Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: The Scientist on February 17, 2013, 06:38 am
-
Among the Mazatec Indians, it is common for children to eat psilocybin mushrooms with their parents. (see "Hallucinogens and Shamanism", edited by Michael J. Harner, p. 86.)
Timothy Leary said that psychedelic drugs will revolutionise our procedures of child rearing and education.
"Through the use of these chemical keys to the nervous system as regular tools of learning, you will be asking your children, when they come home from school, not 'What book are you reading?' but 'Which molecules are you using to open up new Libraries of Congress inside your nervous system?' Chemicals will be the central method of education in the future."
What do you think? With proper supervision, should children be allowed to take psychedelic drugs? Could they play a role in education? Would children benefit from having a spiritual psychedelic experience?
-
Define children, Define psychedelic drugs.
-
IMHO, it would be a bad idea for kids to take psychedelic drugs. Their brains aren't fully developed and I would have thought that psychedelic drugs could hamper their development. I'm not an expert, so just expressing my opinion :)
-
Younger children shouldn't be allowed to take psychedelics IMO. Their brains are still developing and sometimes it seems that children are already in a psychedelic state. Not necessarily tripping, but I see a lot of similarity with child behavior and psychedelic induced behavior (to an extent). I also noticed, those who started smoking in their early teens (I'd say around 12-13 yrs) do have a impaired memory and generally seem burned out all the time as they grow older, even if they do quit.
But once they reach a mature enough age to understand the world, psychedelics would prove to be beneficial to their wellbeing
-
Younger children shouldn't be allowed to take psychedelics IMO. Their brains are still developing and sometimes it seems that children are already in a psychedelic state. Not necessarily tripping, but I see a lot of similarity with child behavior and psychedelic induced behavior (to an extent). I also noticed, those who started smoking in their early teens (I'd say around 12-13 yrs) do have a impaired memory and generally seem burned out all the time as they grow older, even if they do quit.
But once they reach a mature enough age to understand the world, psychedelics would prove to be beneficial to their wellbeing
I kno exactly what u mean when u say that children behave like a tripping adult or vice versa. And i will also a agree on the whole developmental thing. I don't really buy into the whole idea of psychedelics physically damaging or impairing the brain permanently, however mentally, the child is in for one hell of a ride. Taking psychedelics as an adult changes people all the time because of how deeply profound an experience like that can be. Children are in a long process of understanding and comprehending the world around them and how everything works in life, etc. If they are given a psychedelic, their outlook on life will be forever changed before they even get to complete their regular outlook on life. Now who knows, it could change them for the better, but i feel like it would scare most kids shitless so idk really. WHO WANTS TO USE THEIR KIDS AS GUINEA PIGS??? jk jk of course
-
Agree 100% with what people have said. No mind altering chemicals (unless it is a serious medical issue, and no i dont mean "Timmy wont listen to me and doest what he wants, he needs ritalin" BS) should be introduced into a developing brain. Once the brain is developed, there is almost zero risk of permanent damage to the wiring and chemical balance of the brain....AS LONG AS they are used in very disciplined and spaced out sessions. Most people dont do that part, myself included, but still, if you choose to take that path of having regularly, wait for the brain to fully develope.
S
-
when you look at the use of psychedelics in societies where it's accepted/used in social context (such as african tribes),
you'll note that the earliest use of psychedelic isn't given during the childhood but during the ritual that marks the passing from childhood into adulthood,
since there is no knowledge about the use of psychedelics in children,
and the "oldest" knowledge" that we have regarding the use of such molecules in young persons is from such tribes -
I would argue that giving it to children is a bad idea and that the first dose shouldn't be given before the "rite of passage".
-
the first dose shouldn't be given before the "rite of passage".
Yes, rite of passage is the time..
-
I feel like children shouldn't... Their brains are still developing- So that's a no go for any drug, plus they should probably get a better hold on their life before trying it. I know that might sound a bit off, but I don't have another way to phrase it...Lets try it this way- I don't want a child to experience an awesome burst of color, then start to think that life is boring.
Or have a mental melt down.
You know, either one. ;D
-
i read a report (from the 80s i think) about a little kid (maybe 8) eating up her uncles stash.
Long story short: she really freaked out, got scared and nearly got hurt. an overwhelming fear of everything...
...and honestly im not surprised. Seeing bugs crawling all over and under my skin on acid still freaks me out! an experience like that would really fuck up a kid!
-
I recall reading somewhere that they had a study where they discovered that the use of THC before the age of 18 actually does have a measurable, negative impact on brain development. I would think that psychedelics would probably have a much greater impact, not to mention as mentioned several times above the whole perspective thing.
