Hunger strike postponed. For now...

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[Seldom]

it's not apopular opinion but i hate people trying to align psychedelic drug use with mystical experience. framing what you're trying to do using terms like 'transcendental compounds' is the wrong way to win people over. the overwhelming majority of Australian people are not into psychedelic drugs or mysticism Greg. trying to sell one by framing it as an extension of the other will never work. i respect you as a person following your own path, but what you're doing is naive and dogmatic.

to me one of the most important things about psychedelics is the infinite variety of the ways you can approach taking them. to me there's no reason to say they're anything but a simple rupture wit hthe coordinates of a person's everyday reality, an altered vantage point from which it's possible to reapraise and alter solidified patterns of thought, provide a platform for different areas of your mind into come into contact and form new ideas, make the things that through habit have become solidified more fluid and maleable. to someone else it might be to 'trip balls, or escape pain, or play intrapsychic pong against their own mind. at best Greg, and i say this against only your ideas and not you, at most, they would result in a watered down (and possibly offensive) parody of shamanic practices. highlighting their merit as tools for transformation using scientific evidence is imo the best way to legalise psychedelics, not tired old superstitions

Edited December 16, 2011 by bulls on parade

[Bretloth]

I think this is all far more to do with Gregs ego than any of his stated goals, if it was about his stated goals I don't think he'd be talking about it so much, he'd be doing them. Both of Gregs posts seem to me to about getting attention, more than acheiving anything. Talkers talk, doers do. Time to back it up Greg.

Ps; Do you plan to contribute anything to this community we already have, as in ethnobotany which this community is about? Or do you wish to just grab a splinter group to lead and further divide us?

[Foo]

Well put Marcel.

I like to eat personaly. But good on you for protesting in the flesh, rather then the rest of us keyboard warriors.

[Marcel]

Or do you wish to just grab a splinter group to lead and further divide us?

 

Jeez, I can't believe you're using this argument. That's like the dirtiest political trick in the dictator's arsenal. It goes like this:

1) Identify Threat.

2) Provide arguments against said Threat.

3) Then, when counter-arguments are presented, fall back and declare "Look, now the Threat is making us argue!"

C'mon Bretloth, you can do better than that.

[faustus]

but i hate people trying to align psychedelic drug use with mystical experience... highlighting their merit as tools for transformation using scientific evidence is imo the best way to legalise psychedelics, not tired old superstitions

why do you have this attitude, when there's now solid empirical evidence that psilocybin, salvia and MDA can evoke mystical experiences? whether or not such experiences are actual proof of the existence of "plant spirits" etc is a completely different matter, but rather, give greater credence to the claims that psychedelics can be used for spiritual purposes.

my main annoyance with greg is the very existence of this thread... rather than making some dramatic announcement and backing out of it, right now he should be sitting cross-legged in bourke st, rocking back-and-forth in a febrile sweat as he withdrawals from his addiction to the colonel's secret herbs and spices.

[Seldom]

why do you have this attitude, when there's now solid empirical evidence that psilocybin, salvia and MDA can evoke mystical experiences? whether or not such experiences are actual proof of the existence of "plant spirits" etc is a completely different matter, but rather, give greater credence to the claims that psychedelics can be used for spiritual purposes.

 

truth. i just mean within the context of choosing the best vehicle for their legalisation, a godless drug religion may not be be the best option.

i still respect the gist of what he's doing, it might not be the right way to go about it imo, but i can't help but have a soft spot for die hards with impossible dreams

i can even imagine a delirious, starving crazy eye Greg Kasarik dosed on LSD in a Werner Herzog doco

peace,

[Undercover Hippie]

I'm no hater but sometimes you've got to call it for what it is...

Greg, you are so completely ignorant when it comes to drug policy in Australia, that you just come across as a simple joke (to me at least)

+1

i respect you as a person following your own path, but what you're doing is naive and dogmatic.

+1

my main annoyance with greg is the very existence of this thread... rather than making some dramatic announcement and backing out of it

However, this is not an encouragement to go ahead and do it.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/147183/leading_uk_drug_reform_groups_push_ahead_with_blueprints_for_legalization/

Two UK based organizations are charting a course through the miasma of international drug policy by publishing detailed road maps for comprehensive legalization.

Their library contains over 200 publications on international drug policy...

