Should drugs be listed at bitcoin.it?

[xf2_org]

Bitcoin should be usable by the most conservative imam in Saudi Arabia

Logical inconsitency.

Dollars are used both for trading drugs all around the world and by conservative imams in Saudi Arabia (and most other islamic countries since oil can only be bought for dollars)...

All currencies can be used for both good and bad things. Using currency for "bad" things doesn't mean that the currency itself is bad.

If you are trying to convince said highly conservative person to use bitcoins, and drugs are the first thing they see mentioned in press articles or wiki Trade page, the effort is wasted and we've lost.

[oregreiogerjk]

Who gives a fuck if highly conservative people use Bitcoin or not?

[xf2_org]

Why is it that your idea of the average drug user is a teenager, when I know highly intelligent physicists, doctors, chemists, mathematicians, philosophers, programmers and more in their 20's, 30's and 40's who are the primary drug using group I talk with? Many of the drug users I know are brilliant individuals who most likely would put you to shame both in IQ and in number of years lived. I love when you idiots show your stereotypical thinking, how does it feel to be mind raped by the government?

And you completely missed the point.  It is completely irrelevant whether or not drug users are wonderful, smart, productive people.  Said PhD chemists are smart enough not to try and force their beliefs on others.

Those physicists, doctors, chemists, etc. are likely old enough and wise enough to know that some people have different beliefs about drugs, and that is ok.

If bitcoin is to be an inclusive community, you must not exclude those people whose beliefs differ from yours.  The selfish, teenage, immature attitude is "my belief must trump others."

Surely these PhD drug users support freedom of choice -- including the choice to avoid drugs!  There is nothing wrong with having a safe-for-children-and-conservatives official wiki, with the "red light district" being a separate area.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I like this idea, let's make a separate wiki page and call it

"THE RED LIGHT DISTRICT" (btc accepted here)

... best name you could come up since it denotes vice, naughtiness without being overtly illegal.

Put up one of those ADULT, R18, etc, warnings you see on porn sites (not that i go into them). Eventually it can fork off onto it's own web site when bitcoin wiki becomes to be purely about the IT, money technology only site some suggest will happen.

[oregreiogerjk]

And you completely missed the point.  It is completely irrelevant whether or not drug users are wonderful, smart, productive people.  Said PhD chemists are smart enough not to try and force their beliefs on others.

Too bad that you are not smart enough to stop trying to force your beliefs on others.

Those physicists, doctors, chemists, etc. are likely old enough and wise enough to know that some people have different beliefs about drugs, and that is ok.

Yes it is fine. Please take your own advice.

If bitcoin is to be an inclusive community, you must not exclude those people whose beliefs differ from yours.  The selfish, teenage, immature attitude is "my belief must trump others."

You must be a troll, otherwise the irony is unbearable.

Surely these PhD drug users support freedom of choice -- including the choice to avoid drugs!  There is nothing wrong with having a safe-for-children-and-conservatives official wiki, with the "red light district" being a separate area.

You are either a troll or suffering from massive intellectual dishonesty.

[xf2_org]

I would rather have the bitcoin community include those who dislike drugs, as well as those who like drugs.

Let's not preemptively exclude people from our community.

[N12]

I would rather have the bitcoin community include those who dislike drugs, as well as those who like drugs.

Let's not preemptively exclude people from our community.

+9001

If you really value Bitcoin, you will sacrifice your personal ideology and be pragmatic. The gain (in terms of freedom) will be much higher once we succeed … But at this stage, please do not let your beliefs blind you.

[oregreiogerjk]

I would rather have the bitcoin community include those who dislike drugs, as well as those who like drugs.

Let's not preemptively exclude people from our community.

I am all for choice. If people choose to use drugs, they should have a secure place to get them and a secure system to pay for them, even if it goes against what the government wants and what the religious moralfags and socialist moralfags who don't want to pay for drug users health care want (hm don't socialize medicine then!).

As soon as people start forcing said moralfags into going to drug sites and buying them with bitcoins and put gun to their head and make them take the drugs, then your point stands. But as it is, the moralfags can feel free to not click on said links. You can't marginalize drug users while still saying you want an inclusive environment. Moralfags already own the world, let bitcoin be a truly inclusive environment based off of choice. If Moralfags don't want to come here because of some hyperlinks, then they can feel free to go back to church or back to the communist party headquaters.

