Transcendent Compounds - Hunger Strike for Religious and Spiritual Freedom - 2012

[ballzac]

Everything surrounding this issue is a parody, so why shouldn't we have our own? ;)

 

I'd like to think that 'we' can rise above all the bullshit rather than participate in it.

[Psylo]

x

Edited March 22, 2013 by Psylo

[ballzac]

If you mean to say that if it came between a prison term and a 'free out' by falsely stating that you are part of a religion that gives you an allowance to possess the drugs that you were caught for, and you would hold strong on your convictions, then I'm calling bullshit.

 

I didn't say that at all. In fact, I have already clarified my position on that:

I honestly don't know what I would actually do in the event, but this is about public policies, not about the action of individuals. It's similar to my opposition to the death penalty. Despite the fact that there are things people could do to me, or my loved ones, to make me wish them dead, I don't think that we, as a society, should be putting policies that reflect this into place.

 

What I was saying, is that there are inconsistencies in people's support of this, because they are supporting an action that is supposedly about truth, and not having to hide ones beliefs, while also suggesting that we lie, and hide our true beliefs. I thought I had made that point fairly clearly.

[Psylo]

OK.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Psylo Dread

[Torsten]

What I was saying, is that there are inconsistencies in people's support of this, because they are supporting an action that is supposedly about truth, and not having to hide ones beliefs, while also suggesting that we lie, and hide our true beliefs. I thought I had made that point fairly clearly.

 

No, my support for religious freedom is because everything else is a lie. The drug war sucess is a lie, the constitutional rights of freedom FROM religion are a lie, the democratic representation is a lie, etc.

I have no problem using an open lie to force the truth.

And anyway, it's not really a lie, because I believe everyone should be able to practice whatever spiritual stuff they want to [as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else]. Once there is scientific proof that spirituality and religiousity is within rather than external it will redefine the whole field anyway. ie once we know that gods and spirits and aliens are just projections of our own mind, how can there then be a difference between a religion and an individual in terms of rights?! So in the strictest sense I am using current scientific knowledge that places spirituality at the mercy of certain receptor sites, which means religious freedom is about freedom of the individual mind. No lie at all. It's just that the judiciary wouldn't be seeing it from that perspective, so i have to operate withint their understanding.

[chilli]

You are perfectly correct that it turns the whole thing into a parody. The same way that the claimed separation of church and state is a parody, that the parliamentary policy stating all laws need to be in line with current scientific knowledge is a parody, and how the representation by the authorities that they have any impact on the drug trade is also a parody. Everything surrounding this issue is a parody, so why shouldn't we have our own? ;)

 

That is an interesting angle, you've appealed to the postmodernist in me.

I personally and this community have nothing to lose

 

That is something I have been unsure about, whether there could in actually be negative repurcussions from something like this. For example, isn't there the potential for it to be twisted by spin doctors and used to gain support for even harsher laws like the recent (and probably soon to return in a modified form) attempts to legislate DMT and mescaline containing plants? Isn't there potential for such a dramatic public action like this to actually backfire and feed into negative outcomes?

Maybe I just have too vivid an imagination, or more likely I am insufficiently knowledgeable of the way the legal system, media and society really work with regards to these matters, which is why I have appreciated your informative posts on legistlation Torsten. Like Greg's last post where he put personal feelings aside and explained his reasoning to me, I find those kind of responses very helpful and persuasive.

[PositiveHAL]

^Who are you and what have you done with chili?

[ballzac]

I'm curious, as I know a lot of people here are in favour of gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, if marriage was illegal for all couples, would most of you be supporting a campaign to legalise marriage for heterosexual couples only? The premise would be that heterosexual couples can be trusted with the responsibility that comes with marriage. The expected support from the public would come from people who be not be in favour of such a move if it included gay marriage, but there would be people among us who support the move on the grounds that it may be the first step in legalising marriage for all couples.

[whitewind]

^^ Only if they belonged to a religious organisation - all other marriages would still be a sin! Joking aside, that was a really good point, and dives straight in to the heart of the matter.

