Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: Ratpark2012 on December 03, 2012, 12:40 am
-
This is the first time that I've posted here, but I've been using SR to grab LSD for about 18 months now and love it!
I have some really exciting news to share! :-)
I found out about a bloke called Greg Kasarik. He lives here in Australia and has been on a hunger strike since the Fourteenth of November (kasarik.com/Hunger-Strike-2012.php), because he says that he has the right to use what he calls "Transcendent Compounds" as part of his religion. Transcendent Compounds are mostly entheogens (ayahuasca, mushrooms, LSD, Peyote) that he says are non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting. He has really done his research and his website has links to the science to back this up.
The cool thing is that his "religion" is totally individualistic (he says he is a mystic) and his philosophy is basically that there is no "Truth" and that everyone has to figure out reality for themselves, so its not like he is trying to be a cult leader, or anything. He told me that there was no point trying to believe what he believed because he couldn't really explain it to start with. Just like trying to explain an acid trip! :-)
What makes this interesting is that the state of Victoria, where he lives, recently passed a law that grants religious freedom and which says that the government needs a "demonstrably justifiable" reason to take them back. Given that these Transcendent Compounds are safe, Greg is arguing that the government has no right to restrict his religious freedoms. I'm no lawyer, but it seems that Greg has hit on a game changer and if he is right about the science, it is hard to see the courts upholding a ban on these drugs when used spiritually. http://kasarik.com/The-Legal-Argument.php
And it seems to be working! Not only have the police not touched him in the 18 months since he told everyone that he uses these, but last Wednesday he actually went as far as taking a tab of acid on the steps of the Victorian Parliament House! He told all the politicians that he'd be doing it in advance and nobody bothered with him at all! No police, no nothing. And he is going to do it all again next week! (sorry about the rush of !!!, but acid on the steps of parliament house? Talk about balls!) https://www.facebook.com/events/449031078490588/
I spoke with him the other day and he is passionate, articulate and really inspiring. There were a few of us there and we all felt like he had shown us a whole new world of hope. He has given up so much in the pursuit of our rights and turned himself into an unemployable pariah in the process.
Greg is an amazing warrior for the cause of drug law reform and I think that everyone should get behind him 100%. He has done this entirely off his own bat without much support from anybody else. Greg has some impressive ideas for the future and I can easily see him winning on this, or at least becoming a major pain in the arse for the government.
If you want to you can access the facebook event page. https://www.facebook.com/events/387789641289553/
If we are ever to get rid of the stupid drug laws, people like Greg are going to be the ones to do it and we have a duty to support them, especially if our double lives prevent us from acting openly.
How people support him is entirely up to them, but I know that he is really struggling financially. If you are able to you can help him pay his bills and rent by making donations on his webpage. (kasarik.com).
-
That's really interesting, Ratpark2012. I've studied the entheogen issue in the U.S. and Canada but don't recall anything from Australia at that time (and I would've checked). Will definitely keep watching this story.
-
Timothy Leary founded the League of Spiritual Discovery (or LSD, get it?) in the 1960s and tried to claim it was a religion, with LSD as its sacrament, but that didn't get very far. That argument only works for old, established religions like the Native American Church. Otherwise, anyone could justify anything on religious grounds.
Still, I wish him luck.
-
That argument only works for old, established religions like the Native American Church. Otherwise, anyone could justify anything on religious grounds.
For the sake of friendly discussion, and it's an interesting subject, I'll add a few observations if it's not too derail-y.
I agree with you that the basic state of U.S. law is that you need an established religion, and what's more, an established sacrament of drug use within that established religion, for it to receive constitutional protection. Furthermore, you've also traditionally needed to belong to that group. That's where I think things get interesting. First off, clearly there is some mainstream societal respect for the notion of someone being "born again" in the Christian sense or otherwise. That is, length of practice is not necessarily determinative of strength or genuineness of faith. Second, there is an uneasy fit between membership in a religion and membership in an ethnic group associated with a religion. There should be no reason why a caucasion person couldn't join an American Indian religion, for example (and elsewhere, like in Canada, it might be illegal to discriminate on that basis). Once you accept those two premises, however, the "old, established religion" doesn't make a ton of sense, either, because a new religion could be just as devout, just as serious.
So you get groups that occasionally try to claim entheogen (religious drug) use either as sacrament of some new religion or as the religion itself. I recall seeing "religious use" kits you could buy (I think it was from California) with little garden signs for your plants saying "for religious use only" and the like. I think U.S. law would trend that way (even if it mj wasn't becoming legalized/decriminalized) given these religion cases, and of course it might remain important because not everything is likely to be legalized. The front contenders, given historical precedent, are peyote and ayahuasca, and last I read there were real possibilities for status in Guam and D.C..
Last interesting observation: the place you go to learn more about how countries have dealt with this issue is TAX LAW. Because every western country has had to come to grips with the can of worms that is the question "What is a legitimate religion?" in the context of having to figure out whether or not to grant tax-exempt status. And, as you can imagine, it's a fricking mess. So they end up depending on indications of devoutness rather than substance of the religion which is a difficult or impossible thing to objectively assess. I mean, if Little Green Men tell me things, I guess I'm crazy, but if God tells me things, I guess I'm devout. I'm not sure that should matter for tax purposes or ability to access and use drugs, and yet the stories aren't all that different. Australian tax authorities, as I recall, decided that religious belief required belief in some sort of creator, which I guess leaves the Buddhists (and many others) out in the cold. You may as well accord constitutional protection via number of angels on a pinhead. It can't be done.