IMHO, when they do legalize drugs I would definitely be in favor of it not being allowed under 18, but only in conjunction with an overhauled drug education program that more accurately describes and better informs about in general the effects of drugs on your body. I remember during my health classes, both in middle and high school, that they did not actually teach you very much about ANY of the drugs except that they are bad (mkay?), and it was not until I began doing a lot of research on chems myself that I realized just how biased and uninformed the classes are. Frankly, that kind of pissed me off. Even in college, some of my friends in psychology classes have described to me the lectures on drugs, and while they are slightly more informative than in public school, they are still woefully lacking in solid information and are still very biased against them.
Before we can think about legalizing drugs for use by anyone, ESPECIALLY children, we might want to first make sure that people are given easy, unrestricted, and as unbiased as possible access to information about chems.
Got a little off topic there I think. Anything involving the backwardness of the educational/political systems tends to get me rather irritated. To return to the original question, I do not think drugs are good for anyone who has not fully developed physically, as we do not yet know the potential effects. We need a lot more information before we can make a good, solid decision.
-
huh, I'd like to know what that study was that found the use of THC before 18 caused irreversible damage.
Fuck it, I've been smoking pot since I was 13. Mushrooms at 15, LSD and MDMa at 16. Didn't start smoking regularly til about 15-16. it's probably too early to tell but I'm rockin' a 3.5 GPA at a decent college w/out much trouble, don't have trouble focusing, etc. When I wake up every morning I have never felt foggy, burned out, or any of that shit. I think some people are more prone to developing the notorious and often misused 'permafried' state.
However, I definitely wished I would've waited until I was at least 16 to start using any drugs. To me, it is common sense to not allow children (under 14) to use any sort of drug. I really do not see the point or the benefit, why not wait a few years til the effects can actually be appreciated. I don't think they'll gain anything, and this is a shot in the dark but I think children would be a lot more prone to developing Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, which could fuck any child up mentally for a while, if not permanently.
-
I will try to track it down for you and post it here. It was not a major impact, but it was large enough to be measured. I do not recall how extensive the tests were other than basic IQ tests, or which IQ tests were used.
Thing is, THC is generally regarded (as far as I know) as being one of if not the softest drug out there. The fact that it has an impact at all may indicate that more intense drugs such as psychedelics could have an even more significant impact. Plus, I know several heavy users that have definite issues, although their level of competence has never exactly been incredibly high. And of course as you said, everyone reacts differently to chems, some people may have an inherently higher risk of negative long term effects from THC use than others.
Why do you wish you would have waited? It sounds like you are doing alright academically, better than me in fact.
-
There was another study that showed that study was actually inconclusive for some reason. Looks like we need more studies.
-
I will try to track it down for you and post it here. It was not a major impact, but it was large enough to be measured. I do not recall how extensive the tests were other than basic IQ tests, or which IQ tests were used.
Thing is, THC is generally regarded (as far as I know) as being one of if not the softest drug out there. The fact that it has an impact at all may indicate that more intense drugs such as psychedelics could have an even more significant impact. Plus, I know several heavy users that have definite issues, although their level of competence has never exactly been incredibly high. And of course as you said, everyone reacts differently to chems, some people may have an inherently higher risk of negative long term effects from THC use than others.
Why do you wish you would have waited? It sounds like you are doing alright academically, better than me in fact.
I guess that it's just because there is so much still unknown about the effects of drugs at a young age when your brain is not fully developed. So I wish I would've waited til I knew my brain most mostly developed and I was doing the least amount of damage developing-wise. Oh well, I guess time will tell whether my mind was permanently damaged or not
-
Yes, rite of passage is the time..
QFT
At this age, I think they should be guided by an experienced shaman, too
Only if you are 40 or older, you should be able to take the first trip on your own :P
Anyways, make sure they take only substances that don't mess with the brain chemistry
nicotine/MDMA = bad
shrooms/DMT/cactus = good
Define children, Define psychedelic drugs.
Children = Humans before their adolescense
Psychedelic drugs = substances that alter your perception making you see "more of what is there" "in a different way" "it's always been there, i just never noticed it" without impairing your discernment/self awareness
examples: LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybine Shrooms, DMT
-
Brain isn't "fully developed" until around 25. That is when the part that analyzes risk is more hardwired. I would postulate the brain not being fully developed is why drugs have the most cognitive altering benefits. When the brain is fully developed it is essentially become hardwired, for the most part at that point who you are changes very little. Sure experiences and knowledge add to the formula that is you, but you will have a core that is difficult to change.