[oregreiogerjk]

What you all don't seem to get is that it doesn't matter in the god damn slightest if drugs are linked to from here or not. Bitcoin is so useful as a tool for money laundering that it is going to be outlawed one way or the other. The strategy should be to gain ground and an established base now, not try to convert grandmas home cookies to taking some cypherpunk crypto-currency because if you think that is going to happen you are just plain and simple delusional.

As long as one country allows the legal cashing in and out of Bitcoin, we are set. Bitcoin stands up to all but a global adversary, and no such thing exists.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Actually, having things like psychoactive drugs and gambling on the wiki is a good reverse psychology ploy.

Any serious govt. enforcer shows up for a browse around, can't understand how the heck bitcoins function anyhow .... looks at wiki and thinks, ".... god-damn amateur hour, nothing to worry about here ..."

then goes onto to wondering how to infiltrate sicilian or russian mafia

.... longer we are under the radar the better, it is not corporate adoption we need to worry about, it is political .... keep it amateur looking and chaotic for as long as possible.

The "we need a corporate face" pushers can go and create there own slick BS wiki somewhere else for the banksters absconding from their current crappy mess.

[dust]

Maybe there should be a disclaimer stating something like:

"Some of the products/services in this section may be illegal in your jurisdiction... you are responsible for your own actions"

[SzeChun]

Actually, having things like psychoactive drugs and gambling on the wiki is a good reverse psychology ploy.

Any serious govt. enforcer shows up for a browse around, can't understand how the heck bitcoins function anyhow .... looks at wiki and thinks, ".... god-damn amateur hour, nothing to worry about here ..."

then goes onto to wondering how to infiltrate sicilian or russian mafia

.... longer we are under the radar the better, it is not corporate adoption we need to worry about, it is political .... keep it amateur looking and chaotic for as long as possible.

The "we need a corporate face" pushers can go and create there own slick BS wiki somewhere else for the banksters absconding from their current crappy mess.

and how does this make us money?

im sorry no serious goverment enforcer will look at wiki and be like
"OH GOOD THERE ARE DRUGS HERE NOW WE CAN INFILTRATE MAFIAS THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE BEFORE"

it seems like you are anti-corporate without just reason.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Actually, having things like psychoactive drugs and gambling on the wiki is a good reverse psychology ploy.

Any serious govt. enforcer shows up for a browse around, can't understand how the heck bitcoins function anyhow .... looks at wiki and thinks, ".... god-damn amateur hour, nothing to worry about here ..."

then goes onto to wondering how to infiltrate sicilian or russian mafia

.... longer we are under the radar the better, it is not corporate adoption we need to worry about, it is political .... keep it amateur looking and chaotic for as long as possible.

The "we need a corporate face" pushers can go and create there own slick BS wiki somewhere else for the banksters absconding from their current crappy mess.

and how does this make us money?

im sorry no serious goverment enforcer will look at wiki and be like
"OH GOOD THERE ARE DRUGS HERE NOW WE CAN INFILTRATE MAFIAS THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE BEFORE"

it seems like you are anti-corporate without just reason.

I think you missed the point, it was that they would discount bitcoin as serious threat and go on to something else, not that they would think about how to use it ...

And while we are "at it", would you like to prove to me that corporations have done less net harm in total than psychoactive drugs?

Just seems that if bitcoiners want to censor one perceived evil (drugs) in favour of another perceived good (corporate image) then first you would want to prove those goods and evils exist objectively?

[SzeChun]

I think you missed the point, it was that they would discount bitcoin as serious threat and go on to something else, not that they would think about how to use it ...

And while we are "at it", would you like to prove to me that corporations have done less net harm in total than psychoactive drugs?

Just seems that if bitcoiners want to censor one perceived evil (drugs) in favour of another perceived good (corporate image) then first you would want to prove those goods and evils exist objectively?