Incremental steps seem to be the way society handles these big issues, change it all at once and there can be a large number of kinks that need to be fixed up, frequently leading to roll-backs. It is very possible that people would get seriously injured if suddenly they had free and easy access to many drugs which are quite dangerous. And the backlash might be quite strong, putting back the cause for decades. Whereas, access on religious ground like this allows careful observation, studies to be done on long-term psychedelic use, and so on. I mean, if society can't handle big steps on something like homosexual marriage, which really isn't harmful to anyone, how is it going to handle decades of mismanagement of the drugs war and all the propaganda and dodgy reporting that has gone with it?

Look at what happened to LSD with Timothy Leary, he was handing the stuff out like lollies, and it got stamped on very hard. What worries me is the parallel claims of Tim Leary and Greg Kasarik... If he gets backlash from anyone, it would be the hardline conservative religious community, and many of our illustrious politicians fall in to that category.

[Torsten]

That is something I have been unsure about, whether there could in actually be negative repurcussions from something like this. For example, isn't there the potential for it to be twisted by spin doctors and used to gain support for even harsher laws like the recent (and probably soon to return in a modified form) attempts to legislate DMT and mescaline containing plants? Isn't there potential for such a dramatic public action like this to actually backfire and feed into negative outcomes?

if greg loses or messes thigns up or gets on the wrong side of some crusading media prick, then he will be painted as a lone fruitloop. However if he wins then we all get to enjoy the fruits of his efforts. I am not saying this whole forum or the whole ethnobotany community should align itself with his religion. I think that could be danerous. As long as we as a group are not in control of his actions there needs to be enough of a divide to distance ourselves from his actions if the need arises. I am not joining his religion. I am not going to offer my services as a PR man either. But giving him in-principle support, some shifts at his strike location for moral and phsyical support, and some publicity, etc - that's all he needs right now.

As for a general backfire, I don't think that is likely either. Media is much more likely to pick this up when there is a hysterical angle to present, such as a hospital admission or a drug bust. There are plenty of these and each one of those could have more consequences than greg. The federal schedules for example were driven from the very top, but the detail of it was actually down to bored public servants. Rudd wanted the model schedules, but was ousted before they were created. For a few months before the election the public service sat around twiddling their thumbs and that's when the extensive lists were written. Don't forget that most of the proposed laws are already laws in at least one state, which is how they got into the model schedules. the model schedules is really a conglomeration of all state laws, plus whatever else the PS could think of.

[Torsten]

Look at what happened to LSD with Timothy Leary, he was handing the stuff out like lollies, and it got stamped on very hard. What worries me is the parallel claims of Tim Leary and Greg Kasarik... If he gets backlash from anyone, it would be the hardline conservative religious community, and many of our illustrious politicians fall in to that category.

 

There is a difference between handing drugs out like lollies or demanding religious freedom. One creates an immediate danger in the eyes of conservatives that needs to be dealt with. The other however is a minefield that politicians generally steer clear of. See, it is easy to comment on drug law when it is about 'abuse', It is not so easy to comment on the limitation of religious freedoms especially if you are religious yourself. This was quite evident in the UdV trials where the religious conservatives made sure to always attack the drugs on the basis of their danger rather than attacking the quest for religious freedom. ie, the legal and media argument became whether aya was presenting an extreme danger to the participants and a general danger to the public and whether this danger justified its prohibition. once it was shown that allowing small scale consumption of a substance with little known dangers would not undermine the safety of the community at large the UdV won the case. Research done on SD & UdV members in brazil and reviewed by the UN was instrumental in achieving this.

[goneski]

Once there is scientific proof that spirituality and religiousity is within rather than external it will redefine the whole field anyway. ie once we know that gods and spirits and aliens are just projections of our own mind, how can there then be a difference between a religion and an individual in terms of rights?!