When drugs are taken prior to this stage I like to think people have the greatest philosophical gains. Memories and thoughts are not just electrical impulses they are chemical as well. When you have thoughts that lead to conviction they are strong when under the influence because a strong chemical state ingrains it. Kinda why time seems to go slower when someone is in a life or death situation, they are flooded with chemicals and in a flight or fight response your body's senses become more aware, all these above normal levels of chemicals and sensory perception add more to the memory making it appear as if time was slowed when it was just a heightened state of awareness.
When teens are going through puberty their chemical balance is being defined and drugs during this time will alter it (no evidence that it is permanent but it makes sense to me, same as how the chemical state of the mother in the womb will not only affect the development of the baby but also the dna switches that are still happening which we all know are pretty permanent)
tl;dr Brain fully develops around 25, philosophical ideas that occur before then especially on drugs become more ingrained, #opinion the optimum stage for personal development is after puberty and before 25.
This isn't to say you don't benefit after that age (hell or even before), just myself postulating a maximum benefit time frame.
One note; doctors prescribe drugs to children willy-nilly nowadays. If a child has cluster headaches... I wouldn't have a problem treating them with mushrooms. I'd find a way to make it easier such as capsule form, taken before bed, and make the transition as easy as possible.
-
Brain isn't "fully developed" until around 25. That is when the part that analyzes risk is more hardwired. I would postulate the brain not being fully developed is why drugs have the most cognitive altering benefits. When the brain is fully developed it is essentially become hardwired, for the most part at that point who you are changes very little. Sure experiences and knowledge add to the formula that is you, but you will have a core that is difficult to change.
What you are referring to is neuroplasticity.
As far as the issue being discussed, I started taking amphetamines at 8, and the prolonged usage has, without a doubt, caused damage.(whether permanent or semi-permanent remains to be seen)
However I started taking psychadelics at 15, DMT specifically. I took it fairly often, maybe 20-30 trips per month, for about a year. No negative short/long term effects were noticed.
-
There was another study that showed that study was actually inconclusive for some reason. Looks like we need more studies.
More studies are (almost) always good. I cannot figure out where that article went, but there will probably be more studies done soon anyways. If the US govt is serious about legalizing and taxing weed, there will probably be tons of federally and privately funded studies.
Brain isn't "fully developed" until around 25. That is when the part that analyzes risk is more hardwired. I would postulate the brain not being fully developed is why drugs have the most cognitive altering benefits. When the brain is fully developed it is essentially become hardwired, for the most part at that point who you are changes very little. Sure experiences and knowledge add to the formula that is you, but you will have a core that is difficult to change.
What you are referring to is neuroplasticity.
As far as the issue being discussed, I started taking amphetamines at 8, and the prolonged usage has, without a doubt, caused damage.(whether permanent or semi-permanent remains to be seen)
However I started taking psychadelics at 15, DMT specifically. I took it fairly often, maybe 20-30 trips per month, for about a year. No negative short/long term effects were noticed.
Do you think psychedelics could have a sort of regressive effect when it comes to neuroplasticity? As in increasing its flexibility? Could low doses possibly have a use in treating some of the mental disorders associated with old age?
-
Very interesting perspective, definitely something to think about...
Did you know that fluoride which is in our water here in America but not in Europe destroys our pineal gland. Studies have found that "calcified parts of the pineal gland (hydroxyapatite crystals) contain the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body" (up to 21,000 ppm F) (link to this article: http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland).
Our pineal gland is our third eye and gives us the ability to see beneath and beyond the surface. Psychedellics like DMT awaken our third eye so you might be unto something when you say that psychedelics can enhance learning for children, even though the conventional thinking is that a child's brain is still developing so drugs should not be consumed during this vital and vulnerable stage........but the reality might be that it will result in stimulating certain neurotransmitters and in helping rewire the brain in a way that enhances learning.
-
I feel like children shouldn't... Their brains are still developing- So that's a no go for any drug, plus they should probably get a better hold on their life before trying it. I know that might sound a bit off, but I don't have another way to phrase it...Lets try it this way- I don't want a child to experience an awesome burst of color, then start to think that life is boring.
Or have a mental melt down.