A psychoactive drug is something that gives pleasure to people through means of a tangible item.
Why do people do drugs? Its because of that pleasure that each drug gives to an individual which compels them to use it.
Drugs give a relative "high", a feeling of absolute bliss and without care in the world. For this very reason though the
nature of drugs in relation to the human psyche is addictive. A person is inclined to abuse drugs because at a first look the risks vs reward
is very much in favor of the reward. A consequence of this is that a human will become growingly reliant on drugs.

What intellectual reason does a person in "normal" condition have to do drugs? Nothing but to fulfill his desire and to disturb his emotional balance.
Therefore, a drug is actually an illusion of very high reward with no risk; in reality it is the opposite, a risk of addiction to short periods of ecstasy.

What does this mean to society in general?
Going into specifics, drugs have always impacted a society in harmful ways.
Today, we can see the most apparent effect in forms of power of the gangs and drug cartels.
But a more worrisome and devastating effect was opium in China in the past(im sure Nefario knows about it).
In brief, Opium became a socially-acceptable drug to use in China and it created the lowest point in China's economy, military and politically.
Basically what happened is that everyone started to use Opium and did not care about anything else, no one wanted to work and the economy collasped.

A corporation is an legal entity that was usually regulated by the state.
There has been many harms that corporations have done to individuals in forms of unjust employment, salaries etc.
Some corporations like AIG has carelessly handled their money and created a "depression" for the U.S.
But a quick analysis will show you that corporations do in fact have many benefits to societies and individuals.
This is in the form of raising GDP, providing a higher standard of living, and giving us innovations like computers which we have today.


So i would say that even though the net harm of corporations and drugs could be debateable. Surely the net benefits of corporations outweigh drugs.


http://books.google.ca/books?id=G9OhG-dZdAwC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=neurologist+effects+of+psychoactive&source=bl&ots=CvkZV9Qjyw&sig=KMPK5G5IKyJrBPAWi5R-SCh16E0&hl=en&ei=fhW-TeCvGMn20gHFktGtBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

[marcus_of_augustus]

A corporation is something that gives pleasure to people through means of a tangible item.
Why do people do corporations? Its because of that pleasure that each corporation gives to an individual which compels them to use it.
Corporations give a relative "high", a feeling of absolute bliss and without care in the world. For this very reason though the
nature of corporations in relation to the human psyche is addictive. A person is inclined to abuse corporations because at a first look the risks vs reward
is very much in favor of the reward. A consequence of this is that a human will become growingly reliant on corporations.

[SzeChun]

A corporation is something that gives pleasure to people through means of a tangible item.
Why do people do corporations? Its because of that pleasure that each corporation gives to an individual which compels them to use it.
Corporations give a relative "high", a feeling of absolute bliss and without care in the world. For this very reason though the
nature of corporations in relation to the human psyche is addictive. A person is inclined to abuse corporations because at a first look the risks vs reward
is very much in favor of the reward. A consequence of this is that a human will become growingly reliant on corporations.

Dude learn to grow up and get past the, "Ignorance is Strength" phase of your life.

[marcus_of_augustus]

well, how can I respond to that but .... whatevs dude!

Posters who are not even wrong and well ensconced in their own convictions can only be treated with frivolity in my experience.

Thanks for reading, please donate as you see fit.

[irjierjierjier]

A psychoactive drug is something that gives pleasure to people through means of a tangible item.

A psychoactive drug is not by definition euphoric. Some are, others are not.

Why do people do drugs? Its because of that pleasure that each drug gives to an individual which compels them to use it.

I use LSD and other psychedelics and dissociatives to explore my mind and to have religious experiences and feelings of merging with God and the universe, and to enhance my senses to get a deeper appreciation from music and art and sex. I also use some empatheogens to help me overcome social anxiety and have fun at parties instead of feeling very introverted. I also have used them to deal with past issues in my life. Other drugs, I use for mild intoxication and general entertainment, much as people use Alcohol, often socially. Not all drugs fall into the stereotypical pleasure seeking mechanisms of pure dopeamine release that you are taught in your social sciences classes. Sure, I do use drugs primarily because I get pleasure out of them. I do most things in my life that are not for the minimum of my survival to get pleasure though, or to bring pleasure to others. Isn't that what life is about?