Organisations involved in lobbying, research and advocacy

• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - more than 15,000 members
  
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) – Founded 1986, 25 years ago...
  
• Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs
  
• European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD) (Branches in Austria, Germany and Norway)
  
• Transform Drug Policy Foundation
  
• Drug Equality Alliance (DEA)
  
• Release (agency) (United Kingdom)
  
• Re:Vision Drug Policy Network (United Kingdom)
  
• American Civil Liberties Union
  
• Americans for Safe Access
  
• Drug Policy Alliance
  
• High Times
  
• High Times Freedom Fighters
  
• Lindesmith Center
  
• Marijuana Policy Project
  
• MASS CANN/NORML
  
• National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
  
• Students for Sensible Drug Policy
  
• Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access
  
• November Coalition (United States)
  

 

OR

One dude skipping his lunch with a provocative T-Shirt on...

[SunChaser]

I think Greg's made it very clear that he can listen to criticism and differing opinions. If you have issues to air, I think that's why he came here; if you just want a internet punching bag, then, well... that's kinda asshole-ish of you.

 

lol, marcel, what do you mean his prepared to listen to criticism? Hasn't he accused everyone who doesn't agree with him of not reading his philosophies then labeled them as trolls, like several times?

When it comes to the spiritual beliefs of other trippers (plant spirits ect....) at this forum, well I don't have much time for those beliefs either and if they started posting threads in legal matters entitled "Campaign for Victorian Legalisation of Transcendent Compounds", (which actually could be summed up as just another plug for gregs new organized religion) then I would speak my mind to them as well. I have no issue with people who believe odd things that make no common sense from a scientific perspective.  But I've got a huge problem with both organized religions (cults) and when people bring there spiritual beliefs into politics.

Anyone who thinks it's some how an intelligent idea to use religion to legalize drugs, needs to do some research on why certain drugs are demonized by our society in the first place. Or maybe look into why we lost the majority of knowledge about the use of psychedelic plants in south America before Europeans arrived.

LSD imo, is the most valuable drug known to man when it comes to exploring our minds in a manner that physical scientific methods are yet to be able to achieve. But people like Timothy Leary screwed it up for everyone and spooked the mainstream away from hallucinogens, by relating LSD to mysticism.

But more than all that, gregs approach and writing manner makes me very cautious. Basically he just writes a whole lot of passionate nothings. In other words, his posts have this huge lead up, but just finish with more questions than answers. Then if you consider that Greg clearly has no real understanding of the obstacles facing australian & international drug policy, then to me at least, this whole thing just starts to feel like one big head fuck.

I'm fairly sure greg has mentioned he used to be a psychologist in the army? That would mean he was trained to convince people not to think for themselves and to be prepared to enter situations that may cause injury or death, just because they have been ordered to do so by an authority figure. Which personally makes me far more cautious!

Peace

[Marcel]

Wait a second. One moment you strut around wielding the sacred hammer of Reason, declaring objectivity and dispassionate distance as the only arguments of value, and the next moment you're making personal attacks at your opponent, making impassioned jabs a la Reductio ad Hitlerum (look it up), and using singular examples from your own life as conclusive proof of the corrupt nature of religion and cults. Huh?

I understand that you've had a terrible past with religion. That's fucked and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I also see how this can inform how you perceive Greg and other spiritually inclined psychonauts (that is, with suspicion and anger). Whether or not Greg likes your arguments, you should present them and believe them with every bone in your body. At the same time, accept that Greg has his beliefs and, for the moment, they aren't doing anyone any harm. (Might they harm someone in the future? I doubt it, but for the sake of argument, let's say that it's possible. Nevertheless, I still don't see that as a good enough reason to silence or stop him. That's the way reactionary politicians behave; knee-jerk reactions to foreigners/lefties/drug advocates/"terrorists"/whatever.)

I don't know what True Beauty is, but I suspect the diversity of the world comes pretty fucken close. Without an infinite array opinions and beliefs (good, bad and ugly), life would suck like a motherfucker.

So by all means, keep debating, but if you want to be Mr Rationality and Reason, chill the fuck out. On the other hand, if you wanna shoot from the heart, that's cool and has its place too, but don't pretend that your approach has any weight outside the sphere of emotions.

[SunChaser]

Firstly, I've got to be honest here. I'm against organized religions having anything to do with politics, simply because religion has held back our understanding of scientific method at every turn though history and has created extreme ignorance and dogma, within modern day society.

