difficult to determine how, or why, a Presidential Candidate would have a reason for concerning herself with this. Because as long as an action does not directly threaten the well-being of a community, in the sense that there are Victims of Homosexual Activity clamoring to have their grievances redressed, what of it? All of us commit immoral actions at one time or another. Policing this sort of thing is, hopefully, beyond the scope of the Federal Government. At least it is at the moment.
So there you go, darlings! Have at it!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Rules suspended
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
You a little tired of us arguing? Well, what is the point of having a weblog where everyone agrees? Then it would be JUST like a fiminists blog, or a liberal one. Isn't arguing/debating good? I don't mean name calling and that kind of stuff.
and the point of homosexuality being immoral, it is. All sex outside of marriage is immoral. And not just the act. Jesus did say that to even look a woman WITH LUST in your heart, you are guilty of adultery. another - To say that you hate your brother will make you guilty of committing murder in your heart.
The sin starts long before the act.
Just because people don't like what the Bible says doesn't make it any less moral. Oh sure they can deny the Bible, Mock God and the Bible. But in the end, it was still immoral.
Thankfully, There is Jesus, who will forgive you. If you give him a chance.
Not a chance....
The Homeland Security wackos are watching this blog.
Starbuck, sex outside of marriage is a forgivable sin? That's good.
As far as species on species, no problem, but I don't want to see it. Watching homosexuals kiss and fondle each other is no different then having to watch my sons kissing and fondling the girlfriend of the month. Don't do it in my house, or where I'm eating. Dignity and discretion ain't bad things.
DHS? they watch this blog? No wonder they can't get anything done.
Good lord, you don't really think we need the word fagot defined for us, do you? Or are you worried we'd assume it was a misspelling and that you really did mean to throw Richard Simmons on the pyre?
Although that's not a bad idea, exactly....
It seems to me that saying that homosexuality is not immoral is hardly tacking hard left. If anything, it's hitting about dead center, since most Americans really don't have anything against gays.
And I think little-l libertarianism swings both ways -- it's different from right/left ideology. Big-L Libertarianism is usually rightist, and often big-I Insane. I mean, there was a Libertarian Party candidate who turned himself blue taking silver nitrate pills to be ready for Y2K.
Anyway, why haven't we got a bonfire roaring in here yet?
'Cuz PL took the wind out of your sails. ;-)
Thanks, sweeties.
Plus, Pretty Lady thinks she's probably more libertarian than either left OR right, and she can't figure out what that means, either.
All I know is that *I* have been tacking exceptionally hard left in my writings recently, in case you all didn't notice.
I kind of want to be a libertarian, although they have some real wackjobs in the party that make me hesitate.
Despite recognizing that the War on Drugs has been nothing short of a weapons-grade clusterfuck from the beginning, I just can't get behind the idea of selling heroin, methamphetamines and coke to 18 year old kids. So... I don't know if I can support the Libertarians with their pro-drug stance.
There's your Molotov, y'all.
Oh, so that's hard left, eh? One Shudders to Think.
I just can't get behind the idea of selling heroin, methamphetamines and coke to 18 year old kids.
Er, Crom, dear, I hate to burst your bubble, but that's happening. It is happening thousands of times daily, and the War on Drugs, as you so correctly point out, has wasted billions of dollars in utterly failing to prevent this from happening. It just gives the federal government a good excuse to violate civil rights, imprison people indefinitely for having a marijuana seed in their cuff, and confiscate private property at will.
In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the War on Drugs has the effect of stimulating the market, by driving up prices and thus the incentive for suppliers to get into the business, and at the same time causing addicts to avoid getting treatment, for fear of prosecution.
Decriminalizing drugs is not the same as saying that Drugs are Okay With Us, Now. It just admits that the government is powerless to control the manufacture and use of drugs by brute force, and opens the floor to suggestions for other, more practical methods of addressing drug abuse.
Such as, I don't know, stronger communities? Pretty Lady's personal suggestion is Plazas for All.
