Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Nolle Prosequi - A Blawg For Heads


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#21 dead_diver

dead_diver

    Stoned Since '76

  • OG VIP
  • 3,532 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 January 2017 - 10:51 AM

Carfentanyl is going to be a nightmare. That garbage is durt cheap from china. With an astronomical profit margin there is no way anyone will be able to stop people dealing it.
  • Sidestreet likes this

#22 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 8,476 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 30 January 2017 - 05:54 AM

...not only that but it's gotta be pretty easy to smuggle seeing how it's so potent that "just a few granules the size of grains of table salt can be lethal."

 

It sounds like addicts will climb over each other to get it, but will many dealers want to mess with it?  Seems like it's too easy to kill people by putting it into the product.  Overdose deaths are common right now, but it looks like people die quickly enough to attract a lot of attention when carfentanyl is involved.

 

I am seeing a couple of recent news stories about the increasing prevalence of the drug...

 

As a side-note, I'm curious about how first-responders and the media define "overdose."  I'm starting to wonder whether every user they find nodding off is labeled an overdose when their life is not necessarily at risk. 


Edited by Sidestreet, 30 January 2017 - 06:02 AM.


#23 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 4,034 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 January 2017 - 10:53 AM

^What worries me about OD deaths now surpassing auto accident deaths,

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=14554903

 

is that the solution according to Trump, et all, is the anti- overdose medicine Narcan (naloxone). 

http://www.nbcdfw.co...-384288631.html

http://www.vocativ.c...-overdose-drug/

http://newjersey.new...ounty-1.8730369

It just isnt that simple.  Ahh, if only it were...

 

Complex issues call for complex solutions.  The real solution would be psychedelic /therapy retreats IRL, that actually work, effectively saving lives & preventing train -wrecks by the tens of thousands in one fail swoop.  But who'd have the balls to push that giant boulder up the mountain?  MAPS. 

 

Psilocybin Studies: In Progress

Psilocybin Studies: Completed


Edited by riseabovethought, 04 February 2017 - 12:35 PM.

  • Sidestreet and TVCasualty like this

#24 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 12,941 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:35 PM

Lots to learn from this man's experience and analysis.

 

Barrett Brown Interview: Journalist IMPRISONED For Exposing Truth

 

 

[Direct Link]


  • Sidestreet likes this

#25 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 8,476 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 02 February 2017 - 05:01 AM

There's a lot of good discussion going on in that video.

 

As to his talk of "sentencing enhancement": he notes that, though he was convicted of a lesser crime than what he was originally charged with, the judge was able to use facts related to the original charge to enhance his sentence.  Judges have a lot of discretion in sentencing, and there is a whole system of enhancements and mitigating factors that can be used to justify a sentence, none of which have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Entering a guilty plea won't necessarily reduce your sentence at all.  The judge will look at all of the facts of the case, criminal history, and your whole life to make a sentencing decision.  The charge itself is only one factor.  When Al Capone was sentenced on charges of tax evasion, he was being punished for far more than his financial crimes.

 

Entering a plea will often limit the maximum sentence, though.  Also, I'm sure some judges will sentence more heavily if you exercise your right to a trial, even though they are not allowed to say that's what they're doing.


Edited by Sidestreet, 02 February 2017 - 05:08 AM.


#26 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 4,034 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 04 February 2017 - 12:38 PM

Here's the latest on battling the OD death spike of late, while more people are addicted to pain killers than ever before, and rising.

And with stronger opioids more available than ever.  Keep in mind, officials are all betting the house on one tactic - the anti-OD medicine naloxone.

So, in the spirit of business, its cost has skyrocketed to $4500 for one epi-pen, making it mostly out of reach for all but the richest dying addicts.

 

First came Martin Shkreli, the brash young pharmaceutical entrepreneur who raised the price for an AIDS treatment by 5,000 percent. Then, Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, who oversaw the price hike for its signature Epi-Pen to more than $600 for a twin-pack, though its active ingredient costs pennies by comparison.

Now a small Virginia company called Kaleo is joining their ranks. It makes an injector device that is suddenly in demand because of the nation’s epidemic use of opioids, a class of drugs that includes heavy painkillers and heroin.