Drugs give a relative "high", a feeling of absolute bliss and without care in the world.

You have probably never even used drugs but you talk like you know so much about them. You were probably taught by some social science professor and I am guessing work for the state in some capacity, probably as a social worker or such. Drugs are used by many for intellectual and spiritual reasons and for enhancing reality, including increasing the senses to touch, sound, taste, sight, smell past what is normally capable. LSD in particular removes all filtering for your brain and allows for raw input to be processed instead of a filtered input. Of course this is not a scientific explanation, but it describes the effects.

For this very reason though the
nature of drugs in relation to the human psyche is addictive. A person is inclined to abuse drugs because at a first look the risks vs reward
is very much in favor of the reward. A consequence of this is that a human will become growingly reliant on drugs.

Not all drugs are addictive. In fact, the vast majority of drugs are not addictive, particularly psychedelics. The primary addictive drugs are those which bind to dopeamine release rather than bind to serotonin receptors. Also, some drugs cause addiction because they produce symptoms when use is discontinued, such as heroin. These drugs can be used safely and responsibly by many, for others they are indeed a medical issue, and criminalizing them does not help people but leads to large amounts of death, suffering, violence, funds gangs, funds terrorism, spreads disease, all of which is preventable. Harm reduction is far far far more beneficial for society than zero tolerance prohibition, and it also does not violate rights as it is not you forcing your morality onto others but rather helping others minimize harm to themselves.

What intellectual reason does a person in "normal" condition have to do drugs? Nothing but to fulfill his desire and to disturb his emotional balance.
Therefore, a drug is actually an illusion of very high reward with no risk; in reality it is the opposite, a risk of addiction to short periods of ecstasy.

I am entirely incapable of religious experience with out the use of LSD. LSD is the only substance that allows me to feel a connection with God. Additionally, humans have plenty reasons to use drugs. Intellectual exploration, a social experience, recreation, sensory enhancement, working out past difficulties in life, gaining a more detailed appreciation for art and aesthetics, enhanced creativity and associative thinking, etc. For many drugs, the only real serious risk is the risk of law enforcement. For many drugs with real risks, prohibition makes these risks FAR worse than they need be. If all heroin was 100% pure, heroin users would not OD. Heroin users OD because batch purity is inconsistent, and a user may inject the same weight of a batch of significantly higher purity. Also, drugs like MDMA are counterfeited by criminals and replaced with PMA which is tremendously more dangerous, the lack of a legal operating market results in mislabled misdosed impure drugs leading to the vast vast vast majority of drug deaths which can not be attributed to incorrect purity. Also, drugs like MDMA have some inherent risk, but if used responsibly via harm reduction strategies, these risks can be minimized to near non-existant levels. By having a zero tolerance prohibitionist mind set, you are maximimizing risk leading to countless deaths countless people who could be any one of my friends dying from your stupid fucking laws trying to "help people". Please take your helping people and fuck off with it already! You cause nothing but death, hurt, broken families, people in prisons, distrust in communities, disease, etc. I truly think you prohibitionists are a fucking curse on humanity and responsible for enormous enormous enormous amounts of needless pain and suffering all in the name of your delusional moral bullshit that you try to force onto others. GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF ALREADY.

What does this mean to society in general?
Going into specifics, drugs have always impacted a society in harmful ways.
Today, we can see the most apparent effect in forms of power of the gangs and drug cartels.

Drugs being illegal FUND the gangs and cartels. YOU CREATE THE PROBLEMS. THE PEOPLE KILLED IN DRUG WARS, THEIR DEATHS ARE THE FAULT OF YOUR POLICIES. If drugs were legal, the terrorists who profit from them , the violent cartels, the street gangs would go fucking bankrupt over night. Your policies which lock up innocent people, which cause death and pain and all fucking sorts of problems on people minding their own business causing no problems for others, make profits only for VIOLENT CRIMINAL GANGS AND THE GOVERNMENT PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!

[SzeChun]

We when talk about drugs, certainly there are "drugs" that are not euphoric, but were not addressing drugs in a general sense. When i talk about drugs i talk about drugs that do induce euphoric effects.