Although I've given up on trying to change minds on decriminalization of drugs, homosexuality and conservatives, in Amsterdam drug use is exactly the same at all levels as in the US. They just don't waste all that money trying to fix it through the barrel of a gun. Many 18 year olds like drugs and it has very little to do with legality. I know Crom, you just don't like it. Not much I can do about that. Jorge felt the same about Iraq and no one could stop him either.
I really don't believe drug use would go up significantly in the long term if the war on drugs would be called a loss and something else were tried. Amsterdam is, in fact, a good example.
I think a lot of people who shudder at the thought of giving up the war on drugs just simply have not had the courage to face the reality of psychotropic substances and human nature.
People who want to use will use no matter what. There are better ways to minimize the harms to society than what we're currently trying and failing at.
Hey, groovy. Pretty Lady tells us to fight and instead we all find something we can agree on.
Although I think we disagree on how harmful currently illegal drugs are. The War on Drugs is harmful, sure, and illegal substances can be bad, but they're not that bad. For example, only about 10 percent of the population is susceptible to heroin addiction. Most people will try it and find it doesn't do much for them. (Of course, you don't know which you are until you try -- not one of your better gambles.)
Also, I think the War on Drugs has continued because it's just too profitable for everyone. Drug retailers and wholesalers -- both legal and illegal -- can make unbelievable profits, while law enforcement and government can increase budgets, seize property, and rewrite the Constitution to give themselves more power. Everyone wins!
Except you.
There is also the flip-side to consider when contemplating the decriminalization of drugs. Who do you think will get in immediately on the action? You guessed it, your beloved .gov would love to regulate, tax and profit from the windfall.
The cartels will lose billions, and have to go back to gambling, prostitution, slavery and arms dealing to make their quotas. In the meantime, a new bumper crop of American addicts appears.
Addicts controlled now not by crime, but rather the government. People who will be easier to manage and control, since the Feds control their supply. This sounds like a Brave New World nightmare. "You want your reefer? You want your blow? Then sit down and shut the fuck up about the Constitution, asshole."
I am not saying this will happen, but it's something to consider. I know people will always want to get high, and some people will do whatever is necessary to achieve that no matter the cost.
Of course, I have the solution. I would increase funding for treatment programs to the tune of billions of dollars, and spend the money on drug resistance education and rehabilitation centers. I would close the borders, and increase the penalties for selling narcotics while decreasing penalties for people caught using drugs. Treatment for addiction and staying clean would be the primary goal, rather than just jailing folks. Instead of prosecuting kids for smoking grass, I would be shooting down the airplanes bringing that shit in, and sinking the boats.
None of this would be easy, but it is doable. We kept things like Stevia (artificial sweetener) out of the country for decades, and until last year it was impossible to get ahold of DDT. If we can keep Cuban cigars out of most American's hands then keeping China White away shouldn't be that much of a stretch. It's just a matter of will.
What kind of a freakin' libertarian are you, Crom? Billions of dollars in government funding for drug treatment, plus the freakin' army the entire length of the border, land and sea? I'd take a pot tax any day before I'd support that.
Plazas, I tell you. Plazas where people hang out and socialize.
I don't know Crom, is that what happened when we gave up trying to police peoples consumption of alcohol?
It sounds like you're saying that we haven't yet tried hard enought to control the drug trade. I agree it is possible, but I believe it would take an airtight totalitarian police state to achieve.
Consider this: drugs are available inside most federal prisons. How now brown cow?
Re: education and treatment, that makes the most sense, *if* we're going to spend money. Not unlike the propaganda we're bombarded with re: tobacco and alcohol, it has the effect of keeping use down and gives people a way out who want out.
Toldja it was a Molotov.
PL - whether I like it or not the government is going to keep spending billions on this nonsensical war on drugs. I would rather the money be used to pay for treatment and recovery than putting people in jail and increasing the prison/police state.