Called Evzio, it is used to deliver naloxone, a life-saving antidote to overdoses of opioids. More than 33,000 people are believed to have died from such overdoses in 2015. And as demand for Kaleo’s product has grown, the privately held firm has raised its twin-pack price to $4,500, from $690 in 2014.

Founded by twin brothers Eric and Evan Edwards, 36, the company first sought to develop an Epi-Pen competitor, thanks to their own food allergies.

Now, they’ve taken that model and marketed it for a major public health crisis. It’s another auto-injector that delivers an inexpensive medicine.

One difference, though, is that Evzio talks users through the process as they inject naloxone. The company says the talking device is worth the price because it can guide anyone to jab an overdose victim correctly, leave the needle in for the right amount of time and potentially save his or her life.

According to Food and Drug Administration estimates, the Kaleo product, which won federal approval in 2014, accounted for nearly 20 percent of the naloxone dispensed through retail outlets between 2015 and 2016, and for nearly half of all naloxone products prescribed to patients between ages 40 and 64 — the group that comprises the bulk of naloxone users.

And the cost of generic, injectable naloxone — which has been on the market since 1971 — has been climbing. A 10-mililiter vial sold by one of the dominant vendors costs close to $150, more than double its price from even a few years ago, and far beyond the production costs of the naloxone chemical, researchers say. The other common injectable, which comes in a smaller but more potent dose, costs closer to $40, still about double its 2009 cost.

Still, experts say the device’s price surge is way out of step with production costs, and a needless drain on health-care resources.

“There’s absolutely nothing that warrants them charging what they’re charging,” said Leo Beletsky, an associate professor of law and health sciences at Northeastern University in Boston.

 

Kaleo, which is trying to blunt the pricing backlash and turn Evzio into the trusted brand, is dispensing its device for free — to cities, first responders and drug treatment programs. Such donations were also essential to the Epi-Pen’s business strategy.

The device has been invaluable to patients, said Eliza Wheeler of San Francisco’s Harm Reduction Coalition, a nonprofit that works to combat overdoses and has received donations of Evzio. But at $4,500 a package?

“I might have $10,000 to spend on naloxone for a year, to supply a whole city,” Wheeler said. “If I have 10 grand to spend, I certainly can’t buy two Evzios.”


Edited by riseabovethought, 04 February 2017 - 01:08 PM.

  • Sidestreet likes this

#27 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,841 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 February 2017 - 08:43 AM

One cannot go to a pharmacy and buy an injector after one has overdosed, and trying to race to a pharmacy to buy a kit for someone else who has just overdosed probably wouldn't work too well, either (especially if there is a line, and there always is).

 

So that leaves either buying the stuff in advance (not too likely) or hoping the Paramedic, EMT, or cop who shows up after someone calls 911 (assuming someone is around to do so) has a kit with them. If they do, and they use it, does that mean the patient is then on the hook for the price-gouge (not to mention the ambulance ride, and/or the subsequent criminal charges, depending on the situation)?

 

What a fucked situation, and a dangerous minefield we've been creating with this issue; you risk becoming addicted from recreational use (that almost no one sympathizes with, to put it mildly) OR from prescription use (not much sympathy for that, either thanks largely to the general public's breathtaking degree of ignorance regarding such matters), which then greatly increases the risk of a fatal overdose.

 

To kick the habit you go into debt to a rehab place or exchange the oxy/heroin/whatever leash for an even shorter, nastier leash (i.e. methadone) thereby making the State your dealer instead of some guy on the street (progress?).

 

Or you get busted, go through hell in jail and eventually get out only to end up in debt from criminal fines, probation, and court-ordered rehab (that most relapse from).

 

Or you OD and get saved by a shot of naloxone, but end up in debt for it (best case) or in debt for it and all the criminal stuff above.

 

Or you OD and just die.

 

And to think that some folks believe the Dark Ages ended a long time ago...

 

 

Is it time to dust-off and oil-up (but not necessarily sharpen) the guillotines again yet?


Edited by TVCasualty, 06 February 2017 - 08:45 AM.

