Hunger strike postponed. For now...

[GregKasarik]

Hiyall,

For those who are not aware, this coming Monday, I was intending to commence a hunger strike in Melbourne's Burke Street Mall, in support of my ongoing campaign for regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for religious purposes.

This intention was born out of an increasing frustration with the Government's intransigence on this issue, despite the clear requirements of both law and basic human rights. However, after discussing my planned hunger strike with a number of members of the EGA community, I have decided to postpone it for now.

I was genuinely pleased with the responses that I received to the idea and the general sense of approval that nearly everyone I spoke to had of the idea. Quite a number of people said that they thought that I was being too hasty in engaging in such radical action, and that I should spend more time building up a support base before going down that track.

After much thought I have taken this advice on board and have notified the Premier's office that I will not be going ahead with it at this stage. This does not change the fact that I am determined to fight for my rights under section 14 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006) and ensure that the Government obeys its own obligations as per section 7 of that Act.

I am not sure what I will do now, and while I have a few ideas, how successful they are will depend on how willing the broader entheogenic community are in order to support me in moving forward.

These are the letters that I sent to the Victorian Premier with respect to the hunger strike, I'll be putting them on my website shortly.

Sent 23 Nov 2011:

Hello Ted.

I recently was in contact with your office regarding the issue of obtaining regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for Religious purposes. I realised that I did not request an appointment to meet with you regarding this issue and would now like to request such a meeting.

I did request one when I sent my initial letter dated the 8th of September, but instead only received a rejection of my request from a member of the Department of Health, rather than a meeting.

I realise you are busy, with a whole raft of issues to deal with. But this issue has been dealt with successfully within other jurisdictions and and there is no reason why it could not be so in Victoria. If handled properly it won't have any adverse impact on your government. Handled badly, it will cause much unwanted distress for all concerned.

Sadly, I am not convinced that any government, including your own, wants t to deal with this issue proactively. After decades a futile "war on drugs", it is clear that irrespective of the evidence issues, governments will simply not move budge. Whether it is because you have fallen for your own decades long campaign of misinformation and propaganda, are too afraid of incurring the wrath of the media, or naively think that every drug not called "alcohol" his evil, it seems that sensible policy will forever elude us.

But that was then. This is now. It is time for a new beginning.

It is incontrovertible that in passing the Charter and legislating for the protection of basic freedoms the Labor Government changed the game. If it makes it easier, simply blame them. The new reality is that Religious Freedoms are now a part of the Victorian legal landscape and your government has no legal basis for a complete ban on non addictive, non toxic and psychologically safe Transcendent Compounds. You could completely gut the Charter and render it entirely meaningless as law, but you cannot turn back the clock and you can not put the genie back in the bottle. I have spent years having my religious freedoms trammelled by people who are more interested in the next opinion poll than they are in good ethical governance and am not prepared to live the rest of my life under the direct threat of police action and legal sanction. Especially when it is clear that under current law, I would win.

Accordingly, I am requesting a preliminary meeting with yourself, or a senior member of your team some time by the end of December, in order to discuss how your Government can implement a system that both respects your concerns relating to the potential abuse of Transcendent Compounds, while also respecting legitimate rights for their use as part of our religious practice, as per sections 7 and 14 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

I would like to hear back from your office, by Friday 9 Dec 2011. If by this date, have not received some sort of concrete undertaking from you, or your Government regarding an intention to negotiate a reasonable outcome in good faith, it is my intention to commence a hunger strike in the Burke Street Mall on, or about Monday 12 December. While I have no idea of whether anyone will actually pay any attention, it is all too apparent that I will have to do something dramatic to simply make you realise the seriousness of my intent.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that this is simply about "drugs". Be very clear that it is about my vision for creating a better, more tolerant world and the mystical and spiritual journey that have given rise to that vision. I have not spent a lifetime working towards a better understanding of the Divine and a new religious philosophy, just so I could take "drugs". While I don't expect you to share my vision of the Divine any more than I do yours, I would expect that you take me very seriously indeed.