/derail
-
I don't know a thing about American law, but Greg talks about the Australian definition here:
http://kasarik.com/What-is-"Religion"-.php
Apparently our High Court didn't want to get too particular about defining what it was, or wasn't. Which makes sense given the reasons already mentioned.
From that page Greg says: "Thankfully, The High Court of Australia, in its 1983 decision, “Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-RollTax (Vic)” has already defined a religion as requiring two essential elements:
“First, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief”."
He has even linked to a Government website that discusses what religions are in the context of charities, so it looks legit.
-
First off, clearly there is some mainstream societal respect for the notion of someone being "born again" in the Christian sense or otherwise. That is, length of practice is not necessarily determinative of strength or genuineness of faith. Second, there is an uneasy fit between membership in a religion and membership in an ethnic group associated with a religion. There should be no reason why a caucasion person couldn't join an American Indian religion, for example
As far as I know, non-members of the Native American Church can attend their religious practices and do entheogens, but it has to be in that context. I saw a documentary about it a few years ago, where the film crew went into a sweat hut or whatever it's called and took mescaline, completely legally.
-
I don't think religions should get special privileges at all, it's fucking discriminatory. "I'm sorry, not enough people have believed your faith long enough, guess you're shit out of luck for special treatment."
To be clear, I think we need to take religious special privileges and apply them to everyone. It's bullshit that I can't legally do any drugs that even one religion can just because my spirituality is individual to me.
I was raised in a Pentecostal cult and don't like organised religion one bit. I think that Greg would probably feel the same way. Mysticism isn't organized religion. It is that individual spirituality that you feel so strongly about. Read Greg's Principles and it is clear that his view of spirituality is that it can only ever be individual.
Surely using the law to one's advantage is smart. If he makes a breakthrough it is bound to have flow on effects as people realise that they aren't the end of the world. Would you go without food for nearly three weeks to fight for your rights like this? I doubt Greg would have if he were only interested in recreational use.
-
belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle
That was it: supernatural being, not creator. Still problematic. Though I don't remember "or principle" at all. That helps, somewhat. Still, yeah, it's madness to enter into the question of what is a legitimate religion in terms of substance. You're always going to end up including looney stuff you want to exclude, and exclude "legitimate" religions you think should be there. (some groups have made claims specifically to highlight the absurdity and inability of determinging true faith from parody) Much easier to say "this hasn't been around long enough" or "you haven't proven to me that you really believe it through longstanding practice", even if neither of those elements are necessarily determinative of genuine faith.
Not sure I have a strong opinion on the tax exemption (except when it comes to religious bodies engaging in politics, in which case those exemptions should be revoked, no question), and it seems to me related to the entheogen question, ie: who claims the right to interpose human laws between the faithful and their faith, given that it goes to the root of their very existence on the planet? But then I think entheogens should be legal for everyone. If they're really related to cosmic/spiritual/important self-knowledge, it makes about as much sense prohibiting them as prohibiting an atheist from entering a church and finding out what all the fuss is about.
-
The cool thing is that his "religion" is totally individualistic (he says he is a mystic) and his philosophy is basically that there is no "Truth" and that everyone has to figure out reality for themselves, so its not like he is trying to be a cult leader, or anything. He told me that there was no point trying to believe what he believed because he couldn't really explain it to start with. Just like trying to explain an acid trip! :-)
Brilliant! Thank god for this. We need a leader who doesnt impose his ideologies on the stupid unsuspecting masses! And thank you for posting the facebook link. HELLO from india, identify me if you can :)
JK, please dont try to identify me lol. But it would be a new step when we could all use our real names on SR without the fear of cops showing up on our doorstop... A ONE WORLD MARKET. Maybe you could introduce Greg to SR. Dont do it just yet though, i think it would gain unwanted publicity, site may get shut down and shit. One day in the future? ABSOLUTELY
-
I have heard of this guy. Sounds pretty interesting and forward thinking for Australia. I'm aware this thought already exists though.
And it seems to be working! Not only have the police not touched him in the 18 months since he told everyone that he uses these, but last Wednesday he actually went as far as taking a tab of acid on the steps of the Victorian Parliament House! He told all the politicians that he'd be doing it in advance and nobody bothered with him at all! No police, no nothing. And he is going to do it all again next week! (sorry about the rush of !!!, but acid on the steps of parliament house? Talk about balls!) https://www.facebook.com/events/449031078490588/
^This though! I love taking LSD in public places. I have popped it on the steps of the Opera House before, in broad daylight!
-
he's gonna turn into a sad penguin when he realizes that all he's gonna be able to eat afterwards is peyote, mimosa root and magic mushrooms.
shits gonna get fibrous.
-
Hunger strikes arent easy to do. I did a water fast last year for 3 days, lost 14 lbs.. Ive watched vids of people doing it for more than a month..
A hunger strike is only effective if your willing to die for the cause.
Id like to see how long he lasts though...
-
That doesn't make sense to me. I'd go on a hunger strike for the right to use drugs, but why should it be legal to use drugs for religious purposes if everyone else can't? That's like making it legal for people who drive a Prius to use drugs as long as they just do it in their garage or something.
EDIT:
Not to mention, allowing people to use drugs to enhance their religious experiences is bound to increase the amount of insane, bible-thumping crackpots by the hundreds.