You know, either one. ;D
That is a good point yes as life when you are a child is colorful and full of wonder and is when you are a teenager that you start to think in more abstract and complex ways and when you start to lose your innocence so why make that process arrive sooner but on the other hand is when you are under 10 years old that your brain has the most capacity to absorb different kinds of skills and information, when the brains is at its most active and undergoing a prunning process and this window of opportunity is not truly used to its fullest potential as our educational system just seems to discourage creativity and encourage the learning of propaganda bc what we learn is what the government decides will be in the curriculum so we learn the version of things that they want us to belief, the media reports and investigative journalism is dead bc is similar to our educational system that is owned by our government/big corporations and bankers. Basically Follow the money and that is who is controlling our food, economy, education, media to serve the interest of a select group of people and they want us dumb, gullible and easy to control and they want less of us around (control population).
But your points are totally valid :) and I have not made up my mind either way on this proposal made by OP.
But is definitely an interesting topic to talk about and explore.
-
My only request is that the findings of this study be replicated at least 5 or 6 more times and that during the study very light dosages are used as light as possible; in order for the results to be significant the results don't have to be dramatic, a small measurable change can be statistically significant. Also the parents need to be present during experiment and consent ofcourse.
Great discussion.
-
you'll note that the earliest use of psychedelic isn't given during the childhood but during the ritual that marks the passing from childhood into adulthood,
Among the mazatec indians, mushrooms are not given to children as part of rituals marking the passing of the child into adulthood, but for the general purpose of guidance and resolving problems, according to the book I cited above. It says that it is "common" for children to take psychedelic mushrooms with their families.
since there is no knowledge about the use of psychedelics in children,
Actually, there were several experiments in which LSD was administered to children to study the effects of LSD in the treatment of autism and schizophrenia. Among the favourable reported behavioral signs were that children showed no serious side-effects.
-
Here's a study in which schizophrenic/autistic children were given a DAILY dosage of LSD (150 micograms) for several months:
"In the children's unit of Creedmore State Hospital with a resident population of 450 patients, ages 4 to 15, we have investigated the responses of some of these children to lysergic acid and related drugs in the psychiatric, psychological and biochemical areas. Two groups of boys receiving daily LSD, UML (which is a methylated derivative of LSD) or psilocybin ... at first the medication was given weekly but was eventually given daily for periods of up to several months. Dosages remain constant throughout, LSD 150 mcg. (which is a standard for an adult trip), psilocybin 20 mg. daily or UML 12 mg. daily, all given in two divided doses. The average duration of treatment was 2 to 3 months."
In several cases at least with these children, this was carried on for several years daily.
They all "responded, became more straightforward."
Here are some other studies dealing with the effects of LSD on mentally ill children:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/lsd.html
-
Here's a study in which schizophrenic/autistic children were given a DAILY dosage of LSD (150 micograms) for several months:
"In the children's unit of Creedmore State Hospital with a resident population of 450 patients, ages 4 to 15, we have investigated the responses of some of these children to lysergic acid and related drugs in the psychiatric, psychological and biochemical areas. Two groups of boys receiving daily LSD, UML (which is a methylated derivative of LSD) or psilocybin ... at first the medication was given weekly but was eventually given daily for periods of up to several months. Dosages remain constant throughout, LSD 150 mcg. (which is a standard for an adult trip), psilocybin 20 mg. daily or UML 12 mg. daily, all given in two divided doses. The average duration of treatment was 2 to 3 months."
In several cases at least with these children, this was carried on for several years daily.
They all "responded, became more straightforward."
Here are some other studies dealing with the effects of LSD on mentally ill children:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/lsd.html
i was talking about this with someone a few days ago. she works with autistic children and she told me that some of them don't seem to have an ego. Like a permanent ego death experience. Drooling, looking at the walls. no response to any noise or spoken words, to light, nothing. i can imagine that lsd could really help these people. Maybe the ego shattering effect could also create an ego?
-
Maybe the ego shattering effect could also create an ego?
...perhaps the pattern of denial and withdrawal is an "ego pattern", too, so it could be shattered by the big psychedelic laundry, as well :)
[...]
daily LSD, UML (which is a methylated derivative of LSD) or psilocybin
[...]
They all "responded, became more straightforward."
[...]
Once more, this hints to me that
a) LSD/Psilocybin are essentially beneficial, and don't actually mess up the brain, not nearly as much as modern psychiatric drugs do (yes, those should be actually called RCs !)
b) Mental Illness is almost universally caused by oppression (since psychedelics have a good potential of removing oppression)
Would be interesting to know if they got additional therapeutic intervention or not
http://www.neurodiversity.com/lsd.html
Brilliant articles on this websit !! ...makes good interesting reads....