  • Sidestreet and ChimX like this

#28 oneeye1

oneeye1

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 315 posts

Donator

Posted 17 February 2017 - 08:28 PM

Superb thread
Thanks

Do you yanks still have that 3 strikes and your out law
Now that seemed barbaric to say the least
  • Sidestreet likes this

#29 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 12,941 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:53 PM

In some states, I do believe.  

 

I always thought that since corporations got legal personhood, the three strikes laws should be applied to them first.  Hey, Mr. Corporation, you got caught once evading six million dollars in taxes, once poisoning a town's water, and that time you killed a bunch of your workers and tried to say you didn't.  I would say, "chop you into little pieces and give half to the town, two fifths to the workers' families, and a tenth to the tax payers."  And then I would say, "which corporate person is next on the docket?"


Edited by Alder Logs, 17 February 2017 - 09:54 PM.

  • Sidestreet, TVCasualty, Heirloom and 1 other like this

#30 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 8,476 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:37 AM

There was apparently some discussion about corporate three-strikes laws in around 2003:

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...ut-of-business/

 

http://www.citizenwo...strikes law.pdf

 

http://www.consumerw...aw-corporations

 

 

As for three strikes for actual people, the laws still exist both federally and in many states:

 

 

Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the "Three Strikes" statute provides for mandatory life imprisonment if a convicted felon: (1) has been convicted in federal court of a "serious violent felony"; and (2) has two or more previous convictions in federal or state courts, at least one of which is a "serious violent felony" (the other offense may be a serious drug offense). The sentencing enhancements in this law can have a significant impact on a criminal defendant. Read on to learn more about the law and how it works.

 

What Is A Serious Violent Felony?

 

The statute defines a serious violent felony to include:

  • Murder;
  • Manslaughter;
  • Sex offenses;
  • Kidnapping;
  • Robbery; and
  • Any offense punishable by 10 years or more which includes an element of the use of force or involves a significant risk of force

The statue also specifically excludes certain felonies such as unarmed robbery offenses or arsons which posed no threat to human life. However, in those cases, the burden is on the defendant to show that the crimes did not involve threats to use a dangerous weapon and that no threat of death or bodily injury was involved. In other words, these can count as strikes unless a defendant proves otherwise.

 

State Laws and Controversies

 

The State of Washington was the first to enact a "Three Strikes" law in 1993. Since then, more than half of the states, in addition to the federal government, have enacted three strikes laws. The primary focus of these laws is the containment of recidivism (repeat offenses by a small number of criminals). California's law is considered the most far-reaching and most often used among the states, although it was substantially amended in 2012. Amongst the states, there is a considerable amount of variety in how these laws are set up, either in how a “strike” is defined and how many strikes are required. South Carolina, for example, provides for two strikes for the "most serious offenses."

 

Three strikes laws have been the subject of extensive debate over whether they are effective. Defendants sentenced to long prison terms under these laws have also sought to challenge these laws as unconstitutional. For instance, one defendant was found guilty of stealing $150 worth of video tapes from two California department stores. The defendant had prior convictions, and pursuant to California's three strikes law, the judge sentenced the defendant to 50 years in prison for the theft of the video tapes. The defendant challenged his conviction before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), but the Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, finding that it did not violate the "gross disproportionality principle."

http://criminal.find...ncing-laws.html

 

That last sentence is shocking.  50 years for $150 in merchandise isn't grossly disproportionate?  Fucking ugly.

 

 

 

Going back to TV's post:

 

 

Or you get busted, go through hell in jail and eventually get out only to end up in debt from criminal fines, probation, and court-ordered rehab (that most relapse from).

 

Or you OD and get saved by a shot of naloxone, but end up in debt for it (best case) or in debt for it and all the criminal stuff above.

 

Or you OD and just die.

 

And to think that some folks believe the Dark Ages ended a long time ago...

 

Things are bleak for people with opiate addictions, but my experience (admittedly from a third person perspective) is that things are slowly improving on the criminal end in many places.

 

Drug courts are an increasingly common alternative to straight jail time or rehab.  In a drug court, jail time and rehab are components of a larger program designed to actually treat addiction and reduce recidivism.  Jail time is used sparingly as a corrective tool unless you get kicked out, and then I usually see people doing six months to a year (though some judges could easily go way harder on them).  While I don't think that anyone should be jailed simply for being an addict, these specialty courts are a step in the right direction and I support them.  They're way better than straight jail time, which does nothing for the addiction, and the recidivism numbers are encouraging.  In any case, a large number of the people in the court I'm familiar with were charged with theft, their third or fourth DUI, or other crimes that do have victims.  I don't see anyone in drug court for pot.  About a third of them are addicted to heroin, which is a lot more than there were some years ago.