 

[chilli]

if greg loses or messes thigns up or gets on the wrong side of some crusading media prick, then he will be painted as a lone fruitloop. However if he wins then we all get to enjoy the fruits of his efforts.

 

Wow, sounds like a great deal. The only problem with your argument is the premise that Greg will be painted as a lone fruitloop. Who says this is the way it would be portrayed? Very recently the entire community was dragged into the spotlight in connection with SAB and made to look very sinister, so it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that something like this has at least as much potential to be presented in a way that will be damaging to the image of the entire community, in fact it seems very likely knowing what we know of the way the media always twists anything to do with drugs.

I am not saying this whole forum or the whole ethnobotany community should align itself with his religion. I think that could be danerous.

 

Good, because that is the kind of thing I have been voicing concern over all along. In any situation, I think it is unhealthy if everyone is expected to agree or see things the same way or support a particular action, and are dismissed or bullied into acquiescence or silence if they object. That is the hallmark of fucked up shit in society at all levels, not only the religious. A lot of people including Greg have demonized those who have raised objections, and seem to think that the only conscionable decision is for everyone to get on board and support this campaign, or to shut up and get out of the way.

There actually seem to be a lot of people here laboring under the misapprehension that the support of the entire community is exactly what is needed for this campaign to be a success, including Greg himself who said for example in his original post in this thread: 'This action will not succeed without the support of the broader Entheogenic Community, so I'd hope that everyone will help in one way, or another.'

As long as we as a group are not in control of his actions there needs to be enough of a divide to distance ourselves from his actions if the need arises. I am not joining his religion. I am not going to offer my services as a PR man either. But giving him in-principle support, some shifts at his strike location for moral and phsyical support, and some publicity, etc - that's all he needs right now.

Even though you and I might see this as perfectly reasonable, you know how exaggerated things become in the media. Think about how you were so careful to be circumspect with what you said to the media recently, and how it was then distorted and misrepresented to the public. Couldn't your support be interpreted differently and presented as some kind of underground drug cult network propagating subversive, dangerous ideas through this forum? I find it strange anyone would dismiss this after the the recent Channel 7 story on you and SAB.

As for a general backfire, I don't think that is likely either. Media is much more likely to pick this up when there is a hysterical angle to present, such as a hospital admission or a drug bust.

 

Or else... they find something far more unusual, colorful and newsworthy:

MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE GOD STARVES HIMSELF FOR DRUGS

DRUG GURU REFUSES TO EAT UNTIL HALLUCINOGENS MADE LEGAL

OZ RELIGION USES LEGAL PLANTS TO GET HIGH AND MEET GOD

DRUG CULT WANTS TO MAKE LSD LEGAL

To me there seems to be plenty of room for a hysterical interpretation of Greg's religion and campaign. Remember, the kind of people in media and government we have to worry about don't care about the truth or actual likely consequences, they just want drama they can turn into support for themselves, their political party or religious group.

Edited September 23, 2012 by chilli

[goneski]

Or else... they find something far more unusual, colorful and newsworthy:

MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE GOD STARVES HIMSELF FOR DRUGS

DRUG GURU REFUSES TO EAT UNTIL HALLUCINOGENS MADE LEGAL

OZ RELIGION USES LEGAL PLANTS TO GET HIGH AND MEET GOD

DRUG CULT WANTS TO MAKE LSD LEGAL

 

This was kind of the point I was making before -- the media will twist it, and of course the general public will lap it up.

I can imagine now comparisons being made to Charles Manson, for example.

This isn't personally how I view Greg's cause -- and I wish to commend him for actually doing something -- but I suspect it's liable to all kinds

of fucked up distortions and interpretations.

[space cadet swami]

I also wonder whether the attention that Greg could possibly generate with his crusade (meaning social, not religious) could generate negative propaganda.

But I'm a "half-full glass", not "half-empty"... or in some peoples cases "half-wit".

Anything that is truly worthwhile doing comes with risk, most change on a social level comes about by people actually getting off their arses & doing something & yes, that will more then likely incur a certain amount of risk. If people are happy with the current situation, then do nothing. But it will change, one way or another. It was only last year the federal govt. attempted to ban even growing these plants.