Just be careful with one other page they link to: quackwatch.org is another matrix reinforcement campaign, just like esowatch. Nice try there ;)
-
Start when you're ready. Everyone is ready as a different time. I took LSD on my 17th birthday and haven't looked back. Well, I have, but only in positive light. :)
-
Hell no.
I couldn't imagine what psychedelics would do to a child's developing brain if they can cause psychosis in adults with fully developed brains.
-
At first glance, one might find the answer to this question to be self-evident....
...and, one would be correct. Hells no, people! What, you want to wait for a study to find out if LSD fucks up your kid's brain? Whose kids are they going to do the study on?
Consenting adults can do whatever they want to do, as far as I'm concerned. I'm for legalized drugs and gay marriage, all day long. But, children are not grounds for experimentation. Jesus, my kid's 13, and she's fucked up enough *without* the drugs!
Cheers.
-
Hell no.
I couldn't imagine what psychedelics would do to a child's developing brain if they can cause psychosis in adults with fully developed brains.
They can cause psychosis in those who cling very much to their concept of the world, those with strong self-delusions.
If these delusions are shattered by psychedelics, yes they do freak out.
Children usually don't have that, so it would actually be SAFER for children !
The question is not so much whether it is safe for children (it is!), but whether it's helpful!
However the potential for the healing they can provide is great in adults who have had "a life"- a strong tool with a strong potential for healing but also dangerous, if applied with the wrong attitude.
-
Hell no.
I couldn't imagine what psychedelics would do to a child's developing brain if they can cause psychosis in adults with fully developed brains.
They can cause psychosis in those who cling very much to their concept of the world, those with strong self-delusions.
If these delusions are shattered by psychedelics, yes they do freak out.
Children usually don't have that, so it would actually be SAFER for children !
The question is not so much whether it is safe for children (it is!), but whether it's helpful!
However the potential for the healing they can provide is great in adults who have had "a life"- a strong tool with a strong potential for healing but also dangerous, if applied with the wrong attitude.
This is a good point. If children were given them they would likely never develop those delusions so there would none to shatter. I also feel that that is the purpose of psychedelics -- to increase perspective, morality, and contentedness with existence. So, the kids wouldn't NEED to do any of that yet. Live your childhood in ignorance and once you grow up take them and live in competence, wisdom, and bliss. Whatever you do, don't live your whole life ignorant.
I am also somewhat of the opinion that psychedelics should not be overused, but "overuse" is a hard thing to define and I myself am often guilty of using them purely for recreational purposes as well as "spiritual." (Don't like the word, but I don't know what else to use)
-
No.
Children should not be allowed to take drugs. I can't believe this is even being seriously debated. :-\
-
drugs
"Drugs" as a whole is not the topic of this subject- here we are talking about classic psychedelics only. This is exactly the way mainstream media treats this topic. They lump all brain actives together as "drugs" and brandmark them with "illegal" "addictive" "antisocial" and whatever. Funnily when big pharma has a say, they are suddenly called "necessary medication" and it suddenly doesn't matter what damage they do to their brain, even if it's children you are talking about. ha!
Adderall for children with "ADHD" diagnosis to make them more easy to handle. "Drugs" ?
Neuroleptics are given with ease to children, on a daily base, and they are basically RCs - this is as brain damaging as it can get. "Drugs" ?
There is a reason why they are trying to stigmatize psychedelics and it's doesn't go just back the 60es - it goes back to missionaries in Mexico and South America, the native shamans used psychedelics in their ceremonies as medicine, as in many other cultures over the world, and so-called "Christian" inquisitors banned taking those substances. Today's war on drugs is partially a witch hunt, too.
-
drugs
"Drugs" as a whole is not the topic of this subject- here we are talking about classic psychedelics only. This is exactly the way mainstream media treats this topic. They lump all brain actives together as "drugs" and brandmark them with "illegal" "addictive" "antisocial" and whatever. Funnily when big pharma has a say, they are suddenly called "necessary medication" and it suddenly doesn't matter what damage they do to their brain, even if it's children you are talking about. ha!
Adderall for children with "ADHD" diagnosis to make them more easy to handle. "Drugs" ?
Neuroleptics are given with ease to children, on a daily base, and they are basically RCs - this is as brain damaging as it can get. "Drugs" ?
There is a reason why they are trying to stigmatize psychedelics and it's doesn't go just back the 60es - it goes back to missionaries in Mexico and South America, the native shamans used psychedelics in their ceremonies as medicine, as in many other cultures over the world, and so-called "Christian" inquisitors banned taking those substances. Today's war on drugs is partially a witch hunt, too.