I really don't want to have to fight you over this. If nothing else, I would rather not spend the Christmas and New Years period starving myself to death; there are so many more interesting things that I could be doing. As a former member of the Liberal Party's Auburn branch I believe you to be much more tolerant than many of those who sit on the benches with you. I hope that that your inherent sense of fairness and justice prompts you and that the ideals of the Enlightenment prevail.

Lets work together.

Kind Regards,

Greg Kasarik

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent 8 Dec 2011

Hello Ted,

I recently wrote to you indicating that as part of my campaign for the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds for religious purposes, I would be undertaking a hunger strike in the Burke Street Mall, should your government not have indicated a genuine desire to negotiate this issue by tomorrow, 9 Dec 2011.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, you have not as yet responded to this email, but despite my promise to engage in a hunger strike, I will not be doing so. The reasons for this are simply because a number of my friends and supporters have become increasingly vocal and concerned by the idea of my placing myself into harms way.

In addition, some felt that I had been hasty in my decision to engage in such visible and controversial action and that I had not given your Government adequate time to analyse the issue and incorporate this kind of change into your drugs policy.

Because of these concerns, I have decided to postpone the hunger strike for an indefinite period. During this time, I will seek to continue to engage with you, your government and other potentially interested parties on this issue. I recognise that in reneging on my threatened action, I run the risk that you will not take me seriously. But as I doubt that you have taken me seriously up until this point, I doubt that I am seriously damaging my cause. Given that I have previously fasted for up to 11 days, I would encourage you to not to labour under the misapprehension that I have been deterred by the thought of giving up food for an extended period.

While this might provide some welcome relief for your Government over the Christmas period, it may very well be the case that if I eventually feel that a hunger strike is unavoidable, I am unlikely to be the only person involved. Should I be arrested, or detained by police for engaging in my religious practice, or sourcing and possessing Transcendent Compounds, I will conclude that your Government is not serious regarding this issue and will immediately commence my hunger strike at that point.

As you should know by now, Transcendent Compounds are non addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe within an appropriate dose, set and setting. With such compounds, there can be no genuine "health and safety" reason for complete prohibition. While nobody disputes that these are potentially very powerful psychoactive compounds, they have been used within religious practice since prehistoric times. We are certainly not seeking an open slather and believe that regulated access for religious purposes as required by section 7 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, is an appropriate mechanism for their control.

While we have our own ideas of how such access might best be regulated, my supporters and I are open to a variety of different potential regulatory models. All we are seeking is that you come to the table and engage in genuine negotiations, so that together, we might best ensure that your Government's concerns regarding potential for abuse are recognised along with our fundamental right to engage with the compounds in a safe and legal manner.

As per section 14 of the Charter, I currently use Transcendent Compounds as part of my religious practice and reserve the right to induct others into their use within the context of the beliefs and religious philosophy espoused at www.infinitecolour.org.

I look forward to meeting with either yourself, a senior member of your staff, or Government in order to discuss the prompt resolution of this issue. Ultimately, your willingness to do so is a reflection of your recognition of the importance that you place on Australia remaining a pluralistic society that respects the legitimate rights of minority groups, irrespective of how "weird" they might at first seem.

Kind Regards,

Greg Kasarik

[TheExplorer]

While I am a supporter of your cause, I am slightly concerned about the additional attention that may be received in regards to our plant friends.

[CβL]

I think a hunger strike is a bad idea. It clearly shows that your priorities are "wrong" - i.e. that you would sacrifice food for drugs. Of course that's not how you see it, but that is of course how it would be portrayed or even envisaged by a vast majority of people.

They won't see that you are sacrificing food for a basic human right.

[Sir Jeans]

I support your cause - I support the fight to ameliorate our arbitrary, harmful and ineffectual drug laws.