 

Of course, nobody wants to be there, especially when they're starting out, but some of them really end up taking to it.  Others fail out or get through it and then end up back in court on new charges.  Occasionally, somebody in the program dies from an overdose and we are reminded that a lot of these people are literally fighting for their lives.

 

Again, I don't think anybody should go to jail simply for using or possessing any drug.  I wonder if the drug court model could work without jail or other criminal penalties.  Or it could be an option only if an actual crime is involved. 

 

As for the naloxone epi pens, it looks like a certain brand of pen that has jumped up in price and not the drug itself.  I think that the market can correct that kind of gouging.


Edited by Sidestreet, 20 February 2017 - 07:48 AM.

  • TVCasualty, riseabovethought and tailsmcsnails like this

#31 oneeye1

oneeye1

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 315 posts

Donator

Posted 18 February 2017 - 11:24 AM

50 years for robbing £150 worth of tapes and some previous

Wow
I can see why it was brought in but fuck me it doesnt work
Its the same as the death penalty dont stop jack shit in reality
  • Sidestreet likes this

#32 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,841 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 24 February 2017 - 04:18 PM

He got off light. You can receive a summary execution for trying to sell individual, untaxed cigarettes in NYC (apparently).

 

 

The number of stories posted in this thread is probably going to start rising fast in the next year or two as the current Administration ramps-up Federal enforcement efforts against medicinal and legal recreational Cannabis (or so goes the 'promise'). Lest we forget, the new Attorney General was an avowed fan of the triple-K until he found out that a lot of 'em liked to smoke weed. So the guy currently in charge of enforcing Federal law thought the KKK was too liberal... Yeah, fun times are ahead.

 

Unfortunately, my longtime stance of arguing that one should NOT "register" or get a "license" to grow, sell, possess, or use Cannabis is proving prescient since now the Feds have a handy list of enforcement targets for the jackbooted troglodytes to focus on.

 

Anyone who runs a dispensary or retail outlet should take steps NOW to start working out a way to move cash out of the facility in a secure and surreptitious manner since the raids to come will probably be timed to coincide with when they'd expect a lot of cash to be present. I'm thinking of something along the lines of those vacuum tube systems banks use that send containers of cash to an adjacent building rented by someone with no obvious affiliation to the dispensary/retail store (it just takes punching a 4-inch diameter hole in the wall in a hidden spot to run a pipe); by the time the goon squad finds the pipe leading next-door the cash will have ideally been removed and secured elsewhere (probably for use in paying a decent legal defense team). Point being, it's time to get proactively-creative in terms of security... now.


Edited by TVCasualty, 24 February 2017 - 04:20 PM.

  • Sidestreet and tailsmcsnails like this

#33 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 8,476 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 01 March 2017 - 07:35 PM

 

Unfortunately, my longtime stance of arguing that one should NOT "register" or get a "license" to grow, sell, possess, or use Cannabis is proving prescient since now the Feds have a handy list of enforcement targets for the jackbooted troglodytes to focus on.

 

I'm on the fence about this one.  I think it depends on the person.  If you have a serious health issue and you're otherwise pretty damn square (e.g. not a member of this website) it's probably a good idea to register.  I can't imagine an instance in which the average patient, with an actual illness, will regret following the law in order to get their medicine.

 

On the other hand, there are probably a lot of cases where it's good NOT to register like you said.  There are times I wish I hadn't, but if my little grow ever had been raided I'd be singing a different tune.

 

Based on the Trump administration's statements, it sounds like those brave enough to continue cultivating without a medical/caregiver certification in places like CO and WA are in the most danger right now.  Some of them are probably kicking themselves for getting registered previously.  So far it sounds like the average patient doesn't have too much to worry about.

 

I would definitely not feel comfortable running a dispensary right now either.  Remember all the federal raids before the Obama administration's laissez-faire policy?  I completely agree with you about getting creative with security--never a bad idea.