QFT. +1
-
no, children should definitely not do psychedelic drugs! it's more likely to send them deeper into their fantasies than to help them better understand reality. i know from experience. children really shouldn't do any drugs unless they absolutely need them.
-
Is OP completely retarded? Are we fucking serious here? You gotta be kidding me...
-
I think parents should be the ultimate arbiters of how to raise/discipline their children. A young child mgiht be introduced to small doses of natural and harmless psychedelics, like mushrooms, peyote or San Pedro cactus, or even a light concoction of ayahuasca, in order to acclimatize them to the transpersonal experience, as long as it is strictly regulated by a responsible parent. Yes, do not snicker, you bozos, I said RESPONSIBLE parent. One who looks out for the wellbeing of their loved ones, and does not respond to hysterical propaganda.
Such a parent would not permit his or her child to be brainwashed by the education system, either, especially not in the bad old US. Children are turned into mindless consumerist fucked up zombies by school; how is that any better than participating in mind-expanding experiences courtesy of the universe's gifts of these wonderful plants and fungi?
goblin
-
I think parents should be the ultimate arbiters of how to raise/discipline their children. A young child mgiht be introduced to small doses of natural and harmless psychedelics, like mushrooms, peyote or San Pedro cactus, or even a light concoction of ayahuasca, in order to acclimatize them to the transpersonal experience, as long as it is strictly regulated by a responsible parent. Yes, do not snicker, you bozos, I said RESPONSIBLE parent. One who looks out for the wellbeing of their loved ones, and does not respond to hysterical propaganda.
Such a parent would not permit his or her child to be brainwashed by the education system, either, especially not in the bad old US. Children are turned into mindless consumerist fucked up zombies by school; how is that any better than participating in mind-expanding experiences courtesy of the universe's gifts of these wonderful plants and fungi?
goblin
Yep, I agree that the parents should be looking out for their kids and actively parenting. So to answer OP's question, yes, children should be allowed to ingest psychodelics, if their parents approve and monitor and guide them. However, that said.. I wouldn't give them to my kids. At such a young age, I feel that giving them knowledge is more important than anything. They should be able to make sense of the experience before they embark on it (or at least as much as any of us can ;) ).
As much as I disagree with how many parents raise their children (or don't), every parent deserves to do things their way -- non-violently of course.
-
No, absolutely not!
A child's brain is still developing for a start, second of all they can't make an educated decision on exactly what they are doing which is a wrong thing to do to anyone let alone an innocent child.
Last but not least, psychedelics are for giving adults a deeper understanding of the world they already understand, where as children are still figuring out the very basics of what it means to live in a society and what their place in that is, adding psychedelics to an already fragile and easily malleable mind is as criminal as religious indoctrination into a cult.
A person needs to come to these things of their own volition and when they are ready and not when some pseudo-spiritual cuntbag of an adult thinks it's okay to force their will on an unsuspecting child.
There is one place, and one place only, where this is acceptable, and that is in hospital giving them hospital grade ketamine for procedures that would otherwise require an anaesthetist and an operating theatre to be booked, and only under extreme circumstances. But then that's the same with morphine or any other powerful drug that should be kept out of reach of children.
Should children be able to smoke cigarettes? Should they be able to drink alcohol? Use your fucking brain you half witted fuck!
There is a difference between "should children be ALLOWED to take them?" and "should children take them?" I am of the opinion that banning anything does not solve the root problem, but I am also of the opinion that children should not take psychedelic drugs... so it's contradictory. To give the free, to not give the freedom.... I also assumed that it was the child who wanted to take it, which I now realize is highly unlikely. Most children are just pure happiness, they really don't need drugs whatsoever. Anyway, just saying that the answer depends on how you frame the question.
-
My stringent belief is that once a person gets to a point of maturity where they can feasibly, reasonably, and consciously make decisions independently, then anything within reason, should be allowed. Now obviously this is very objective in which many variables can influence it, but the over-arching point is if you understand the pros and cons of taking said substance with responsibility and purpose, why not?
Children however, are a completely different ballgame. I'm all for the use of psychotropic compounds to expand ones consciousness and the human experience, or attempting to view existence from different perspectives, but in order for that to be achieved one must have already set that goal. I highly doubt most children have even the most basic knowledge of psychedelics, let alone their purpose in past civilizations and society, and how they can be used responsibly. Not only that but as many have said before, a child's mind is constantly growing and evolving. Introducing a highly potent psychedelic during that process to an unprepared mind, would just be asinine. I'm completely in agreement that most drugs, especially psychedelics, have properties which heal and evolve the human consciousness in profound ways, but when used irresponsibly can also have very damaging effects and/or experiences. Messing with reality to someone who has yet to even begin to understand what reality is, is really taking shots in the dark.
