> I hate people like you. Trying to rationalize the use of mind-altering drugs.
Why do you hate me and why do you think I was "trying" instead of providing solid arguments?
> "Cannabis" is a propaganda term, too.
You're delusional, Cannabis is an English term, a botanic name. Botanic names in English derive from ancient Greek and Latin. In this case, the name "cannabis" for this plant is found in a book by Dioscorides. Google Vienna Dioscorides.
Here's one page from Vienna Dioscorides:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Cannabissativadior.jpg
It shows the name of the plant in many languages.
So, no, Cannabis is not a propaganda term. On the other side, MARIJUANA is. It became popular in 1930+ media propaganda to describe a "new drug", therefore a new danger.
> Shouting something doesn't make it any less false.
Assuming it is false. Provide reasoning.
> Please follow your own advice.
I'm trying to the best I can. If you think there was misinformation in my post, why not reveal it, instead of leaving only those "hints", which serve more to shun me rather to defeat my words in an argument. A shunner, then, you are.
> Personal smokers ingest more THC than what doctors would give out to there patients who use it.
False because patients usually are chronic users that make heavy use of the drug. (medical marijuana patients suffer from a lot of pain usually)
They above average use, so that which you said can't possibly be true. Moreover, THC is not dangerous, so you lack an argument.
> LSD and cannabis are both psychedelics.
True. Do you know what a psychedelic is? LSD is a phantasticum, to use a Lewin term. But what does this mean for our health? Absolutely nothing. The term is not related to the possible physical and mental damage a drug may cause.
> What I've read that psychedelics effect a very ancient part of the brain called the reptile brain.
Citation? Where did you read that LSD affects this particular part of the brain? The link you provided in >>20 doesn't make any mention of that, so you'll have to provide a new link for us to know WHERE you read what you read, and so that we can read the statement in its fullness. Also, why is it wrong for a drug to affect a part of your brain? You think the drugs you take from the doctor do not do this? You think eating food doesn't affect parts of your brain? This is not an argument against psychedelics.
Something else; this 'reptilian brain', if you read the link you provided, is one of the parts of a model to explain the brain a PROPOSED THEORY. It is not even proven that these things are true. To say that Cannabis affHofmannects the reptilian brain, you must surely mean that it affects the organs the reptilian brain describes; and not advocating MacLeans theory. These parts are the brain stem and the cerebellum. I have also read that it is thought the brain stem is affected by LSD. (I do not know about psychedelics in general) But it's nothing certain; and even if it were, I explained why it doesn't matter.
The only problem of LSD is ignorance. If you're ignorant, LSD may harm you. LSD provides mental flexibility; like all things flexible, it should be operated by experts. If you want to have experiences with LSD, you should also have a goal, and not do this recreationally. LSD is NOT a recreational drug. I would go as far as to say that the danger lies exactly there, without saying that you can't have a good time with LSD though. LSD has been used for psychology studies mainly, with unstable success; Hofmann in his book MPC (mentioned in other posts), explains the factors which were not considered, which rendered the studies useless because their results were unscientific.