I haven't actually really lived some hard life like you claim. Any emotional damage I have doesn't really have anything to do with the example I gave in another post. I mean, I never even had any real opinion on the subject until he married the heartless bitch when she was 18 and she kicked me out of home for being a cannabis user, but that's a whole other story.

Anyway, apart from your complete failed attempt to psychoanalyze me, your post really doesn't make much sense to me. Seems more like gregs style of writing, a whole lot of passionate nothings.

We don't need religion to have diversity either! If anything religion inhibits diversity. Same sex marriage being just one perfect example.

Peace

[Bretloth]

Marcel, do you honestly believe this mental masterbation is acvhieving anything but arguements? Nothing real has come from anything Greg has done here, just silly internet arguements. You can have em, i'm done with this clown.

[Seldom]

[rahli]

I'm glad Greg is taking on this social challenge to join the mainstream. It is a bit sad he has inadvertently created a few more challenges through his belief in what constitutes a transient compound and therefore (in his eyes) legitimate use of consciousness altering substances within our society. Personally I side with the Transient Compounds but I'd rather support unity into the mainstream then petty infighting back into the shadows.

I have a dream - of an Australian ethnobotanical community where Marijuana activists and Transient Compound activist can walk tall, side by side into mainstream acceptance. As it currently stands they aren't willing to help each other through the undergrowth let alone lead strong into the mainstream.

[Sir Jeans]

I don't like the idea of trying to bring about drug law reform by focusing on the potential spiritual aspects of psychedelics.

I think this is counterproductive, because I think it associates psychedelics with things like hippies, cults, non-science, wacky beliefs and bizarre practices that many people (especially those who are against drug law reform) cannot relate to and are repulsed by.

I prefer an approach that involves normalizing and legitimizing psychedelics, not further marginalizing them.

I think a campaign for drug reform should emphasize that users of psychedelics are NOT all "wackos" and "hippies", but include doctors, scientists, teachers, free-thinkers and other responsible, productive members of society. Combined with high quality empirical evidence to show that many illegal drugs are not especially harmful, I think we might have a chance.

[ThunderIdeal]

why not all of the above?

some of the strongest support for prohibition comes from none other than a giant group of wackos

common sense might be starting to prevail in europe, but in america it is religion that has gone the furthest in skirting around prohibition.

i think rahli's post says it all. i don't mean to make enemies here, but it as though some people are saying "i don't believe in mysticism, so i'm not gonna let it play a part in MY fight against prohibition". it's just a bit ignorant to say "science! therefore, no mysticism".

getting off topic now and i won't fully explain, but the way we are headed now (science vs mysticism) predictably leads to somebody mentioning occams razor, and i started thinking, how did this idea which doesn't even fully make sense to me, become a CORE TENET of science? not suprisingly to me it seems that people who fall back on this argument do so mistakenly. get this up ya http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/razor.htm

Edited December 17, 2011 by ThunderIdeal

[Sir Jeans]

why not all of the above?

 

I'm not against this. I may not have been very clear when i said this:

"I don't like the idea of trying to bring about drug law reform by focusing on the potential spiritual aspects of psychedelics"

I'm talking about primarily focusing on the spiritual aspects, to the point where it eclipses other arguments for drug law reform and further marginalizes illegal drug use.

[Seldom]

i don't think it should be seen as an either/or distinction. few people will ever agree totally to a finite set of propositions encompassing all and everything about entheogens. this thread if anything has turned into a good example of the saying 'none of us is as stupid as all of us'.. i would agree with jeans and say the best way foreward is through a pluralist approach, something more akin to an attitude or disposition towards than an explicit agenda claiming to speak for all

[qualia]

i just wish people would stop holding up the "religion is the cause of the worlds ills" banner and start holding the "ignorance is the cause of the worlds ills" placard.

[GregKasarik]

Its good to see the debate and ideas flowing, even if not all of them are in support of me.

@ Faustus. You are correct that having made a quite dramatic announcement, I "should" have followed through with it and in doing so I have probably weakened my case with quite a number of the people on these boards.

However, my decision was a reflection of the Realpolitik of my situation and the fact that a number of people urged me to gather more support before taking that kind of action. That some of those people had already pledged their support, irrespective of which way I jumped gave their words extra weight. It may turn out that I would have been better off by taking the action when I said I would, but I judged that a better organised protest with greater numbers of backers and potentially greater impact would be something worth trying to put together.