Childhood is something experienced only once. I'm sure all of us have fond memories of our own youth. Now imagine you were introduced to psychedelics at an early age? How would all of that change for you? How would the way you experience your childhood and life change? What do children have to gain from psychedelics? The innocence of a child is a very fragile matter, and once that is lost then true childhood is essentially over.
It's a very complex subject with little room to debate honestly. Psychedelics should be used only by those with purpose, understanding, and responsibility, or at the very least some maturity.
To end with a popular cliche; there is a time and place for everything.
-
Myron and Gary talk about the work they were doing with autistic and schizophrenic children when LSD was made illegal.
http://matrixmasters.net/archive/MyronStolaroff/232-MyronGarySalon2004.mp3
Exactly! To say nothing of the inconvenient fact that children in this country are, more than half of'em, on DRUGS anyway. These fucking mad scientist psychiatrists are making the drugs flow like a river, man, on children. They have somehow convinced the idiotic parents that their kids are ABNORMAL if they seem a little hyper, a little distracted, a little rebellious. Who wasn't that way when they were kids? They are giving everything from ritalin to who knows what else to kids as young as eight, I believe, and all to line the pockets of big pharmas. No noble causes here.
Jezuz, rambaski, moonflower: get with the program and open your eyes, if you want to keep children safe, look to the schools, that's where they are getting zombied, man!
goblin
-
Myron and Gary talk about the work they were doing with autistic and schizophrenic children when LSD was made illegal.
http://matrixmasters.net/archive/MyronStolaroff/232-MyronGarySalon2004.mp3
Exactly! To say nothing of the inconvenient fact that children in this country are, more than half of'em, on DRUGS anyway. These fucking mad scientist psychiatrists are making the drugs flow like a river, man, on children. They have somehow convinced the idiotic parents that their kids are ABNORMAL if they seem a little hyper, a little distracted, a little rebellious. Who wasn't that way when they were kids? They are giving everything from ritalin to who knows what else to kids as young as eight, I believe, and all to line the pockets of big pharmas. No noble causes here.
Jezuz, rambaski, moonflower: get with the program and open your eyes, if you want to keep children safe, look to the schools, that's where they are getting zombied, man!
goblin
Very good point my friend. But what would we use psychedelics in children for exactly? Generally at that age, a very small minority are suffering from any type of mental "disorder", and only begin to show signs of symptoms or predispositions at a later age. I absolutely agree with you, but one must consider the realistic scenarios of such a psychedelic being put to work. I would imagine if this concept were generally accepted, parents aren't going to be giving their children 100 mics of some L that a deadhead synthed in his trailer. The pharmaceutical companies would have to get involved in this one way or another.
@moon unit - I was more under the impression that the OP was referring to simply accepted psychedelic use in children and/or overall in society, vs real-world, controlled environments where dosages, set/setting, etc, are all completely monitored. Like I said before, there is no doubt in my mind that psychedelics are extremely viable for a variety of mental conditions, under the right circumstances.
I guess I was imagining Ma and Pa giving little Johnny a tab of some dancing bears to alleviate his anxiety before he goes to school lol.
-
Good info, moon unit. +1
-
I recall reading somewhere that they had a study where they discovered that the use of THC before the age of 18 actually does have a measurable, negative impact on brain development. I would think that psychedelics would probably have a much greater impact, not to mention as mentioned several times above the whole perspective thing.
IMHO, when they do legalize drugs I would definitely be in favor of it not being allowed under 18, but only in conjunction with an overhauled drug education program that more accurately describes and better informs about in general the effects of drugs on your body. I remember during my health classes, both in middle and high school, that they did not actually teach you very much about ANY of the drugs except that they are bad (mkay?), and it was not until I began doing a lot of research on chems myself that I realized just how biased and uninformed the classes are. Frankly, that kind of pissed me off. Even in college, some of my friends in psychology classes have described to me the lectures on drugs, and while they are slightly more informative than in public school, they are still woefully lacking in solid information and are still very biased against them.
Before we can think about legalizing drugs for use by anyone, ESPECIALLY children, we might want to first make sure that people are given easy, unrestricted, and as unbiased as possible access to information about chems.