But unfortunately, I expect that the government will ignore you for as long as possible. It is an extremely controversial issue, and as we all know, the governments only really care about two things - getting elected, and getting re-elected. I would have been extremely surprised if they had granted your wish for a meeting about this. I think it will take more than emails from a single person to create change here.

However, I'm not too sure that a hunger strike is the best idea either. perhaps the biggest obstacle to our cause is the fact that people are fearfull, often poorly informed and sometimes deliberately misled about illegal drugs. Drugs are associated with crime, delinquency, chaos, destruction and madness in the minds of many. I fear that the spectacle of a lone person starving in the street may be counterproductive to the goal of breaking down these misconceptions.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Sir Jeans

[faustus]

I think a hunger strike is a bad idea.

i agree. if you want to make an impact, you need to think bigger -- self immolation.

but in all seriousness, i was looking forward to you doing this and wish you'd reconsider.

[CβL]

Well after thinking for a bit, I decided that I would try and intercept any possible "why u so negative, u just complain, why not offer alternative".

I think that the best alternative is to aim for something like:

* Decriminalization for all users of class C drugs, and a reduction in penalties for class B and A. (Or something to that effect. Full decriminilization is probably too ambitious)

* Decriminalization for all cultivation charges. (All plant amounts that fall under the supply threshold are not criminal, and can only receive a fine)

* A new study commissioned to rationally assess the relative harms of drugs. This will be in the same vein as David Nutt's study. This study will dictate new law changes in the future.

edit: spelled decriminalization wrong.

Edited December 10, 2011 by βluntmuffin

[ThunderIdeal]

i'm not sure how the americans rationalised what they did to written english, but scrutinise your "corrected" spelling a little more and realise that it's certainly misspelled now.

recognise, yo.

edit: american english might have been cool if australia had followed suit!

Edited December 10, 2011 by ThunderIdeal

[CβL]

I say it more with a 'z' sound, than an 's' sound, also I bet 'z' feelz sad that he doezn't get uzed much.

Edit: added more 'z'.

Edited December 10, 2011 by βluntmuffin

[GregKasarik]

I think a hunger strike is a bad idea. It clearly shows that your priorities are "wrong" - i.e. that you would sacrifice food for drugs. Of course that's not how you see it, but that is of course how it would be portrayed or even envisaged by a vast majority of people.

They won't see that you are sacrificing food for a basic human right.

 

Actually, I think that one of the biggest reasons for engaging in a hunger strike is precisely the reason that you have said. That these compounds are so important to my spiritual practice that I am prepared to give up something that most people can't go without for longer than 6 hours.

People will find it impossible to portray my use of these compounds as pure, selfish hedonism, if I am engaged in a practice that epitomises the rejection of hedonism. You are right that many won't see me sacrificing food for a basic human right. They'll see whatever their bigoted minds tell them to see and whatever makes them feel better, more superior, or perhaps whatever their own religious leaders tell them to see.

But those aren't the people that I am going to win over anyway. The people that I need to win over are those who hold the middle ground and who are open to changing their minds. It is they who will ensure that our freedoms are protected from the authoritarian bullies who seek to impose their blinkered, misanthropic will on those around them.

With respect to your suggestions for change. I fully support the ideals (although think regulated relegalisation is a better spot to aim for than simple decriminalisation), but what you present is a wish list of what you would like, rather than a program for how to achieve change.

If I am not to engage in a hunger strike, what concrete steps would you suggest for achieving these goals? What else should we be doing that hasn't already tried and failed?

[GregKasarik]

While I am a supporter of your cause, I am slightly concerned about the additional attention that may be received in regards to our plant friends.

 

This is part of the conundrum and I feel that this well grounded fear is something that keeps far too many people from striving to achieve their freedoms.

Yes, it could all backfire and we could all become the victims of a targeted persecution, but the current situation is not acceptable and unless we act, nothing will change and we will continue to be a marginalised and rejected minority.