Do you truly believe that that's it..? Where will this forum end up if the govt. do finally succeed with their original agenda..?

Live in your fantasy worlds if you want to, but the one thing you are guaranteed of is change.

Good on you Greg for taking the risk.

[Mycot]

Wish you the best of luck Greg in challenging the victorian legal system. I'll supply the petrol.

Oh, its starvation not immolation my bad.

[Mycot]

Perhaps something more helpful..

Chile may soon legalise ayahuasca

A Chilean court ruled that ayahuasca is beneficial to health and therefore its use should not be penalized, an act of collective consciousness that seems to advance the revival of psychedelic medicine and introduicrnos a little more to the mystery of a plant that continues tradition of the drink of the gods, the soma.

A few days ago a court in Chile ruled that ayahuasca is not a substance harmful to health. In contrast, this compound may be highly beneficial to the welfare of human beings. A mystery is revealed in this herb, as a vine metaphysical joins heaven and earth, the soul with the body and the conscious mind with the unconscious.

http://www.hangthebankers.com/chile-may-soon-legalise-ayahuasca/

[Vine Voice]

This is another exciting and heartening development, another triumph and victory for the plants! It's really becoming apparent that the deluded politicians and lawmakers just aren't going to be able to keep the plants down, and the war on consciousness can't work because it's a war against ourselves. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I just feel that; the mother is popping up all over the place now.

On the topic of this thread, I want to say that I support Greg. I met him at Origins, and I think you'll know who I am Greg. I think it's a really positive step that Greg is taking, and there is always a more pessimistic view that people can take, but he is really doing something for the plants (other chemicals too but I am really concerned with the plants) and I feel that it would be great for the community to get excited about this. I appreciate that people have different views and might not even want to be seen as part of a community, there are also some points made about Greg that are interesting and other things to consider. But on the whole, it would be great to help the plants become legal for spiritual & religious use. I don't think there's anything wrong with recreational use, but that is a priviledge and the government has biases about what drugs are legal for recreational use; just like alcohol is a recreational drug and they can decide what they want the population to have as recreational drugs. But the other point is, spiritual & religious freedom is a human right aside from whatever laws their are for recreational drugs. Spiritual & religious freedom is a really powerful dimension to the war on consciousness, and I feel that when these magical plants that foster amazing spiritual & religious aspects are so demonised and even illegal, that is not the freedom that is a human right. But also recreational can be spiritual too, and what starts out as just fun at a concert can become something that could be called religious. So there is a good place for recreational use too, but I just want to say well done Greg for being yourself and getting your message out there. This thing called existence and consciousness goes much deeper than even any compounds or plants, but they are great vehicles for us to use.

[goneski]

I don't think there's anything wrong with recreational use, but that is a priviledge and the government has biases about what drugs are legal for recreational use; just like alcohol is a recreational drug and they can decide what they want the population to have as recreational drugs. But the other point is, spiritual & religious freedom is a human right aside from whatever laws their are for recreational drugs.

 

Where do you draw the distinction (if there even is one) between recreational and spiritual/religious use? Why should there be a distinction?

Why can't consumption be a right and not a privilege in both instances?

This is where I'm completely lost in this thread.

[ballzac]

Where do you draw the distinction (if there even is one) between recreational and spiritual/religious use? Why should there be a distinction?

Why can't consumption be a right and not a privilege in both instances?

This is where I'm completely lost in this thread.

 

Agreed. To be fair, Vine Voice did say something that hinted at this by saying that "recreational can be spiritual too", but that begs the question, "what about when it's not?". The problem is that saying recreational use is a privilege and religious use is a right does not only make a distinction within the behaviours of an individual(i.e. some of their activities are rights because they are religious activities, while their other activities are privileges because they are recreational), but it also discriminates between individuals. That is, many people do not subscribe to any religious beliefs, so this means that religious people have rights, while non-religious people have privileges, according to this distinction, even though the actual activity in question is the same.