And yes, I would bring our soldiers back home, and let them protect us instead of engage in empire building in the Middle East. If Mexico wants to be our friend, then it needs to stop acting like an enemy. I am all for helping the poor, but at some point people have to take some responsibility for themselves. Tilting nipple to the country of Mexico ceases to be an act of charity when their hand goes up your dress, uninvited.
"<(D)rugs are available inside most federal prisons. How now brown cow?"
Again, it's the money. Bribery, and extortion work wonders on the average prison guard making under $35K a year, in very unpleasant conditions. Also, consider that many of the people who are in prison are there for trafficking in drugs and have ready access to supplies on the outside. Then it's simply a matter of turning a guard or staff member, and voila, you have whatever you want inside.
DC - I agree that Prohibition was not effective, in the same fashion that the current WoD is not effective. However, let's compare the effects of a three-day binge of drinking cheap tequila vs. a three-day binge of smoking crack.
The long-term effects of alcohol are well documented, and it's no picnic to die from alcoholism. However, compare the timeline and quality of life for your average alcoholic to your average crackhead. In a matter of months, most crackheads are more or less homeless and prostituting themselves for their drug. Alcoholics tend to remain highly functional until the latter stages of the disease, which can take decades.
I didn't say my solution was perfect, and the last thing I want is a totalitarian police state, believe me. I think my solution does offer a better chance of success than anything else I have heard yet.
My stand on drugs:
People who are now using drugs will continue to do so, regarless of the totally wasted efforts of the DEA and the fundies. There will not be a huge surge in drug usage just because they are legalized. That's the biggest lie of all being used to support keeping them illegal.
-1)Legalize them.
This eliminates the drug cartels, the street vendor and the massive amount of money flowing into criminal hands.
-2)License manufacturers
We can easily require--and monitor-- rigid standards for quality, purity dosage, etc. No more deaths from overdose or contamination.
-3)Sell these monitoried drugs made by licensed manufacturers only out of authorized drug stores, nowhere else.
Users of legal age will be able to purchase their drug of choice anytime doing store hours. They will not be arrested and jailed, and will be confidant that whatever it is they are buying to snort, sniff, or shoot won't klll them outright.
-4)Use what will be left of the DEA to keep an eye on the manufacturers and sellers.
Lifetime in jail without possibilibty of parole for selling to minors or illegal peddling of drugs(there are those who will still try).
-5)Tax the hell out of the stuff... like today's cigarettes.
That way, the government makes money on drugs, instead of spending billions annually on this "war on drugs" we cannot win.
As a bonus, those jack-booted heavily-armed trigger-happy DEA thugs breaking into some witless and harmless pot-smokers living room will be eliminated.
There should be a no appeal death penalty for selling to minors, No exceptions. Protect the kids, let adults go to hell in whatever basket they choose.
Yes, there will be people who get hooked, go bonkers, require medical intevention, etc., but we have have that now. However, with the DEA and its multi-billion dollar budget pared down to controllable size, we can use the saved money for the medical stuff.
A final bonus... no more lying, thieving, no good son-of-bitches bought and sold with drug money in government--local or national--like we have now.
Wow, I just read the above to my wife, who really disliked the idea of just killing the peddlers who sell to minors. Fine by me, tho.
That's just my personal opinion, not listed under (4) above. I suppose I didn't make that clear enough.
Crom,
There is some evidence to suggest that the pressures of the drug war are at least partially responsible for the emergence of some of these really disastrous drugs. Who ever heard of meth, back when cleaner, less destructive uppers were more available? Why crack instead of coke? Most cokeheads manage to carry on quite well, similar to alcoholics, whereas crack is a ticket straight to hell. Is it more profitable to the dealer? Quite possibly. Is it easier (more profitable) to smuggle small quantities of concentrated substances, or bales of grass? No contest.
