Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno man, I'm kinda okay with them scheduling salvia and that's an opinion you won't hear often from me. I tried Salvia and it was just singularly extremely uncomfortable. My friends left reality altogether and had experiences ranging from becoming a 2d book who's pages wouldn't stop flipping, to being flayed open and ripped apart for literal eternities. I do agree that that can be avoided by experienced usage but…
Agreed.
Maybe there's an argument for control, like we don't all crash cars, but we all wear seatbelts in case. I don't think I should not be allowed to drive because other people are not safe drivers.
If you take issue with the analogy then I'll just state it plainly: I don't think I should not have access to it, because other people can't handle it, or had bad experiences or whatever.
But I also think there's danger in selling it in head shops under "get fucked up" or whatever.
I think there should be control of powerful things, but control, not prohibition. So, control the purity, control the quality, I mean we don't know that they weren't smoking a sabotaged batch? Or just plain contamination. Maybe they were getting high on roundup?
So control, yes. If you need to make a policy to make it safe where like I need to get a psychedelic explorer license first, pass a short course (like a driving course), so I acutally understand some things, and I have a framework and some skills. And maybe I've even tested, using pure QC compounds, with vitals being measured (again in the same way analogous to a driving exam, but a "psychedelic driver exam"). I'm totally fine with that, I think that would be cool. I mean, I don't think I need that, but if society needs that, I'm fine with that. And if that increases my access to pure, QC, pesticide free products, then that's fucking fantastic.
But don't prohibit my access to the road because some people crashed their car, could never drive in the first place, bought a lemon that exploded on them, or just had an accident that we don't know if it was caused by their car, or their driving, or the road, or whatever.
So don't prohibit my access. I still want access to pure stuff, and if it needs to be licensed, I'm fine. As long as it's not an impossible license, and it's only as comparably burdensome as say, learning to drive and getting a car license, and not the bs "get a crazy research license to synthesize schedule 1 compounds" type of thing. But a regular "psychedelic explorer" license.
If that's what needs to be done, fine. But otherwise, don't prohibit my access to it. I think that's ridiculous, and bad. Because people like me can benefit from these things, and maybe heal ourselves, and prevent harm coming to ourselves. And why should we be denied that because other can't, or don't, or don't have the ability to. I don't care about that. I just want it for me.
And I think there's a way to do it that balances those interests. And I think it's ridiculous that it's banned. And I think the ban has nothing to do with what's good for people. I think it's a mechanism of control to prevent people, to hold them down. To restrict them from accessing things that can empower them. Just like in the past esoteric or even scientific knowledge was kept to the rarified few. Now, it seems like this kind of psychedelic, consciousness knowledge (that may have implications for government corporate UFO secrecy or whatever) is being kept from people, and that's bad.
So, while it's not totally right yet, I am happy for Australia's elevating psilocybin to some form of access. Even tho it's not an explorer access, it's a therapeutic access. But hopefully that's the beginning of an encouraging trend. Where government/corporate doesn't feel the pathetic weak need to mediate the consciousness experiences of its citizens.