I find the current situation intolerable and am not prepared to continue leading my life in the shadows and pretending to be someone that I am not. I honestly believe that we have a duty to show the world a better way and we can either stand up for what we believe in and become leaders in our community, or continue to skulk around the edges, as if we were dishonest vermin with nothing to offer.

If we are to change the world and if we are to use our wisdom to make it a better place, we must be prepared to have the courage to stand up and fight (peacefully and metaphorically) for a better vision of the world. Personally, I can't do that if I can't even discuss a key aspect of my spirituality and world view.

If I wan't prepared to make sacrifices for my freedoms and vision, I'd have to wonder how important they were to me in the first place.

[GregKasarik]

i agree. if you want to make an impact, you need to think bigger -- self immolation.

but in all seriousness, i was looking forward to you doing this and wish you'd reconsider.

 

Thanks for the support.

I think!

The option is still on the table and I suspect that I will in all likelihood be going down this path sooner, rather than later.

[GregKasarik]

I support your cause - I support the fight to ameliorate our arbitrary, harmful and ineffectual drug laws.

But unfortunately, I expect that the government will ignore you for as long as possible. It is an extremely controversial issue, and as we all know, the governments only really care about two things - getting elected, and getting re-elected. I would have been extremely surprised if they had granted your wish for a meeting about this. I think it will take more than emails from a single person to create change here.

However, I'm not too sure that a hunger strike is the best idea either. perhaps the biggest obstacle to our cause is the fact that people are fearfull, often poorly informed and sometimes deliberately misled about illegal drugs. Drugs are associated with crime, delinquency, chaos, destruction and madness in the minds of many. I fear that the spectacle of a lone person starving in the street may be counterproductive to the goal of breaking down these misconceptions.

 

You are certainly correct that the Government will ignore me for as long as they can. They'd be happy to exchange letters and emails for the next forty years. I'd have been stunned if they had actually agreed to meet with me.

Two things seem apparent at this stage. The first is that the Government are not going to come to the party without something radical to motivate them.

The second is that the entheogenic community is largely apathetic about attempting to force change and seem to have largely given up the fight. Given that last forty years of persecution and intransigence, this is hardly surprising. But without a groundswell of support and people who are prepared to provide public support in order to achieve change, nothing will eventuate.

With this in mind, a hunger strike has three aims.

1. To place direct pressure on the Government to modify policies that are causing the needless persecution of valid spiritual practices.

2. To provide a public stimulus that can motivate members of the Entheogenic Community into becoming politically active in support of their rights. A sort of "Something is actually happening, Reg" moment...

 

3. To raise the issue of the use of Transcendent Compounds as a valid form of spiritual practice among the wider community.

Ignorance about who we are, what we do and and what we represent is a major problem. If people don't know that we exist, they can't form decisions about us, or lobby for our freedoms on our behalf. Even people who should be our natural allies are largely ignorant about us. When I went to the cannabis reform rally held in Melbourne a few weeks ago, not one single person that I spoke to knew the meaning of the term "entheogen" and the entire concept was largely foreign to them. I'd say that around 98% of the population have never heard of the word (let alone my more recent formulation: "Transcendent Compound") and without broader community support and awareness, we will never achieve change.

If we are successful, we will need the support of mainstream religious, community and professional groups, but these groups cannot support us unless they know that we exist.

Change won't happen overnight, but I honestly think that if we worked together on this we'd be surprised by our own success.

[faustus]

re: your hunger strike, i really wish you'd reconsider. there are nuances to your actions that you definitely need to refine, but i think you should do it. suggestions:

 

• you'll never be able to give this cause justice in the fleeting 30 seconds a stranger or a reporter would give you in public face-to-face interactions. i think you should wear a tshirt with a URL, and on the URL have an open letter (says 1000 words or so) outlining the reasons that you're doing what you're doing.

• make it clear that you use these drugs very infrequently. this will counter criticisms about abuse/dependency and that you're a fucked up junkie. most certainly make sure that there are no drugs in your system, including cannabis.
  