I'm not at all sure that flinging the doors wide open all at once makes sense. Obviously some of the most destructive drugs like meth, crack, and probably heroin deserve a far more cautious approach than such relatively (relatively) benign drugs such as THC, Ecstasy, psilocybin, and maybe LSD (if available in a controlled setting. Yeh, government-sanctioned trip-labs. What a concept!)
Obviously there is the employment angle. I take no exception to employers enforcing the standards they see fit for their employees, based on safety and productivity requirements (provided the standards are reasonably relevant to the job in question). That alone should keep drug use on the fringes.
But here's something to consider too. When opium was outlawed, thousands of previously productive, functional citizens rapidly found themselves on the street. When it was legal, it was available at a cost that allowed them to carry on their life. When it was outlawed, the price skyrocketed, they were forced to mortgage their life and it destroyed them. A lot of the harms from drugs can be traced back to the high cost of maintaining an addiction and the disruptive effect that has on any chance of a normal life. And that high cost is a direct result of the drug war.
Again, it's the money. Bribery, and extortion work wonders on the average prison guard making under $35K a year, in very unpleasant conditions.
That illustrates another harm from the drug war--corruption of law enforcement. It's a huge problem, especially with the asset seizure laws. So we have a drug war that has not effectively stemmed the flow of drugs--about the same percentage of the population uses today as has historically, it has spawned a huge amount of crime associated with trafficking, and it has also corrupted law enforcement and given the state excuse to make serious inroads against our rights and freedoms in other areas.
So we have something that is extremely costly, has significant detrimental and disruptive effects, but gives the users a false sense of control--the rush of thinking they're "doing something" about a perceived problem.
Sounds like an addiction to me.
Bobert,
I could pick nits, but overall I agree with that general approach.
Here is a link that may be of some interest: Before
"no more lying, thieving, no good son-of-bitches bought and sold with drug money in government--local or national--like we have now.
Yeah, because Eli Lilly and Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline aren't making enough money off of people currently who need drugs to stay alive, nevermind get stoned.
I will tell you that the day your "legalize it" legislation passes I will be buying pharmaceutical stocks like they are going out of style.
Shit, I thought that everyone pledging allegiance to Prozac Nation was bad...
DC - I am not nearly as opposed to easing restrictions on some of the substances you mention, although I can't agree with legalizing acid at all. My best friend in high school was an acid casualty after he followed the Dead for a couple of years in a bus after failing/tripping out of college. The last time we spoke he was still living with his 90-year old mother, driving pizzas since he can't pay attention to anything longer than about 15 seconds.
That's why I suggested controlled settings. There was some very promising work going on with LSD in psychiatric settings before it was prohibited.
Nevertheless you have to admit that your friend destroyed his life while acid was illegal. I'm not sure what effect (limited) legalization would have had on that outcome.
PL sez:
Plazas, I tell you. Plazas where people hang out and socialize.
Too cold around half the U.S., I'd guess, for plazas. Anyway, here in New Jersey we have shopping malls. They perform the same function with year-round climate control. In fact, my local favorite -- and one of the largest malls around -- is actually called Garden State Plaza.
I've tossed around the idea, on and off, of painting shopping malls. I was thinking, you know, Renoir didn't paint people in straw boaters because it was picturesque, he painted them because that's what was around him. So I was thinking I should paint what's around me, which is mostly shopping malls.
But then I think I like naked fat chicks better.
Crom sez:
Tilting nipple to the country of Mexico ceases to be an act of charity when their hand goes up your dress, uninvited.
And thank you for that lovely mental image.
Crom also sez:
My best friend in high school was an acid casualty...
I have yet to read one real scientific study linking any psychedelic drug to permanent brain damage. Or even temporary brain damage. Granted I'm no expert, but I have done a lot of reading in this area.
Your friend may have been damaged by other drugs, or maybe he's just lazy and would've stayed home with Mom regardless. Or maybe he was damaged by other substances mixed with the LSD, which can happen in an unregulated market.
I have yet to read one real scientific study linking any psychedelic drug to permanent brain damage.