I believe in striking when I am best prepared. If this means waiting a few months, or a year then so be it. Patience is a virtue and if I rush into things, I might end up doing more harm than good.

@ Undercover Hippie: Strange that nobody (either here, or in the Victorian Government) has bothered to show me where my understanding of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is wrong. If you have legal advice that contradicts mine, then please show me. But if all you have got to offer is the regurgitation of someone who's greatest intellectual contribution to the debate is "You ain't shit greg, because you haven't done shit and you don't know shit.", then you'll excuse me if I ignore any assertions that I don't understand Victorian law.

I appreciate the link and will certainly look through what they say, but you are mistaken if you assume that my goal is "drug legalisation". I make it very clear that while I support legalisation, my campaign is specifically aimed at obtaining regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for Religious use.

@ Bulls on Parade: I have been involved in politics in Australia for many years and can tell you that, barring a miracle (which would probably look very much like people like us getting off their arses and campaigning), there is absolutely no chance of drug legalisation taking hold in this country. Politicians are simply too terrified of the potential public reaction and the media's ability to generate moral panic.

Because of this, I am not so much about "winning people over", but rather with ensuring that the simple concept of religious freedom enshrined in Section 14 of the Victorian Charter is extended to the use of Transcendent Compounds. Within this context, I don't particularly care if people like me for what I am trying to do. I see a window of opportunity and intend to make the most of it, before it gets slammed shut in all of our faces.

I am not saying that these compounds aren't validly used for any one of a number of different reasons, up to and including just getting smashed and enjoying all of the pretty colours. But we have to deal with the world as we find it and this is about taking baby steps. Once I have achieved my goal, the public will be able to see that their use doesn't lead to the end of the world and hopefully become more open to the idea of them being more widely available.

If anything has been established over the years, when it comes to "drugs", people and politicians don't care about science and many simply don't trust it. Instead they focus completely on the visceral sense of fear and loathing that they have been programmed to feel whenever the topic is raised. When engaging with them, it is pointless to put a logical argument to an emotional objection. An emotional objection needs to be met with an emotional riposte. In going down the path that I have chosen, I am holding up another aspect of our culture that people have a strong emotional attachment, namely that of equity under the law and the rights of religious minorities to freely engage with their beliefs without discrimination and persecution.

In discussions with politicians and others, they will confidently push the "no drugs" line right up and to the point where they are asked "Do you favour religious freedom"? This inevitably flummoxes them, as they know that religious freedom is one of the bedrocks of our society and don't want to be quoted as coming out against it. It ties them in knots that they aren't prepared to deal with.

@ Sir Jeans: I can understand your reticence, but at the end of the day, the campaign that I am engaged in is indicative of who I am as a person and the primary use that these compounds have within my life. It is also a reflection of how I perceive the realities of the culture and political environment within which I find myself enmeshed.

Frankly, I'd love it if everyone reading this were to finally stand up and fight for the world that they would like to inhabit. I could think of nothing better than for all of our politicians to suddenly be swamped by a dedicated campaign of people determined to fight for the legalisation of these compounds. But sadly, most people have chosen to hide, rather than emerge into the light to fight for what they privately proclaim to value. If my actions inspire more people to get active, then I'll consider this a win, irrespective of whether they support me, or my ideas.

I am curious to know what concrete steps you have taken within the broader community to forward your goal of "normalizing and legitimizing psychedelics, not further marginalizing them".

@ rahli. I talk about Transcendent Compounds because I happen to believe that non-toxic, non-addictive and psychologically safe compounds are the gold standard that we should all aspire to and that these are the ones that make the most sense within a spiritual framework. There are people out there who target all of their energies on cannabis, and don't mention any of the Transcendent Compounds, despite using them regularly. I'm fine with that. Ultimately, we must all engage in the fight against prohibition in the best ways that we can.

I'm perfectly happy to help others. I participated as a speaker in the "Mind Candy" forums at this years Mardi Grass and one of the perhaps 200 people who attended the cannabis legalisation rally in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago. Whether they will still want my help is yet to be determined.

But we can't "walk tall, side by side into mainstream acceptance", until we can "walk tall". Change won't arise from simple wishful thinking and while people are too afraid to stand up for what they believe in and publicly acknowledge who they are and what they stand for, they are doomed to remain caught in the undergrowth.

