twc home   |   charter   |   links & refs   |   mailing-list archive   |   song

Re: Legal problems with access

Brian Sandle (
Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:42:31

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:42:31
From: Brian Sandle <>
Subject: Re: Legal problems with access
In-Reply-To: <>

I'm sorry if I rebut rather than discussing. I suppose it is part of my
damage to overcome in this life as I strive for a better relating brain.
Poor relating skills are probably an important reason why church people
fight, or why any people fight.

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Anexia wrote:

> Brian Sandle wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Anexia wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > I don't know about Europe, but in the US, the church has MAJOR
> > > political pull. It is almost a political party itself. They want a
> > > monopoly on spiritual experiences. Since they cannot offer
> > > transcendental experiences, anything that can is considered deadly
> > > competition.
> >
> > So is it the church in China which has just executed people for drug crimes?
> No, we don't have a "church in China" where I live (the US). I have no
> idea what the heck you're talking about. Was that meant to be a smart
> ass remark?
Why do you interpret it as that? Trying to pretend you don't understand?
There are of the order of a million registered drug users in China. There
is also some source of law about drugs, I am not sure what it is or what
the laws are, but I remeber hearing on the news within the week that a
lot of people have just been executed for drug crime. I suppose my remaek
may have looked smart. If should have more openly asked, though rather
more long-windedly, the following:

There is reaction against drug taking in the churches in the USA, however
there is also strong law against certain drug activity in China, where
there is supposedly no church involvement in law making. So perhaps your
statement that it is church to fight may be mistaken. Maybe you are
trying to fight instead people who value mental health and social order?
There are of course differing views as to what those are. If drugs lead
to suicide I class that as `messy'. Suicide can come as social relating
abilities become hampered. Perhaps oxygen shortage to the brain in drug
taking could damage areas of the brain and spoil recoiling and relating

> > I think I'll be a bit monotonous on this for a while and ask what do drug
> > people do to look after their failures?
> That question is ambiguous. Do you mean "failures" as in "means with
> unrealized ends", or do you mean "failures" as in "those who have
> failed"?

You are trying to give some breadth of feeling to what failure might be
about. By failures I mean when people are messed up - certain of their
former living abilities which kept them from depression have now gone
missing. Later on you say you don't think that that would matter since
the brain is about to die, and your answer is based on that. But I
disagree. If you can consider `means with _realized_ ends' then you must
be able to think of something which has been helped. Why then is that
same thing not hurt in a failure?

> > > You criticise the church, but
> > they do have some role in looking after people.
> Like sending children to be enslaved and slaughtered under the
> pretext that they are crusading in God's name? Like murdering fellow
> humans because of a semantic disagreement over what name to give God?
> Like bombing abortion clinics? Maybe you're refering to the wonderful
> job the church does erecting gargantuan palaces while the homeless starve
> and die before its eyes. Whenever I had a problem (depression, for
> example), you know how the church helped me? It told me that I was born
> a sinner--doomed to hell--and that I should grovel for forgiveness
> (unless, of course, I could donate some money...then it would all be
> O.K.).

I agree the church does not have the resources to do much. Here in
Christchurch they provide beds meals and clothing for the unfortunate.
Have you never made use of a Red Shield store? My grumping is that a
lot of money turns over in the drug world, but that little of it pays
taxes for education, health or welfare or is used to resdistribute any
sort of food or counselling to the failures of life, those who can't
relate enough to gain minimum environment in terms of what is
considered O.K. today - sufficient to get an envirionment where
children are not so often killed an injured by firearms, where people
can choose not to work as prostitutes.

> My opinion: Jesus was beautiful and taught lessons of peace and
> unconditional love. Then came the church--a hierarchial distribution of
> power amongst believers. Over time, it translated the connotation of
> Christ's teachings from love and forgiveness into guilt and judgement.
> The church used these bastardized teachings to its economic and political
> ends. The modern world suffers the consequences to this day.

I agree to some extent, but I do not believe that means being against
drugs stems from the same source.

> > They do not quibble so much at others' spiritual ways, but at cleaning up
> > mess.
> You need to take a reality pill, Bub. They don't quibble at
> others' spiritual ways? I can't belive that you actually said that.
> What planet are you FROM?

A little bit the same one which you are from. I was speaking a little
hopefully the same way you were about `failure'.

Hell, they quibble over what DENOMINATION one
> is from, let alone which religion one follows. What's worse, most times
> the motives are political and not spiritual at all. I only have one word
> to say: Ireland.

In Christchurch, New Zealand, now the overseas aid function of the
Catholic and Protestant churches share much fellowship, employing people
of each others' faiths at times.

The problem in Ireland may not be sourced from a great number of people's
work. And it may change. When I went to school we used to call out abuse
at the children of the other denomination on the way home from our
schools. I don't think that would happen now.

> > I imagine you are asking for legality for accustomed users to have the
> > drug at the death bed in the hospital, so it would be looked at as a foot
> > in the door for legalising the earlier use.
> Oh really? Now what good would that do me? I don't do drugs. I
> don't even drink. Hell, I don't even drink coffee. I have done LSD and
> psilocybin in the past, and they have changed my life for the better. My
> mind was opened (something your church obviously hasn't been able to do
> for you), and I felt like I gained ontological and theological insight.
> Whether I did or not is beside the point. The point is that my fear of
> death was assuaged--something that *BLIND* faith could never have done
> for me. The psychedelic experience substanciated my faith; it was a
> transcendental experience that my faith could be predicated on. If I can
> help share this perspective on death with someone who is terminally ill,
> than I will. It would be an act of kindness that I would feel good
> about.
Instead of accustomed, I might have said initiated.

There are different types of fear in life. I agree that it is good to
walk without fear. Here it is not so safe getting about as it was, and
houses have to be locked. People do get raped more, and robbed. If I walk
home at night should I be afraid, or just careful?

I do feel that some of the problem has arisen at the same time as drug
usage and may be resulting from it. So if you don't fear death you don't
take any precautions against being killed?

> > > > my guess is that we'll have to break a few laws
> > > if we want to adminiser hallucinogens anytime soon.
> >
> > I hope
> > confusion does not come to the lives of some as sales pressure looms
> > on them to take the substances at the legal time for a first go if any
> > legalisation occurs.
> Here is how I rationalize the improbability of that happening:
> Hallucinogens affect consciousness by altering the chemistry of
> the brain. One doesn't take one's brain with them when they die.
> Therefore, one's consciousness is impervious to the effects of
> hallucinogens after death. If one is impervious to the effects of
> hallucinogens, one cannot be confused by them. How's that?

Therefore what is the significance of taking them near death, though I
don't agree with you.

> Now, while I like to discuss, I hate to rebut...reminds me too
> much of school. Please do not be offended if I do not respond to any
> more of your trollings.



twc home   |   charter   |   links & refs   |   mailing-list archive   |   song