Damage, I don't know. But changes? Well anecdotally, that's hard to deny, and I'm pretty sure that a scientific study of psychedelic* users would find consistent evidence of significant changes to brain function. There are almost certainly psychological and perceptual changes that last far beyond the actual drug's effect.
Whether those changes are good or bad depends, I think, upon a whole host of other factors. Everyone knows of someone back in the day who got "too far out there" and didn't come back normal.
*by psychedelic I assume we're talking about non-addictive hallucinogens/entheogens specifically (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, Salvinorin, and the like), and not addictive mood-altering drugs? Because addiction itself, specifically the detrimental changes to the dopamine channels, seems to me to be pretty clearly a form of damage. I recall reading (maybe incorrectly?) that the damage from crack is pretty much irreversible within a very short time of beginning to use.
"This is offensive and insulting. Prozac and the other antidepressants treat an actual disease. People don't take them for fun."
This was not insulting, my mocking of "Prozac Nation" does not refer to people who genuinely have a need for these drugs. I am sympathetic to those who suffer from clinical depression.
However, Prozac and other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are way overprescribed for every ailment from insomnia to attempted suicide. I went to the doctor for high blood pressure, and I speculated that stress was the culprit, since my job is rather intense. He offered me Zoloft. Another time I went in for an unexplained chest pain - different doctor by the way, and I was offered Prozac and/or Busparin.
I am not depressed, or suicidal - so what the hell am I being offered these drugs for? I have heard similar stories from others, where they are offered these SSRIs for various ailments. I would hazard that if I went to the doctor with a sucking chest wound that the attending physician would prescribe Curads and Celexa.
And as for your cheap shot at a crucifix shaped crutch, I can belittle whomever I choose. You put your faith in Eli Lilly, I will put mine in Jesus Christ.
I will bet I am a much happier person than you...
Re: My acid casualty buddy
"maybe he's just lazy and would've stayed home with Mom regardless."
Quite possible. However, he had an IQ of about 130, he had a full scholarship to our college in the School of Business and he graduated third in our HS class. He wasn't a slacker, or a beatnik. He told me that one time he was at a Dead show and took 10,000 micrograms of LSD. I don't know what the average dose is, but this sounded like a lot to me.
He's still a nice guy, but his brain is fried. He really cannot talk about anything longer than ten or fifteen seconds, he loses track, or laughs and asks what he was talking about.
This is my personal bias against LSD - I freely admit I am not non-judgemental when it comes to this since I have seen the effects up close.
Crom asks:
I am not depressed, or suicidal - so what the hell am I being offered these drugs for?
SSRIs affect the serotonin system, which has receptors throughout the body, especially in the gastrointestinal tract. This is why depressed people often feel pain in different parts of their body.
Therefore SSRIs have many applications outside of depression. Are they overprescribed? Maybe. A lot of patients ask their doctors for them even though they don't need them, and doctors prescribe what they're asked way more than they should.
Then again, people probably take too much Tylenol, too. And Tylenol causes quite a few deaths from liver failure. But you're hardly saying we're pledging allegiance to Acetaminophen America, are you?
I will bet I am a much happier person than you...
Considering you spend so much time trying to prove that Jesus is Lord, Muslims want to behead you, everybody else is taking too many drugs (illegal and legal), and that you're happy and serene, I have trouble believing this.
On the other hand, your biochemistry isn't fighting against you.
teh...ten thou...!!
Yes, I can see what your friend did to himself. From Erowid:
Oral LSD Dosages
Threshold 20 ug
Light 25 - 75 ug
Common 50 - 150 ug
Strong 150 - 400 ug
Heavy 400 + ug
LD50 (Lethal Dose*) 12,000 ug
In other words he's lucky to be alive, let alone functional, given that he took twenty-five times the dose necessary for a "heavy" trip, and only just below the LD50.
I'd imagine this is not the norm for acidheads, and I cannot imagine...I really cannot imagine what a maelstrom that had to have been to live through a dose that high.
