To: twc-l@halmarax.demon.co.uk
From: Tony@halmarax.demon.co.uk (Tony Halmarack)
Subject: Re: Legal problems with access
In-Reply-To: <19960630.211618.61@halmarax.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 22:03:26 +0100
In message <19960630.211618.61@halmarax.demon.co.uk> Brian Sandle wrote:
> So is it the church in China which has just executed people for drug crimes?
Maybe in this area of human activity the Chuch and the state are synonymous.
Social control to protect vested interest is the principal in operation.
> 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? You criticise the church, but
> they do have some role in looking after people.
Failures of any description are pretty shoddily catered forby both church and
state as far as I can see. Poverty is still considered either a sin, or a
genetic/moral/cultural failure to be sufficiently competitive
(inadequate tax payer).
[snip]
> 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.
Permission would be helpful.
> While attempting to get these things legalized for the
> > dying is all-important, my guess is that we'll have to break a few laws
> > if we want to adminiser hallucinogens anytime soon.
> Which a lot of people may have been doing, but 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.
It may be helpful to point out that the purpose of this list is to
propose the medicinal use of hallucinogens in a controlled, supportive
environment. Random, recreational use of these drugs would be more
appropriately discussed in one of the alt.drugs.* newsgroups.
Best wishes,
-- Tony Halmarack =(*)= Tony@halmarax.demon.co.uk