 

 

• regarding your beliefs about "transcendent compounds", i believe that by protesting all of these drugs you're going to alienate a lot of supporters. for instance, i agree that the serotonergic hallucinogens are transcendent compounds but don't like your inclusion of nitrous oxide. why i think this is a matter for another time. obviously any compound can evoke transcendental states, but you need to take a small step and introduce the profoundly outrageous idea that ANY compound full stop is capable of evoking mystical experiences.

• for the time being, i think you should select one compound, either psilocybin or DMT, but not LSD. psilocybin is my candidate compound, because of the strong empirical evidence that it can evoke mystical experiences. i.e. you have the science on your side to support you. i don't think you should contaminate the big picture goal by getting bogged down with criticisms about which drugs exactly are ones that could be deemed transcendental compounds (which i think is a secondary issue)
  

 

• as for fears about fucking things up for psychedelics in australia, i can't see how it could do any more harm than injecting DMT in the foyer of australian parliament (http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15670).
• i think you're scared about fucking things up and people's criticisms are making you doubt yourself. that's all healthy. however, when you announced your intentions at EGA i thought to myself "finally, somebody putting their body on their line for their beliefs"... i also recall thinking "...but i bet he doesn't do it". in order to gve you the courage to do whatever you put your mind to, i offer you the following:
  

 

 

 

 

so, believe IN yourself & just fucking do IT

 

 

[qualia]

If I am not to engage in a hunger strike, what concrete steps would you suggest for achieving these goals? What else should we be doing that hasn't already tried and failed?

interesting, as you say to get these things at least decriminalised mainstream perceptions need to change, from "drugs are bad". to this end the media could be used to some extent. i'm not talking shock tabloids of news ltd. i'm sure you've noticed a few articles popping up in fairfax papers which attempt to highlight a rational view of drugs. maybe a few letters to the editor type thing (written to the paper versions, not blog comments). i've not seen a "psylocibin can treat depression" type article pop up yet. not sure you yourself could get n actual article published but i don't know how that world works. as it stands i think most people would look at your hunger strike and think "this guys killing himself cos he wants to take drugs" and call you a wacked out loon and take an even more extreme stance against psychedelics, if they don't forget about it a week later. i don't think you'll fuck anything up, but i also don't think you'll change anything.

but i certainly commend you for acting on you beliefs. something a lot more of us (including myself) could take on board.

[qualia]

"support of mainstream [religion]"

HA! that'll be the day.

[SunChaser]

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).

The only drug laws you have any chance of changing in Australia at this present time, is the right to use cannabis for medical purposes. Which I doubt an ignorant person like you would have any interest in doing anyway.

Do you really think the mainstream really cares what drug you want legalized? Do you really think the mainstream will see you as any less of a junkie if your starving yourself for LSD and MDMA, rather than meth or opiates?

Reality check mate! Your not some kind of hero (like you claim) for writing to the government admitting to your illegal drug use. I mean how delusional are you? I personally write to the government every other week telling them I use illegal drugs. They probably get hundreds of letters a week of the same nature. Wake up to yourself and quit the arrogance.

If you stay in the spirituality & philosophy forum dribbling your childish little beliefs, then I have no opinion about any of your crap.

But, if you want to come to the legal matters forum dribbling the same crap, claiming you have a single clue and are a person of significance, then I'm going to speak my mind. Why don't you try doing a little research on 'drug policy' in Australia, then actually do something of significance, before you start claiming your all that?

You ain't shit greg, because you haven't done shit and you don't know shit.

[dionysus]

it was only until this thread and the following quoted post that i started to worry about your motives, greg. striving to become a leader of community (synonymous with commonwealth, general public etc) is something i can't agree with, be it from a pollitician or a friend, in my opinion it is an immoral thing to aim for.

all i know is, count me out of the peoples temple of infinite colour agriculture project...

I find the current situation intolerable and am not prepared to continue leading my life in the shadows and pretending to be someone that I am not. I honestly believe that we have a duty to show the world a better way and we can either stand up for what we believe in and become leaders in our community, or continue to skulk around the edges, as if we were dishonest vermin with nothing to offer.

