“ We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, the religious sensibility.”
Terence McKenna in: Non-Ordinary States Through Vision Plants, Sound Photosynthesis, Mill Valley CA., 1988, ISBN 1-569-64709-7
Timothy Leary has summarized this concept by postulating two “new commandments for the molecular age”:
* Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.
* Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from changing his or her own consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty
Are our minds really our own?
Where do we draw the line between our own freedom of thought and our responsibilities as a society?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckForce, threats of force and fraud.
“ We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibi ...[text shortened]... do we draw the line between our own freedom of thought and our responsibilities as a society?
That's the line.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckOne's thoughts are surely shaped and formed by the environment one finds himself in?
“ We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibi ...[text shortened]... do we draw the line between our own freedom of thought and our responsibilities as a society?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSimple. Turn off your tv and make up your own mind.
“ We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibi ...[text shortened]... do we draw the line between our own freedom of thought and our responsibilities as a society?
"Let me hear you
Make decisions
Without your television"
Depeche Mode
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWe've evolved to respond to psychoactive chemicals... society may well live to regret discouraging and even outlawing the use of psychedelics when there are so many unexplored therapeutic uses.
“ We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibi ...[text shortened]... do we draw the line between our own freedom of thought and our responsibilities as a society?
It's right there in article 18 in the universal declaration
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Forcing or withholding psychoactive substances on individuals is a violation of this right.