[Vine Voice]

Good points, I agree with you as well, although we have different perspectives.. As I said, recreational can be spiritual; the distinction I'm thinking about is that someone with practices for spiritual use sets out with that intention, whereas someone using these practices for recreation might not have a spiritual intention. But the fact is that these plants facilitate spiritual experiences, so whether you have that intention or not doesn't really matter. There's not much of a distinction to my mind, if at all; it's more about how you want to focus your experience. I think that recreational use can be pretty amazing, and is spiritual too. When you think about the word re-creation and what that means, it's pretty powerful and doesn't at all exclude spirituality. I think this is kind of like how it's commonly assumed that atheists don't believe in anything, but I think atheists can believe just as much as spiritual or religious people; it's just a different focus of how to think.

As far as why both can't be seen as rights, I don't know about that. I'm only thinking about the current legal system, which is obviously biased and flawed. Things like the declaration of human rights seem to be really powerful documents on this topic; that's why I say that the spiritual & religious use is a right, based at least on the declaration. However, I also believe that recreational use could come under the same article. It's the war on consciousness; both recreational and spiritual. When it comes down to it, recreational and spiritual are just labels to give things; the main thing is that there are these magical dimensions of consciousness that we can open up to. But I don't think that Greg's idea of going for spiritual & religious use is in any way a bad thing. I guess it could be seen as implying that spiritual & religious use is more worthwhile than recreational use, but I don't think that's the case and - after talking to Greg - I don't think he does either. I may be wrong, I can't suppose to know what he thinks after a brief chat, but that's the impression I got. Taking note of the decisions with churches and spiritual organisations overseas, I think spiritual & religious use is a strong basis for a campaign.

I think if people want the recreational use legalised, then they can campaign for it. I don't think Greg should be bashed for having his interest and being more focused on one than the other. He is himself and has his own views, he can't be expected to accomodate everyone else on this forum. Maybe someone should start a recreational campaign, but I would suggest that people are even more biased against recreational use of substances.

[GregKasarik]

Hiyall. I'm Back.

Lots of interesting comments and feedback. First off, let me say that the hunger strike is still going ahead. I have done my very best to engage with the Government on this and will continue to do so right up until the 14th. I am hoping to meet socially with a few members of the Victorian Government on Melbourne Cup Day, so not all is yet lost.

As of now, I have been completely ignored by the Government, so I am not expecting much. For those who are interested, I have updated my page on "Government Correspondence" to include all of this year's attempts to communicate with them and to highlight just how determined they are to pretend we don't exist. For those wishing to write to any Government in Australia, I'd suggest that many of the ideas that I have presented in my correspondence would be of use. http://www.kasarik.com/Government-Correspondence.php

Much of the discussion in this thread has been around religion, spirituality and atheism. I'm not going to rehash it all, but if people are interested in the legal definition of "Religion" in Australia they should read this: http://www.kasarik.c...eligion%22-.php

The specific legal argument on which I base my claim is only relevant to Victoria and the ACT, both of which have a "Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act", an can be found here:http://www.kasarik.c...al-Argument.php Unfortunately, no other state has such a provision, although Tasmania does have some very weak constitutional protections. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution doesn't do what people think it does (ie despite similar wording it is not an American style granting of freedoms) and is useless for any argument for religious freedom. Indeed, that section has been interpreted so conservatively by the High Court that I am not aware of any successful legal challenges being made under its provisions. In any case, drugs law is a State, rather than Federal concern. Having said this, once Victoria makes the change, it will be very difficult for the other states to deny the same basic freedoms, although they are unlikely to change their views overnight.

I continue to be surprised that many people here are opposed to what I am doing simply because I am arguing for the religious and spiritual use of these compounds. Its a bit like arguing against protecting pandas because you also want tigers protected as well. It seems that there is the view that people shouldn't be granted special privileges simply because a behaviour is religious, rather than secular.

