Sale of Pealed Cacti Skins = ALL TRICHOCEREUS Sp. ILLEGAL

[laughingwillow]

Good luck controlling the actions of others, man.

Talk amongst yourselves........

lw

[Amomynous]

Interesting thread Just in case it hasn't been re-hashed to death....

First off, I'd like to humbly submit that the arguments concerning elitism are something of a red herring. All the word means is that one feels that one is in some kind of privileged position, be it moral, intellectual, or otherwise. As such, I think that everyone here -- to a greater or lesser degree -- is something of an elitist. I mean, let me see a show of hands from those who don't believe that they know better than John Q. Man-on-the-street when it comes to entheogenic practice. Anyone?

Thought as much

I admit to being something of an elitist (or at least an arrogant snot), but, ultimately, that's OK. Being an elitist is just part of the human condition. What's more, it doesn't make you any more likely to be a controlling bastard. The elitist's opposite -- the insecure sod -- is just as likely to be one of those, if not more so; a true elitist usually feels sufficiently secure on their high horse to feel un-threatened by less enlightened versions of reality.

So lets drop the elitist arguments. In doing so, we can see the essential, almost humorous, irony. If we let the two camps be represented by their nominal icons (EA and LW), one can see that they actually fall on the same side of the fence! To wit:

Flip and EA are arguing that the only ethical coarse of action is to ascertain, to the best of one's ability, what the long-term implication of one's actions are. In doing so, we can see how our actions affect those around us, and in doing so can behave ethically.

In their case, the long term implications are: by buying dried cactus flesh, one is endangering the rights of those who grow cacti.

LW, on the other hand, is arguing that the only ethical corse of action is to ascertain, to the best of one's abilities, what the long-term implications of one's actions are. Sound familiar?

In LWs case the action is the call for voluntary restraint on the part of the entheognic community, and the long term implications are misplaced energy and a totally ineffectual plan of attack. Given the fact that this story has been repeated ad nauseum as long as there has been an entheogenic community and has never succeeded, what is the moral corse of action: to pretend that the strategy works and turn the wheel of samsara one more time, or to admit that it doesn't and look for a new strategy?

Both parties are claiming that the problem is that others are unwilling to accurately gage the implication of their ations. Both are claiming that this is the ethical course. Both are arguing for the same thing.

[EA-1306]

Logic is not always logical, but thanks.

 I like how you put the arguments.

I fear that formulaic deconstructions sometimes allow conflation of distinct concepts, but I have no desire to argue this, let alone with someone who can utilize logic to the degree you have demonstrated.



I will add that at one point cannabis was so widespread that the thought of making it illegal seemed silly too. Never underestimate the governments ability to crack down, it is easier than might be thought.

[laughingwillow]

Pretty fair evaluation, imo, amom.

The main difference as I see it would be that I don't feel its my bidness to tell anyone else how to conduct their private affairs.  Then top that position off with the futility inherent with (repeatedly) pissing in the wind.

Imo, it takes a special brand of elitism to deem oneself worthy of directing the actions of others. And much more of the same to assume that this session of pissing into the wind will be any different than the previous efforts.  

lw

[Amomynous]

I fear that formulaic deconstructions sometimes allow conflation of distinct concepts...

But that's a good thing!  

[EA-1306]

Gosh I hope I come across as giving advice, I don't want to tell people what to do.

And yeah it is a good thing (depending on your view)

[laughingwillow]

Unsolicitated advice on how to comport another's personal affairs is seldom appreciated, imo.  :shock:

lw

[EA-1306]

I fear that some people just might not be thinking about the sustainability of the availability of the cacti.

I find for myself it is better to be annoyed than ignorant of the possibilities that the advice and opinions of others might raise.

[flip]

you know, it would all be different (imo) IF someone's actions
weren't able to affect me or those things I care about.
But the personal actions of others can have serious long ranging repercussions
In this context it's not a personal /private situation at all, but a public one.
As such, it's an actual duty as a citizen to alert
and try to prevent  unnecessary harm and injustice.

We've all seen what happens when the government takes action!
and nobody is arguing that they wont if this continues.
There is no reason to replay the disaster of the Research Chemical market and operation webtrypt.

I suggested a course of action that would seriously reduce the threat
and yet still leave a viable avenue open for people to legally grow cacti.

All it takes are a few bad apples...  lets please stop arguing and move on
to FIXING and PREVENTING the actions of a few from adversely affecting the many.

What do we have to do?!?
Does it take a actual lawsuit on behalf of all the different commercial
cacti growers, retailers and cacti associations
against the different vendors for potential loss of all future income
and destruction of current stock to make the point clear?

To all the vendors ... it's something that very well can be done.
especially since the DEA's microgram's detailing of dried cacti chips
and not once, ever mentioned live cacti cuttings.




and thanks Amomynous

[laughingwillow]

Sustainability was never the issue. (Maybe read the thread title again, mang.  

lw

[laughingwillow]

Your own actions are the only ones you control, flip. And you appear to have boiled the issue down to one set of actions now being responsible for the scheduling of a plant. I don't buy into that simplistic view, for starters.

And to be honest, I don't put much stock in those who place man's laws above God's. They can schedule to their hearts content as far as I'm concerned.

lw

[EA-1306]

It certainly seems to contribute to the criminalization and schedualing of things, whgoich in turn affects the sustainaiblity of the savaliability of the plants.It certainly seems that a failure to act conscientiously can contribute to the criminalization and scheduling of things, which in turn affects the sustainability  of their availability.

Lophophora is a good example of how certains kinds of attention can lead to eradication practices.

And to be honest, I don't put much stock in those who place man's laws above God's. They can schedule to their hearts content as far as I'm concerned.

I am not sure what this means, but I think you might consider that many types of plants have been endangered and wiped out by humanities laws and practices. Gods laws, as good as they are, aren't restoring lost species.

[laughingwillow]

EA: We are even then. I understand little of the above post.

Man's laws are causing the eradication of the plants in question. However, my father and mother in heaven have told me that comsuming entheogenic plants is fine with them. So in the end, I could care less about what the laws of man deem right or wrong. At least when it comes to the freedom to chose one's course in life when others are not being harmed.

EA: You seem to be claiming some sort of expert status on the topic at hand.   Why else would you feel qualified to give the rest of the community advice on how to proceed?

lw

[laughingwillow]

quote AE from another thread:  One of my favorite growers also chose to remain anonymous and remains too humble to take credit for contribution to both Trichocereus breeding and some photographs and information they have shared with Trout, and others.

....................

I now see where you are coming from now, EA. Anyone with a favorite cactus grower is bound to want to help them in their quest, whatever it may be.

I'm done with this thread, btw.

lw

[TooStonedToType]

I'm in LW's camp here: But speaking of man's crazy laws:

Flip "Does it take a actual lawsuit on behalf of all the different commercial
cacti growers, retailers and cacti associations against the different vendors for potential loss of all future income and destruction of current stock to make the point clear? "

I don't think you have a cause of action here.  You can't sue for potential loss of speculative future income.  That would be like the hemp industry suing jazz musicians for making "their" product illegal.  Except cactus isn't illegal yet.