 

[Marcel]

Daaaym, bros. Why y'all gotta be hatin'?

[GregKasarik]

it was only until this thread and the following quoted post that i started to worry about your motives, greg. striving to become a leader of community (synonymous with commonwealth, general public etc) is something i can't agree with, be it from a pollitician or a friend, in my opinion it is an immoral thing to aim for.

all i know is, count me out of the peoples temple of infinite colour agriculture project...

 

So you'd support me if I had nothing to offer and had no vision for a better future?

Strange and quite incomprehensible.

[dionysus]

So you'd support me if I had nothing to offer and had no vision for a better future?

Strange and quite incomprehensible.

 

so, if i sponsor a poor 3rd world child/community am intitled to claim leadership because i offered some money towards my vision of a better future?

i support your current vision of a better future, it would be fantastic if we were all free to grow what we like for the reason that we like. this vision isn't solely yours, though, and you are yet to offer anything of substance beyond the makings of a cult of which you have procclaimed leadership. what exactly do you plan to lead? is it to lead people to instead use their drugs for spiritual purposes? is it to lead people who don't otherwise use 'trancendent compounds' to start?

abraham walks thousands of miles to unite babylon. bhudda gives up a life of riches, sits under a tree, and dedicates his life to the less fortunate. moses walks for 40 years to free slaves. jesus gets whipped and hung on a cross (or stake, depending who you ask). muhammad looked upon his life as an outcast from tribal life and united arabia. greg sends a few letters and threatens not to eat for a few days... i'd love to see how you spin this one in your texts to resemble the sacrifices of old that reportedly made people 'leaders'.

[GregKasarik]

re: your hunger strike, i really wish you'd reconsider. there are nuances to your actions that you definitely need to refine, but i think you should do it. suggestions:

I'm open to refinement. One aspect of the feedback from EGA was that I needed to have a bit more sophistication with what I'm doing. I'm certainly open to suggestions and would be interested in the "nuances" that you mention.

you'll never be able to give this cause justice in the fleeting 30 seconds a stranger or a reporter would give you in public face-to-face interactions. i think you should wear a tshirt with a URL, and on the URL have an open letter (says 1000 words or so) outlining the reasons that you're doing what you're doing.

 

At the outset, I fully expect to be ignored. It will be harder to ignore me when I'm looking like I've just flown in from a gulag. In any case, I expect to get initial attention, just on account of being an oddity on an otherwise slow news day.

Earth Errowid suggested the same idea about having a short document outlining my case. He also suggested that I look to having a text message that people could easily forward.

I already have an opinion piece of less than 1000 words that I could use as a basis, but it would need considerable reworking.

 

make it clear that you use these drugs very infrequently. this will counter criticisms about abuse/dependency and that you're a fucked up junkie. most certainly make sure that there are no drugs in your system, including cannabis.

 

My tagline was going to be that for the duration I would consume nothing but "water and LSD". I was also going to allow any media organisation to drug test me at any stage that they wanted to and not go near the LSD.

 

regarding your beliefs about "transcendent compounds", i believe that by protesting all of these drugs you're going to alienate a lot of supporters. for instance, i agree that the serotonergic hallucinogens are transcendent compounds but don't like your inclusion of nitrous oxide. why i think this is a matter for another time. obviously any compound can evoke transcendental states, but you need to take a small step and introduce the profoundly outrageous idea that ANY compound full stop is capable of evoking mystical experiences.

for the time being, i think you should select one compound, either psilocybin or DMT, but not LSD. psilocybin is my candidate compound, because of the strong empirical evidence that it can evoke mystical experiences. i.e. you have the science on your side to support you. i don't think you should contaminate the big picture goal by getting bogged down with criticisms about which drugs exactly are ones that could be deemed transcendental compounds (which i think is a secondary issue)

I have no problem with people disagreeing with which compounds are "Transcendent Compounds". If they disagree, they are engaging in the debate on my terms and using concepts that I want them to use.