Let it be known that Pretty lady loathes--LOATHES--the Grateful Dead. That band is so mind-bogglingly awful that a person has to ingest controlled substances during a performance in order to keep from knawing off a limb. Pretty Lady once sat through two consecutive Grateful Dead concerts without the assistance of controlled substances, and her intact-limbed state is entirely due to her gift for being able to sleep at will, under almost any conditions.
So it seems obvious, Crom, that your friend is a victim, less of LSD, than of a failed suicide attempt.
The LD50 of LSD is notional. There are virtually no reports of deaths by LSD overdose. The same source you quoted, Desert Cat, even includes a reported LSD overdose which turned out to be an overdose of another chemical.
I wouldn't take Crom's friend's dose as all that exact, anyway, since Crom may be misremembering, the potency of the dose his friend took is unknown, and in fact the exact chemical his friend took is unknown (a lot of things are sold as LSD which aren't).
This is the trouble with anecdotal evidence, and why double blind clinical trials were invented. Of course, it's been a long time since such studies were done on LSD since it's now illegal to study the drug.
I did not misremember the number, I am quite sure that 10,000 was what he said. Another fact I did not share was that he and his two partners financed their long, strange trip by producing blotter acid and selling it to their fellow hippies. It is likely that he concocted this massive dose for himself while preparing his normal wares.
If anything could drive a man to suicide, it is the horrible music of the Grateful Dead. So I guess I should consider the possibility that the repeated exposure to their music is what rotted out his brain as opposed to smorgasboard of drugs that he consumed while following them.
I only suggested misremembering because I do that all the time. I tend to remember the flavor of a story more than the precise details. My stories therefore sound like, "He was lifting, I don't know, five-hundred-pound dumbbells over his head -- not five hundred pounds, you know, but some really large number..."
I find it funny that we all can apparently agree that the Grateful Dead suck, by the way. I'm thinking, if I had to follow the Dead on tour, some brain damage would be welcome.
Obviously LD50 is not determined by human testing. Typically they feed a chemical to lab rats in increasing doses until 50% of them keel over dead on average. That dose on a mg/kg scale-up is what is used to figure the LD50 for a typical human.
My main point is that he took far, far more than was necessary for the wildest, scariest ride. That's gotta hurt some...
I know what would cure the drug problem... and most other societies woes in this country...
A good old fashion movement of the Holy Spirit.
And no, I never liked the grateful dead. except for maybe the song "truckin".. that one was a little ok.
I know what would cure the drug problem... and most other societies woes in this country...
A good old fashion movement of the Holy Spirit.
And no, I never liked the grateful dead. except for maybe the song "truckin".. that one was a little ok.
DC sez:
Obviously LD50 is not determined by human testing.
Really?
Typically they feed a chemical to lab rats in increasing doses until 50% of them keel over dead on average.
What I was saying is doubt that's been done for LSD.
I meant to cover this earlier...
"Considering you spend so much time trying to prove that...you're happy and serene, I have trouble believing this."
Happy? Absolutely. I am as strong as an ox, I have a job, good friends, a good woman and little to no lower back pain. There are steaks in my freezer, and Guinness in the fridge.
As to proving that God exists? If I could do that then there would be little need for faith then, and faith is the whole point. I am not worried about being beheaded, or whether you smoke grass. I am concerned on the macro scale about world issues, but that comes from my compassion for my fellow humans. I don't want bad things to befall anyone. However, pretending they don't exist and concentrating solely on the beef and beer is stupidly selfish, so I am involved politically, religiously and socially.
Being concerned doesn't make me unhappy, and I have faith that in the end my "invisible friend in the sky" will provide me with a kickass eternity. I am pessimistic for our chances while here, but I know how the story ends so I don't let it consume me.
There are some who believe that no hope = no fear, but what a crappy way to live.
starbuck said...
I know what would cure the drug problem... and most other societies woes in this country...
A good old fashion movement of the Holy Spirit.