It seems like you use a LSD as a escapist route to solving your life problems. If that if your choice then so be it, i am not one to judge.
Though what you describe as "religious experience" could also be expressed as a pleasure, as well as all the other things you described give you a heightened level of pleasure.

You are right, i have never chosen to experience with psychoactive drugs. Does this evict me from doing an analysis of drugs? Does a person have to commit suicide before talking about it?

Some drugs are addictive by caustion of dopeamine, but as you have experience yourself. All drugs give you a kind of pleasure in which people can be more inclined to use it to repeat the pleasureable expereince.

I do not know what kind of religion you follow but using drugs to feel a connection to God is not the right way to connect to God. Your theology must tell you that, in all monotheistic religions the feeling of connection to God is to understand attributes of God such as omnipotence and in general study theology(in order to understand him more).

Also, note that if drugs were made legal guess who are the first to pick it up?
Hint: The people who were in its business for a long time. This is demonstrated by Japanese history as illegal groups merge into white collar culture and create white-collar crimes.

[igerijgeri]

We when talk about drugs, certainly there are "drugs" that are not euphoric, but were not addressing drugs in a general sense. When i talk about drugs i talk about drugs that do induce euphoric effects.

Please take some 5-meo-AMT or DMT + MAOI and tell me that it is Euphoric. This is not the case, in fact these drugs cause severe uncomfortable feelings physically, but are worth it for many due to the spiritual and psychedelic effects.

It seems like you use a LSD as a escapist route to solving your life problems. If that if your choice then so be it, i am not one to judge.
Though what you describe as "religious experience" could also be expressed as a pleasure, as well as all the other things you described give you a heightened level of pleasure.

Yes please give me some psyche analysis because you know all the answers being a superior human being and thus also being in a perfect position to solve all of societies ills. I already know your lies and propaganda inside and out and none of your analyses are accurate. You only need to see all drug use as negative, and rationalize it as such, to feel morally superior or at least feel like less of a fascist for dictating your "superior" morality onto us sub-humans who totally need your guidance.

[qupte]You are right, i have never chosen to experience with psychoactive drugs. Does this evict me from doing an analysis of drugs? Does a person have to commit suicide before talking about it?[/quote]

No but it does show that your thoughts are not your own, but rather the product of the government mind virus you have been infected with. You have no experience with drugs, yet you talk of them as if you know all about them, when what you talk about is the lie painted by the the government and corporate and traditionalist-religious complex.

Some drugs are addictive by caustion of dopeamine, but as you have experience yourself. All drugs give you a kind of pleasure in which people can be more inclined to use it to repeat the pleasureable expereince.

Not all drugs give pleasurable effects. Some are very uncomfortable physically actually, and the opposite of euphoric, but for many worth it for the insights and spiritual experiences they provide.

I do not know what kind of religion you follow but using drugs to feel a connection to God is not the right way to connect to God. Your theology must tell you that, in all monotheistic religions the feeling of connection to God is to understand attributes of God such as omnipotence and in general study theology(in order to understand him more).

Experience God how you want, and leave me to experience God how I want. Reading the Bible or other holy books does nothing for me. I know it is not true. When I use LSD, the effects are real and profound and I can experience God and Ego Death in my own mind in ways that are real and beneficial for me. I do not follow any organized religion, I gain all of my spitual experience from LSD use, thus far the only way possible for me to feel a greater connection with the Universe or feel a presence of God / merging into the singularity of the universe. I already am all to familiar with your hateful bigoted ways and fully understand that you do not allow religious freedom, other than the establishment to allow religious freedom would go against the established organized religions, weaken their grasp on the flock and in general be very bad for the government and corporations, particularly the prison industrial complex.

Also, note that if drugs were made legal guess who are the first to pick it up?
Hint: The people who were in its business for a long time. This is demonstrated by Japanese history as illegal groups merge into white collar culture and create white-collar crimes.

The Cartels would not have the profit incentive to continue dealing in illegal drugs. Legalization would cause tremendous price drops and remove the incentive for violence and such. Do you see Alcohol companies getting into gang wars? Do you see Alcohol companies selling cut or impure product that can kill you?