Nitrous is a funny one. By itself it is fairy useless as an entheogen, but nothing potentates the experience of the other Transcendent Compounds to the same degree. Quite a few of my peak mystical experiences have involved nitrous oxide combined with one of the other Transcendent Compounds.

I have included LSD, because it is functionally very similar to both psilocybin and mescaline. Including it can also provide a focus for attention, and something to negotiate with. If people think that its lack of traditional cultural use is a weak point and attempt to focus on LSD, they are actually wandering into an ambush. This is because it is by far the safest of the Transcendent Compounds, with an LD-50 somewhere in the region of 2000-5000 (compared to alcohol's 10). I love it when people start talking about LSD for this very reason. Once I have dealt with the elephant in the room, the others are a comparatively easy sell.

This technique is basically the same as when a good salesperson quotes the most expensive item on the floor. After you've recovered, they then give the prices for the less expensive items and they all seem like a bargain in comparison.

At the end of the day, trying to sell the idea of any compounds being a valid avenue to explore the Divine is going to be difficult, if not impossible. I certainly held that view before my first experience. But I don't need to convince others of the validity of the experience in real, or absolute terms, but rather that my use of them is a valid and safe expression of my religious belief and practice.

Given its importance to the wider entheogenic community, I honestly couldn't exclude LSD even if I wanted to. If I did, I'd then have to lobby for it later, which would allow conservatives to accuse me of a bait and switch and allow them to run the slippery slope argument that is one of their mainstays for maintaining moral panic. If I do this, I run the very real risk of coming over as untrustworthy and manipulative and that would be the death of the whole project.

Ultimately, the argument revolves around the legalisation of "Transcendent Compounds" for religious practice. I'll be posting more on this later, but the strength of doing this is that the conversation only revolves around compounds that are non-toxic, non-addictive and psychologically safe. By forcing others to use that term, I am forcing them to fight on precisely the ground that I want to fight on and disarming most of their weapons of moral panic.

[/size][/font]

 

• [*]as for fears about fucking things up for psychedelics in australia, i can't see how it could do any more harm than injecting DMT in the foyer of australian parliament (

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15670).

Quite surreal!

I had considered engaging in civil disobedience, but decided against it, because that would put me at the mercy of the criminal justice system and allow the media to portray me as just another convicted druggie. It would also severely limit my ability to travel overseas, particularly to countries like the USA.

[*]i think you're scared about fucking things up and people's criticisms are making you doubt yourself. that's all healthy. however, when you announced your intentions at EGA i thought to myself "finally, somebody putting their body on their line for their beliefs"... i also recall thinking "...but i bet he doesn't do it". in order to gve you the courage to do whatever you put your mind to, i offer you the following:

[/center]

 

Thanks for the video! It was surprisingly inspirational and quite true. It highlights something that I often try to communicate to my clients, but find it too easy to forget in my own life.

You are right about my doubting myself. While I've always been assertive, I hate conflict and would much rather not have to deal with the hostility I'm generating. It has been a difficult road even with the limited exposure that I've had to date. In many ways I'm quite terrified about putting myself in the firing line in such a visible way and undoubtedly becoming the focus of much ire and vilification.

Once I go down this path, there is no turning back. While I do have a core of supporters, I've never felt so isolated in putting myself forward like this and the possibility of holding off a bit and then doing it with a proper support network behind me is highly attractive. It just remains to be seen how much support actually eventuates.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on hearing me speak at EGA. I'm heartened by the fact that so many people have said they felt inspired by my passion and desire to generate change. While I have postponed the action, baring a miracle decision by the government, I'll most likely end up going ahead with it. Career wise, I burnt my bridges over a year ago, when I went fully public in July last year and have boxed myself into a corner where the only viable option is to carry on in my current direction, or to admit total defeat.

I've never been good at defeat.