While there is certainly merit in this argument, it ignores the historical reasons why religious and spiritual belief is given such special treatment. I don't really want to do an entire dissertation on the issue right now, but the fact is that religion is often fundamental to a person's sense of self concept in a way that few other things are and people can do all sorts of silly things when motivated by the idea that their actions might have some sort of special purpose, meaning, or god given validity. At the extreme, it can result in actions as diverse as fighting against slavery and helping the poor to committing atrocities and flying planes into buildings in foreign countries. So a key aspect of religious freedom isn't about allowing the religious to engage in behaviours that others can not, but rather to create a society in which people with different religious beliefs don't persecute and kill those who disagree with them. A side effect of this is that it allows greater latitude for some behaviours that can be described as "religious".

In all honestly, I think that there is a very good rationale for treating atheism as a "religion" for purposes of law. But religion and atheism differ in at least one significant way and this is that religion often entails "the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief". For the purposes of this discussion, the use of Transcendent Compounds is such a "cannon of conduct". Atheism, by its very nature doesn't demand any behavioural response and even if one were to have one's atheism protected under law, you'd have a really hard time making the claim that the use of ayahuasca was an essential part of your being an atheist.

But this doesn't mean that an atheist isn't going to be able to use these compounds within the boundaries of "religious and spiritual practice". Ultimately, it all boils down to the belief in a "supernatural being, thing, or principle" and many of the atheists that I have encountered within the EGA community certainly have aspects of these. Many of these ideas have a decidedly teleological ring to them.

Indeed, if one looks at my own conceptualisations, I would be regarded by many as an atheist (although for the record, I describe myself as an "agnostic theist"), as I don't actually believe in "God" in the way that most people use the term. Rather, I believe that there is something more than just the universe which we inhabit, but because of the Uncertainty Principle, I recognise the impossibility of pretending that my understanding of what that might be is necessarily the correct one. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that life after death was me waking up to discover that I had been plugged into a Matrix the whole time.

The beauty of these compounds is that they allow you to explore metaphysical conundrums and to experience possibilities beyond ordinary imagining. By definition, these are not going to fit within the framework of any organised religion and in many cases, the spirituality entailed is going to look very similar to atheism. Certainly there is no need for anyone to pretend to belong to Community of Infinite Colour (which is still more of a concept than an actuality). In fact the last thing that I'd want is for people to join me, just so they can get high.

In going down this path, it is my intention to fight only the battles that I can conceivably win. My use of these compounds is inherently spiritual and the law is firmly on my side, so it makes sense for me to argue within that context. Given that the law is up for review and may well be gutted (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/article/1446), I'd suggest that now is not the time to be faint of heart.

If others wish to put the argument for secular, recreational use, they are perfectly welcome to do so. Frankly I wish that they would. With a few notable exceptions, such as Torsten and some of the EGA crew, I don't see anyone else publicly campaigning for our freedoms. I regularly sit down with key players in the Government, AoD community, academia and elsewhere and none of them have any idea of our existence.

Until more of us have the determination to see things change and can muster the courage to follow through, we are always going to be marginalised, stigmatised and discriminated against. Nothing will change until we do.

[Psylo]

x

Edited March 22, 2013 by Psylo

[chilli]

It's canon, not cannon: just a typo I am sure (there are a few others in there) but an important difference.

Could you explain a little more about how you think entheogen use should be seen as a 'canon of conduct'?

Has this term been interpreted further in any legal precedents?

Psylo, wouldn't glucose kind of undermine the whole idea of a hunger fast? fasting is easy with sugar

Edited November 5, 2012 by chilli

[Heretic]

I sincerely wish you success Greg , for the prohibition is wrong , and not only for religious reasons . Please be careful with this for health reasons . Perhaps consider Psylo's suggestion of glucose [ and maybe other ] supplements , because [ as I understand ] cognitive impairment can result from such actions . Others will disagree , but I believe you ought to consider some fruit juices if totally forsaking substantial foods . I personally do not feel that to do so would detract from your intent .