Got a little off topic there I think. Anything involving the backwardness of the educational/political systems tends to get me rather irritated. To return to the original question, I do not think drugs are good for anyone who has not fully developed physically, as we do not yet know the potential effects. We need a lot more information before we can make a good, solid decision.
I recall a similar (or perhaps the same) article in regards to neural development and juvenile neurons, maybe about 2-3 years ago at the most. It was speaking in reference to THC, which does have a negative impact on neurons in people under about 22-24 years of age. However, after that point, which is when most of the neural circuitry involved in interconnecting different brain areas has been established (i.e., one has learned to "multitask" as the magazine Scientific American had put it), the metabolic effects of THC were NOT detrimental to the brain. The researchers did not have an understanding of why this is.
Today (13 March 2013) I found an article on the Google News page warning of the dangers of giving children psychotropic drugs, such as Zoloft, Paxil & other SSRI's, and probably MAO inhibitors as the effects of those chemicals was unpredictable and potentially dangerous to developing brains. I think Raphael5 spoke correctly that people in Africa can take these compounds at the point in life where they enter manhood (or womanhood) - please forgive me if I mis-quoted you or credited the wrong person - it is at the early part of this thread. I also agree that these types of modern psychedelics (SSRI's, MAOI's) should only be given to juveniles with some type of extreme mental issues, not some parent's lack of proper raising of their child & giving them Ridalin.
I confess I have not read all the posts in this thread before I commented, but I do feel very strong about this issue, as do many others it seems.
-
Aside from the fact a child's brain is still developing, they are unable to make an educated decision no matter how well you try to explain to them what they are and how they work, let alone what horrific consequences would happen when they actually took them unprepared for the concept of altered states let alone what they will do.
This could apply to a good majority of the adults in the world too.
A child's brain is full of different neuropathways, and when it's developing as the brain develops it destroys and rewires itself numerous times, and if you introduce something into that that would interrupt that process could be catastrophic.
There is a reason all cultures have an age of consent into adulthood, do you think children should be allowed to have sex too?
Wake up dude there's freedom and then there's parental guidance and ethics. A parents responsibility (since the governments don't do it) is give them a thorough education on the subject so that they can then decide for themselves if they want to take drugs or not.
There's a difference between a father giving his son a shandy to make him feel big and grown up, and another altogether than dropping acid and listening to Hendrix!
I'm just trying to present that children, like adults, are highly variant. I would go so far as to say that some children grasp things better than many adults do. Despite this, as you say they have got a developing brain and should not be taking anything mind-altering.
You are generalizing too much to say that children are unable to make decisions -- many are not, but many are -- and it obviously depends on age very much. When it comes to children I feel that we should give them more responsibility & freedom that we do. I know that when I was 9 or 12, I would get pissed off whenever adults acted like they were automatically smarter or knew better just because they were older. This kind of arrogance doesn't translate well onto the child nor help them learn or become responsible. We never even give them a chance to prove themselves responsible -- or irresponsible for that matter, it is assumed.
Of course I don't think that children should be having sex. But they shouldn't have their heads shoved into the sand regarding the subject. Most people can't even trust their kids to know things, so how can we trust them to educate their children? I really think that a good majority of parents absolutely fail their children -- but the thing is, if the kid starts showing an initiative to raise himself, to grow up one way or the other, that is stopped because it is looked at as a coup d'état by the parents or whoever. No one raises their children to be self-reliant and especially not to think for themselves -- else they might not grow up the way the selfish parent wants them too. I'm just saying -- let your children grow up themselves, or else they won't at all. Instead of making the child "feel" big by letting him drink the shandy, let him actually make some decisions on his own, and hint: you can still be in control if he makes the wrong decision, it's just about allowing him to practice decision-making at all.
Back on the subject: kids should never taking mind-altering substances, or fuck each other. IMO, they should also never watch TV, as that warps a child's mind more than anything -- except maybe being raised to believe the religious lies that their parents do. You can't trust parents to "parent" children, in today's world, all they do is try to "program" them.
When I said "solve the root problem" in my last post, I meant the fucking psychotic parent who is giving his god damn kid acid in the first place . Banning something, especially in children, makes them want to do it. If you simply discourage it's use -- especially if you actually tell them what you told me, "that your brain is still developing and if you decide to take it, it should definitely be later when it's done," rather than, "no, it's banned."
Wake up dude there's freedom and then there's parental guidance and ethics.
It would seem as if all parental guidance is nowadays is taking away a children's freedom. This is a generalized statement, so I hate saying it, but it applies on a large scale.
Long story short -- parents fail their children -- we blame the child. We need better parents across the board.