Heh, I’m not a psychologist Alien. 
Kissa you don’t have to be a nonconformist or fall within a certain age group to have convictions! I assure you there are millions of voters young and old alike who don’t despise their country or regularly break the law - yet still wish to affect positive change.
Your view of the average citizen-voter as a nonthinking automaton is definitely skewed. But that, as they say, is another show. 
I thought I remembered you saying something in a thread about being a student of psychology. Must have been someone else, my mistake.
Also, as skewed as you may think it, people in this country are starting to become more and more like automatons. The president says jump, and millions of people say how high. I have met people that assert that Bush is the best president ever, and that he is such a wonderful man. They don’t believe any of the “lies” about him. They come back with things like “whoever Georgie tells us we need to kill, let’s do it!” Some people will believe anything that comes out of a government official’s mouth. People don’t ask enough questions anymore. They just discard “the myth of the crooked politician” as fable.
LOL Gotta love the creativity on display. “Natural human right to dietary self-determination.”
And entheogen is a 70s neologism meaning “substance that creates god or spirit within.”
Oooookay.
There is nothing productive about skeptisism in my opinion. I take entheogens and they do create more of a spirituality within. What is so hard to believe about that? Skeptics seem to me like the type of people that immediately dismiss something as false without physically seeing or experiencing it their selves in any way. There are obvious flaws in that type of attitude. Also, what is wrong with people choosing what substances to put in their bodies. I am down with the whole not selling certain substances or making them available thing, but they shouldn’t make them illegal to ingest…
Not false…
Just not necessarily true.
Think of it this way. You submit a proposition, a true skeptic attacks it from the assumption that it may not necessarily be true. What the true skeptic wants, more then anything, is for you to prove it true past his/her arguments against it. If you can prove it true to a skeptic, odds are you will convert him/her to accepting that what you propose is either the truth, or a superior argument which a skeptic can recycle to attack opposing arguments after that.
Thats the ideal version I think.
Contempt prior to investigation? 
Sure I’ll give you that. But know this: I have been down many paths. I have used, abused, ridden the rides but also seen the darker sides of “dietary self-determination.” It ain’t all angels and bliss. There is also addiction and psychosis looming as risks (depending on the substance in question).
GCT said something that reminded me of a recent exchange between me and you, Alien. He said, “What the true skeptic wants, more than anything, is for you to prove it true past his/her arguments against it. If you can prove it true to a skeptic, odds are you will convert him/her to accepting that what you propose is either the truth, or a superior argument which a skeptic can recycle to attack opposing arguments after that.”
Remember when I said that all the personal enlightenment in the world; all the visions of the hereafter or of spiritual realms, doesn’t really count for anything so long as it isn’t objectively observable?
See, show me enlightenment through a pill and I’ll show you a deeply affecting hallucination. But show me an out of body experience that can be objectively measured or otherwise evidenced by others …and it’ll make 76-point headlines in every newspaper across the globe.
You know, what is even more interesting is I started this topic exactly one month ago (June 18!) to explore whether there was any veracity to users’ claims that MDMA and other substances actually expanded their consciousness, and if so, then wouldn’t that mean we are perceiving only a small part of actual reality:
And asked the burning question:
That was the original intention. LOL
I shortly thereafter found myself ensconsed in a broader discussion that would…1. Encompass just how old I might be,
(Maybe I am, wow.)
AND YET, going back through this topic (as I have just done), you can see why I became alarmed. It was turning into a veritable homemade tripper’s cookbook. I mean geez, I didn’t create this topic to advocate making LSD in your closet or facilitate dissimination of links to other exotic recipes. 
And that, I believe, is where we got offroad - but it’s been a good stray - makes us look inward and ask questions, liked I said. In my case this (and the other discussion in this forum about suicide) has actually served to better define and strengthen my positions about each subject.
Well, there is a problem with that. Not everything can be proved. Some things just aren’t for objective analysis. Buddhists spoke of many things that western people never began to take seriously until science began to confirm them in different ways. Those secrets that were considered cutting edge for scientists had been held by Buddhist monks for centuries before. Buddhists, knowing the truth, and knowing that they couldn’t “prove it”, chose silence instead of meaningless back and forth arguments. It’s one of those, you’ll find out eventually things. I happen to like arguing, so I am willing to argue the point, though it rarely convinces anyone. For the most part, people have already made up their minds about things. There are certain ideas that they are open to, and certain ideas that they are not. Everyone does this to some extent, but skeptics are more extreme about it then most. You are asking me to objectify something that is completely subjective. That is not currently possible. But there is one flaw in your reasoning. You are assuming that for something to be true, it has to be objectively observed. You are assuming that subjective reality has no substance. In fact, what you think of as objective, is in fact only a subjective reflection of what you percieve to be objective reality. You never actually see or hear anything. Your ears and eyes do, which then send signals to your brain which interprets them in various ways. The interpretation process is entirely subjective, therefore there is no such thing as objective reality. There is only the perception of objective reality. So what you may classify as hallucinations or whatever, is a subjective reality which is in a sense no less real then the computer screen you are staring at. Subjective reality is still reality. The only way to interpret how real it is would be to experience it yourself. It’s not like you would be taking my word for it that there are other realms of existance that can be experienced thru altered consciousness by believing me. You would only be accepting the fact that on at least some plane of reality that is true. It may not be your subjective experience, but your subjective experience does not encompass the whole universe, so that is limited. It is my (and multitudes of other people’s) subjective experience, therefore it exists on some realm. If you have heard of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, you know that according to the most solid theories available today, reality consists of objective, and subjective aspects. This means that any subjective experience must exist on some level or another. The influence of the mind upon solid matter is an observable influence. When looking for light waves, scientists find light waves. When looking for light particles, scientists find light particles. Under an extremely intense electromagnetic field with no one present in the room, nothing happens. When a person steps into the room, objects begin levitating, etc. When flipping a coin over and over under controlled circumstances, if a person concentrates really hard on heads, the coin will land on heads more often (there have been swarms of expiriments like this and others involving pk that all came out with the same results, though the extent of the efect varies person to person) These are solid expiriments that prove that it really is mind over matter. You should not count on matter to explain everything for you nice and neatly. Thought (or perspective) is really a more powerful, more reliable source.
Yo John! You aren’t a skeptic, I was just pointing out that you were being skeptical. I wouldn’t call you a skeptic per se. I was just showing you what was wrong with the attitude you were taking at the time. I agree that people probably shouldn’t make drugs in their closet, but where did that come up? At the same time I think that people should have a right to explore consciousness. I don’t think how old you are should have anything to do with your beliefs. I know some crazy old fucks that never give it up, and totally intend on being one of them. I didn’t know until this thread where you stood politically, but it was obvious from one of your comments at least that you lean a lot further right then I do (then again I do tend to lean pretty far left, but at least I didn’t vote Bush into office ) However, I never take politics against anyone. That is one of those things that I feel that people should have a right to believe whatever they feel like believing. The major problem I have with conservatism is that I feel that many people have been tricked into believing in it. I feel like the media (and T.V. in general) is a mass outlet for propaganda (even subliminals which they blatantly cought Bush doing, butt you never heard about that did you?). I watch as little T.V. as possible and I feel that my mind is much clearer because of it as are the minds of most people I meet who do not watch T.V. Hey, but no offense about the skeptc thing, ok?