Nice sentiment, but it will never happen.
We need to solve our problems with
our own sweat and effort, and not hang our hats on the highly improbable infusion of divine intervention.
One of the absolute worst things humans can do is to proclaim that "God will handle it"("it" being anything you don't like) and walk away.
Pawning off our problems to God is one of Christianity's biggest challenges to actually getting anything done.
I personally know way too many otherwise apparently intelligent people who trot off to church, say a few prayers, then go home feeling all good and puffy about themselves... because they think they've done something useful.
They haven't.
All they've done is make themselves feel better about not actually doing anything.
It seems obvious to me that the gods--or God--has provided sufficent proof to the world that heavenly intervention is no longer on the plate, and hasn't been for centuries.
As one thumper put it... "we have been shown the way".
What that means is now we have to do it ourselves.
What I was saying is doubt that's been done for LSD.
Digging a little deeper at Erowid, it has, but it doesn't appear to correlate with the 12,000 micrograms figure. That was supplied by Albert Hoffman and no one appears to know where he got it. The actual LD50 dose runs up to around a gram, based on lab rat tests, and there is one report of someone who took in the vicinity of 300,000 micrograms and survived.
So your point is essentially made. LSD itself is not lethal.
Nice sentiment, but it will never happen.
It seems obvious to me that the gods--or God--has provided sufficent proof to the world that heavenly intervention is no longer on the plate, and hasn't been for centuries.
You seem quite certain of this.
What is the basis of this faith?
Arg. That was Abram Hoffer, not Albert Hoffman.
Arg-2. The 320,000 micrograms was, in fact, fatal in the referenced case.
That's what I get for scanning an article, then writing about it hours later, instead of referring back again to it.
DC sez:
The 320,000 micrograms was, in fact, fatal in the referenced case.
Geez. You take enough of anything and I guess you'll drown in it. Why would anyone take that much? They must've been brain-damaged to begin with.
Maybe too many Dead shows.
(I know, I know, 320,000 ug isn't enough to drown in.)
Crom sez:
Happy? Absolutely. I am as strong as an ox, I have a job, good friends, a good woman and little to no lower back pain. There are steaks in my freezer, and Guinness in the fridge.
I can just about picture you from that description.
Let's see, I'm feeling weak, am unemployed, am nearly out of friends, and have middle back pain. I rarely freeze meat (I always get it fresh as possible) and don't drink.
I have a good woman, though.
So, does all that stuff come if I convert? Because it sounds pretty sweet.
On the other hand I could just take my testosterone supplement (I ran out) and get to the massage therapist to cover most of it. I don't have friends because I don't like anyone, so that's okay.
Geez. You take enough of anything and I guess you'll drown in it. Why would anyone take that much? They must've been brain-damaged to begin with.
Yes, your point is still valid. A person can kill themselves if they drink 800 times the recommended daily intake of water too.
None of this really addresses whether a non-lethal but ridiculously high dose can mess with your brain and ruin your ability to focus though, and/or whether the same happens with long-term use.
"So, does all that stuff come if I convert? Because it sounds pretty sweet."
It does sound like the deal of the decade, doesn't it? But to answer: Nope.
This may drive you nuts, but from my experience, I received the proof I wanted of God after I believed in Him. You will argue, and correctly - that once I already believed that proof is irrelevant since I could delude myself into thinking that anything was proof since I had convinced myself that God was real. However, the proof I received was not the warm, fuzzy, Jesus-holding-a-lamb type that most people expect.
God rewarded my faith with proof. Enough concrete, hard evidence to verify with my rational mind that my faith was not misplaced. I will not tell you what was revealed, since it wasn't for you. However, I have talked to others who received this type of divine revelation, but in every case they had to make the commitment first. A leap of faith, so to speak. Then, and only then do you see the bridge over the chasm.
This might be unsatisfying to the humanist POV, and that's cool - I can't promise you anything, only tell you what I learned.
Post a Comment