Edited by Sidestreet, 01 March 2017 - 07:41 PM.

  • TVCasualty likes this

#34 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 8,476 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 March 2017 - 05:30 AM

FBI Director Thinks We Should Lower Our Expectation of Privacy

 

 

FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that Americans should no longer have the expectations of complete privacy.

 

Comey, who was the keynote speaker at a cybersecurity conference at Boston College, said there is no longer “absolute privacy” in the U.S., Politico reported.

“Even our memories aren’t private," he said. "Any of us can be compelled to say what we saw. In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any of us to testify in court on those private communications. There is no place in America outside of judicial reach."

 

Comey’s comments came less than 24 hours after WikiLeaks released files from the CIA which appear to show that the agency has the ability to hack cars, TVs and smartphones.

 

Comey did not reference the wiretapping controversy during his speech to law enforcement officials and private-sector business leaders.

“All of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes, in our cars, and in our devices. But it also means with good reason, in court, government through law enforcement can invade our private spaces,” Comey said.

 

He said the FBI is renewing a focus on the challenges posed by encryption. He said there should be a balance between privacy and the FBI's ability to lawfully access information. He also said the FBI needs to recruit talented computer personnel who might otherwise go to work for Apple or Google.

 

"The cyberthreats we face are enormous. I don't know if we can stay ahead of them. And I think to say otherwise would be hubris," Comey said.

Comey added that he plans to serve his entire 10-year term despite the wiretapping controversy.

 

"You're stuck with me for another 6 1/2 years," he said.

http://www.foxnews.c...vacy-in-us.html

 

I can't believe I'm citing Fox News, but they are one of the few orgs that are discussing this talk given by Comey in Boston.  Politico, AP, and a few other places have also commented.  Fox gives it a negative spin, and the reader's responses are clearly against Comey, but perhaps that has something to do with Comey's recent rebuke of Trump's "wiretapp" claims.

 

The significance of Comey's remarks legally is that our "reasonable expectation of privacy" as a nation and a culture is intimately tied into the law of search and seizure.  Reasonable expectation of privacy is the line that is used to delineate whether a search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment or not reasonable.

 

Comey and the FBI want us to lower our expectations of privacy as a nation so that the judges they get their warrants from will more readily allow them to search individuals' electronics.

 

To make his case, Comey holds up the need to stop terrorists, child pornographers, and financial criminals.  He states that, in this conversation about privacy, there are no evil people, though he said that those concerned with privacy (such as Apple) "weigh things differently."

 

Here is a video of his entire talk.  It gets good at 28 minutes.

 

[Direct Link]


Edited by Sidestreet, 12 March 2017 - 06:28 AM.

  • riseabovethought and MushPuppy like this

#35 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 12,941 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 March 2017 - 07:16 AM

In the spirit of John Edgar Hoover, from an organization that has done so much to win the trust of all Americans, I would just like to say, "thank you sir, may I have another." 


  • Sidestreet likes this

#36 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,841 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 March 2017 - 07:40 PM

The kicker when it comes to privacy is that it's inconvenient as hell. That's why it's been largely lost (i.e. we're fucking lazy).

 

It doesn't matter who is listening on the other end of the wire if we just cut the damned thing ("But... but what about all the funny videos, porn, memes, 'n' stuff like that?!?" Uh... say goodbye).

 

The Iraqi insurgency was so successful against what's ostensibly the world's most powerful military because it did something inconceivable to our strategic planners: The insurgents reverted back to hand-delivered notes for communication. That's all it took. That's inconvenient as hell, but so is a missile landing on your wedding or whatever.

 

Apparently, sacrifices are in order if we truly want what we like to claim we do (which is a debatable point in the case of many people).


  • Sidestreet and MushPuppy like this

#37 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 4,034 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:51 AM

He mentioned Snowden, in a way that he forced us to evolve into the discussion he says he's so willing to have (but BTW, we should all just realize there is no more privacy prior to having this discussion). I think thats important because Snowden made it clear that there is no privacy, so yeah, we can now continue the conversation, right?  I think then immediately about Aaron Swartz, who taught us that big business is willing to protect their privacy at any cost, which then opens up a can of worms.  If their privacy can be protected, then why should ours be offered up behind our backs and sold to the highest bidder, how Google and FB created this new multibillion $ Industry?  

