New at Reason

May 22, 2007

In his long feature from the new issue of reason, Jacob Sullum sits down with worshippers who have to battle the state for exemptions from drug laws.

Comments

|5.22.07 @ 11:22AM|#

As if "speaking to God" were a nobler moral purpose and a right more worthy of respect than the "pursuit of happiness". When neither action violates the rights of another, there can be no lawful infringement.

|5.22.07 @ 11:47AM|#

I'm inclined to agree with you, dj, but Sullum did point that out in his article. One would hope that governmental acceptance of these substances in a religious setting might lead to more mainstream acceptance.

In fact, that was one of the main points of the article.

|5.22.07 @ 12:21PM|#

How can we replace Slashdot if we actually RTFA?

tros|5.22.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Thank you for writing this article Jacob. I am going to spare you all the usual. This book is also about spiritual uses of illicit substances:

http://dadatech.com/hippy_suicide_balmer_manual.pdf

If you meet a hippie, tell them to kill themself and then get a new self so we can be recognized by the government. I am sick and tired of these retarded 1960s stereotypes.

tros|5.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#

http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-4119.html

This seems as good a time as any to CHRISTEN the Real Christians Smoke Dope movement. Seriously, people, let's look at this story from a fresh perspective. There is this long-haired fellow who hangs out with hookers and homeless people, telling us that we should love everybody. He gives his friends this MAGICAL BREAD that he says will give them eternal life. When was the last time you ate magical baked goods? And then later, when they are all hanging out in some garden somewhere, one of his friends brings the cops to take him away.

I am not even going to bother citing the evidence, because the offical story is so nonsensical that anything we make up on the spot would make more sense.

|5.22.07 @ 1:58PM|#

damaged justice sounds like he was channeling Christopher Hitchens (As if "speaking to God" were a nobler moral purpose and a right more worthy of respect than the "pursuit of happiness".")Nonetheless, I wish to echo his sentiments and agree with the mediageek, that was a crucial point of Jacob's very excellent article.

Well done.

|5.22.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Not sure there's much to expand on from Mr. Sullum's article, as it's pretty comprehensive.

One of the things that did strike me, though, was that the Indians and other religious organizations that use these hallucinogens seem to play up the control aspect of it- fasting beforehand, creating the right setting, and keeping an eye on those under the influence so that they don't hurt themselves.

I have to wonder if that's something that's only limited to the religious groups, though.

Do those who trip for recreational or not-strictly-religious purposes have similar controls in place?

LarryA|5.22.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Do those who trip for recreational or not-strictly-religious purposes have similar controls in place?

Not normally. It's the black market environment. In a bar the designated driver gets free drinks, or at least respect. In a drug scene he gets thrown in the wagon with everyone else.

And suppose someone hits a bad trip or physical problem. 911? I don't think so.

dhex|5.22.07 @ 3:33PM|#

"Do those who trip for recreational or not-strictly-religious purposes have similar controls in place?"

those who aren't douchefucks do.

tros|5.22.07 @ 5:36PM|#

Do those who trip for recreational or not-strictly-religious purposes have similar controls in place?

Yes. The vast majority do. Larry obviously doesn't use these substances regularly. Also, most regular users of psychedelics do not consider their use to be recreational. It is a spiritual practice.

People who use these substances recreationally are going about it the wrong way. I shouldn't have to argue the possibility of self-regulation on a libertarian message board.

Robert|5.22.07 @ 6:11PM|#

Unfortunately I think the kind of "control" that makes psychedelics more likely to be acceptable would be controls that:

make use of the material less pleasurable, more of a sacrifice;
limit the number of potential users to a very small total; and/or
make the practitioners easier to identify & isolate from ordinary life;

and not the type of controls that would reduce dangers from the practice.