As Susan Jeffers said, "Feel the fear and do it anyway!"

[GregKasarik]

interesting, as you say to get these things at least decriminalised mainstream perceptions need to change, from "drugs are bad". to this end the media could be used to some extent. i'm not talking shock tabloids of news ltd. i'm sure you've noticed a few articles popping up in fairfax papers which attempt to highlight a rational view of drugs. maybe a few letters to the editor type thing (written to the paper versions, not blog comments). i've not seen a "psylocibin can treat depression" type article pop up yet. not sure you yourself could get n actual article published but i don't know how that world works. as it stands i think most people would look at your hunger strike and think "this guys killing himself cos he wants to take drugs" and call you a wacked out loon and take an even more extreme stance against psychedelics, if they don't forget about it a week later. i don't think you'll fuck anything up, but i also don't think you'll change anything.

but i certainly commend you for acting on you beliefs. something a lot more of us (including myself) could take on board.

 

I've attempted to have letters and opinion pieces published in newspapers, but to no avail. About the best that I've been able to do is to comment at the end of relevant articles on the subject.

You might be correct that I'll fail, but you'll certainly be correct if I don't try.

Mainstream, as opposed to fundamentalist religious people do value religious freedom and respect the rights of others. I believe that the ayahuasca cases that went before the US Supreme Court garnered support from some of these more moderate religious groupings, although I don't have exact details to hand.

[GregKasarik]

so, if i sponsor a poor 3rd world child/community am intitled to claim leadership because i offered some money towards my vision of a better future?

i support your current vision of a better future, it would be fantastic if we were all free to grow what we like for the reason that we like. this vision isn't solely yours, though, and you are yet to offer anything of substance beyond the makings of a cult of which you have procclaimed leadership. what exactly do you plan to lead? is it to lead people to instead use their drugs for spiritual purposes? is it to lead people who don't otherwise use 'trancendent compounds' to start?

abraham walks thousands of miles to unite babylon. bhudda gives up a life of riches, sits under a tree, and dedicates his life to the less fortunate. moses walks for 40 years to free slaves. jesus gets whipped and hung on a cross (or stake, depending who you ask). muhammad looked upon his life as an outcast from tribal life and united arabia. greg sends a few letters and threatens not to eat for a few days... i'd love to see how you spin this one in your texts to resemble the sacrifices of old that reportedly made people 'leaders'.

 

If you have read my writings and don't agree with them that's cool. If you don't like what I stand for, what I represent and what I'm trying to achieve, then by all means don't support me. If you have something better to offer the world than the Principles, I'd rather that you were active in bringing your own vision to fruition.

[SunChaser]

If you have read my writings and don't agree with them that's cool. If you don't like what I stand for, what I represent and what I'm trying to achieve, then by all means don't support me. If you have something better to offer the world than the Principles, I'd rather that you were active in bringing your own vision to fruition.

 

lol, the vision I wish to bring to fruition is that people like you get the treatment you need for your self induced psychotic beliefs. Religion is just a mass form of psychosis.

btw Greg, you keep talking about all the support you were getting at EGA. But wasn't that under the pretense that you were going to do this hunger strike? lol, you keep talking about these principles, yet when push comes to shove, you have no principles, you just talk shit. 

Maybe you should just step up, or back up mate.

 

[Marcel]

Wow. I think it's a shame (and maybe somewhat fascinating, from a sociological point of view) that Greg and his projects generate such intense hatred and fury on this forum. I can't really understand what it is that stirs such deep emotion in some of you.

If it's the "religion/spirituality" aspect of Greg and his Community, then I wonder how you can stomach the wider psychedelic community, which is largely open to, if not explicitly "spiritual" in it's concerns and pitch.

If it's the fear of bad publicity for entheogens, then I think that we can trust the apathy and short attention spans of news media sources to keep our secret mostly safe.

If it's a perceived fault in Greg's legal/political understanding, then why the ad hominem attacks?

Indeed, why bother slinging shit at all? 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.