 

Meanwhile Trump is complaining about his privacy being violated, and we've given ours up without a fight, still allowing them to call Snowden a traitor and having killed Aaron Swartz for violating the privacy of private industry.  I've read once that social trust is an important factor in crime.  Erosion of social trust is largely why we present a danger to each other in general nowadays.  Im thinking we're about to see an unprecedented level of crime in response to an accelerated erosion in social trust, starting with our elected leaders and not trickling, but avalanching downward fast.


  • Sidestreet and tailsmcsnails like this

#38 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 8,476 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 10 March 2017 - 04:13 PM

 

I've read once that social trust is an important factor in crime.

 

That sounds interesting, can you remember how social trust is defined?

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi insurgency was so successful against what's ostensibly the world's most powerful military because it did something inconceivable to our strategic planners: The insurgents reverted back to hand-delivered notes for communication. That's all it took. That's inconvenient as hell, but so is a missile landing on your wedding or whatever.

 

Going forward, I think low-tech will be the way to go in a lot of situations.  At the same time, Comey seemed pretty concerned about "ubiquitous encryption."  But maybe he wanted to seem concerned...


Edited by Sidestreet, 10 March 2017 - 04:17 PM.


#39 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 4,034 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:56 AM

Its part of the cohesiveness that glues civil society together, so when someone grows up in a neighborhood where family members rob you, then that person is almost guaranteed to have very little social trust.  On the flipside, if someone grows up in a friendly harmless environment, never gets burned over much, and learns that its okay to trust people in general, then this person meets another person, makes a better first impression because they demonstrate good social trust with openness and acceptance, and gets the job or whatever.  The other person makes a different first impression; isnt at all open nor accepting, almost expecting to get burned, visibly bracing for metaphorical attack on some level because thats what their experience has always taught them.  This second person does not get the job or the girl or the new friend.  Its a stark contrast when studying different groups of communities, and well documented.  

 

Psychologists are taught to help them learn to trust people, by revisiting all those traumas, reasoning through what went wrong, breaking down walls that were built up after having been burned so many times, etc.  But I think after 9/11 (or if thats too deep for you, mark the clock after the passing of the Patriot Act, which led to Snowden and even the FBI uses him as a mile marker) we should all have a new starkly diminished sense of social trust, in our government, in private corporations, in our neighbors, and in each other in general, and rightly so.  

 

But that scale of erosion of social trust will lead us to only one place; self reliance, self- realization, self- sustenance, self- control, self- restraint, learning, loving, and knowing thyself as humility and spirit itself, but we will never go back to more social trust.  We will move toward self discovery, which is the good news.  The bad news is that the law will move against self discovery harder than ever, because it threatens our illusion that we need them to keep us safe (even though they are our biggest threat).  Its important to realize the emperor has no clothes, but first we have to realize he's fucking us, there really are monsters out there who want our destruction, and our only chance is to reach out for and obtain our own selfish inner -peace before we die.  If mushrooms have taught me anything, its how fleeting this life is, at least in this realm.  We just dont have much time.


Edited by riseabovethought, 11 March 2017 - 12:02 PM.

  • Sidestreet and MushPuppy like this

#40 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 12,941 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 11 March 2017 - 02:02 PM

We have now, and how wide now is is completely subjective.   If you ask me, it's all inside of now.   In fact, I have not past nor future that I can be in.  I can think about futures, but even those thoughts are now, and they sure don't make my future projections any more sure.   There's the story of the DC-10 that dropped an engine just after takeoff from Chicago?   Forgetting that everyone on that ill-fated plane died, but two people on the ground died as well.  I wonder if they were thinking about what was going to be happening in the next minute.   That story helps me keep things real, in that I will never know if there is a jetliner engine with my name on it, heading my way.   So, is anyone really fucking me right this instant?  I suppose if I'm thinking he is, it's me, fucking myself.

 

dc10 191.jpg dc10 egine.jpg


Edited by Alder Logs, 11 March 2017 - 02:43 PM.

  • riseabovethought likes this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!