[Undercover Hippie]

You may be right about the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities - I have no idea - but that doesn't guarantee change.

they are doomed to remain caught in the undergrowth

I don't think these things are as tucked away into the undergrowth as you make out - obviously you, I and many others here have had exposure to such things; as proven by our presence here. It is all there for the willing, and not necessarily applicable to the masses in any case.

We will talk more if you make the change you hope for; until then I wish you the best of luck and I'll be happy to eat my words one day. However in the reality of the system we live in I personally don't see that happening from the actions you describe. But once again good luck.

[Sir Jeans]

@ Sir Jeans:

I am curious to know what concrete steps you have taken within the broader community to forward your goal of "normalizing and legitimizing psychedelics, not further marginalizing them".

 

I have done little in this respect except for discussing these issues in a rational way with people who had previously thought little about it. Although I am far from expert, I am knowledgeable enough about the harms of illegal drugs that I can make a convincing argument that our current laws are arbitrary, ineffectual and harmful.

I am doing post-grad study in psychology, specializing in social psychology and the psychology of attitudes. I intend to dedicate much of my time and energy to activism (especially environmentalism) after another year or two, once I have more expertise and experience.

[Seldom]

cheers for the response Greg,

all the best

[GregKasarik]

I have done little in this respect except for discussing these issues in a rational way with people who had previously thought little about it. Although I am far from expert, I am knowledgeable enough about the harms of illegal drugs that I can make a convincing argument that our current laws are arbitrary, ineffectual and harmful.

I am doing post-grad study in psychology, specializing in social psychology and the psychology of attitudes. I intend to dedicate much of my time and energy to activism (especially environmentalism) after another year or two, once I have more expertise and experience.

 

Cool! Informed and reasoned promulgation of information is one of the best weapons that we have at our command. Even better if it comes from a registered Psychologist. In your case, you are probably better lying low, as being too public will could get you in trouble with the psych registration board. My own activism has basically sunk any chance I have of getting psych registration until the laws change. It is a difficult path you walk, so be careful.

Does your university have a psychological society? If so, had you thought about doing a talk on these compounds as part of its activities? If you pitched it well it is the sort of thing that most would love to have, as they are guaranteed to get a big turnout from students.

Also, would you look to do research into psychedelics if possible?

[GregKasarik]

You may be right about the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities - I have no idea - but that doesn't guarantee change.

You are right that it doesn't guarantee change. Like any law, it is open to change by the government of the day, but despite recent recommendations that it be watered down, Ted Ballieu is in favour of retaining it largely as it stands.

Also, it doesn't force the Government to change laws so that they adhere to the appropriate standards, but merely informs parliament that changes should be made and leaves it up to them to implement required changes.

Its impacts on court cases is still largely unknown, but with a decision in early September, signs are very promising. http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1474:high-court-decision-confirms-importance-of-the-victorian-charter-of-human-rights-8-sep-2011&Itemid=3

I don't think these things are as tucked away into the undergrowth as you make out - obviously you, I and many others here have had exposure to such things; as proven by our presence here. It is all there for the willing, and not necessarily applicable to the masses in any case.

We will talk more if you make the change you hope for; until then I wish you the best of luck and I'll be happy to eat my words one day. However in the reality of the system we live in I personally don't see that happening from the actions you describe. But once again good luck.

 

I would hope that I speak to you before I am successful, as it may be a very long time. However, even if you decide to not become active yourself, I would hope that you would support those of us who are in whatever way you can.

When I talk about being in the undergrowth, I refer to how in "polite society", we have to skulk around, pretending that we are something that we are not. If we don't maintain the shadows, we risk our livelihoods, families, friends and perhaps even our freedom. Even within the Entheogenic community, there is suspicion of new people, and a fear that a wrong move might bring police involvement. EGA has never had uniforms attend, but few doubt that there aren't a number of plain clothes and others observing and perhaps even recording our goings on.

Then there are those who have opposed what I do, not because they disagree with my goals, but because they fear that I might stir up an authoritarian backlash.

I have long chaffed under this oppression. I finally decided to go public, when I got to work on Monday after a most amazing trip and when asked how my weekend was had to stand there in mute, frustrated silence, before mumbling the usual platitudes about how it was "OK" and a lie about catching up with friends.

This is no way to live. It must and will change.