[Ibogaine] Second omnibus reply to P. Cohen & the List

Peter Cohen cohen.cedro at uva.nl
Tue Feb 22 17:02:22 EST 2005


Preston, your summarizing of my views is quite 
right.Dana is not able or willing to read my 
stuff,nor understand it, let alone summarizing it.
About the physical side of intense and frequent 
drug use, of course there is a biological 
component.
But I do not see its relevance.
Thomas Szasz once wrote that the physical aspects 
of an erection do not explain falling in love 
with a particular woman, or men visiting 
prostitutes. There is a lot of biology involved 
in sexuality, but what types of sex are 
criminalised , what types of bonding society 
accepts or not, are totally different matters.
Of course people develop tolerance, or a longing 
to repeat the most wanted effects of drugs( 
untill they no longer count) but what does this 
have to do with societies activity of prohibiting 
some drug use behaviours?
I never speak about addiction, or possession, or 
bewitching, I consider them all terms from a 
primitive pre scientific past, that unfortunately 
still lingers on in the perception of many, the 
ibo clan included.
pc


At 11:47 -0500 22-02-2005, Preston Peet wrote:
>Dana wrote about Peter Cohen's theories I take it:
>
>>Blasphemous for anyone who insists that 
>>addiction isn't really neurochemical, but a 
>>matter of social construction-- that society 
>>constructs the user as addict. Since 
>>tolerance/withdrawal/craving don't really 
>>exist, and are not deemed to vary from one 
>>substance to another, Ibogaine can't really be 
>>doing anything special, so the effect must be 
>>from mind-control by ibogaine at mindvox. Not only 
>>that, since ibogaine is more dangerous than 
>>heroin (in proper medical doses) if you chose 
>>to exaggerate its dangerousness, this 
>>particular cult is offering poison koolaid.<
>
>Could someone please point me out a quote or 
>comment by Peter Cohen, and also forward this 
>note to him as I can't find his email address in 
>my box for some reason, that says this? Is this 
>really what Cohen has been saying? If not, what 
>is he really saying about "addiction" in a 
>nutshell- does it really have a physical aspect 
>in his opinion, or is he really saying it's 
>merely a "social construct" and that there isn't 
>really anything to "addiction" in a physical 
>sense at all? I haven't seen anything like this 
>out of him, what I've seen is him saying there 
>needs to be more focus, in his opinion, on doing 
>away with the illegality of narcotics and the 
>criminalizing of those who use narcotics to 
>self-medicate or simply have fun, that it's the 
>criminalizing that's causing so many if not most 
>of the problems associated with drugs. He seems 
>to me to be saying that in his opinion, focusing 
>on "getting people off drugs" is copping out to 
>the prohibitionist viewpoint, that it puts the 
>users into a catagory which can then be 
>ostrasized and attacked and locked up and 
>basically treated like "niggers." If I'm getting 
>this wrong, please correct me, by including some 
>quotes of Peter Cohen's that say one thing or 
>another about his opinions on addiction and it's 
>"reality."
>Thanks. Again, please someone forward this to 
>Peter Cohen himself. Thanks kindly.
>
>Peace and love,
>Preston Peet
>
>"Madness is not enlightenment, but the search 
>for enlightenment is often mistaken for madness"
>Richard Davenport-Hines
>
>ptpeet at nyc.rr.com
>Editor http://www.drugwar.com
>Editor "Under the Influence- the Disinformation Guide to Drugs"
>Editor "Undergound- The Disinformation Guide to 
>Ancient Civilizations, Astonishing Archeology 
>and Hidden History" (due out Sept. 2005)
>Cont. High Times mag/.com
>Cont. Editor http://www.disinfo.com
>Columnist New York Waste
>Etc.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Beal
>To: ibogaine at mindvox.com
>Cc: cohen.cedro at uva.nl
>Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:13 AM
>Subject: [Ibogaine] Second omnibus reply to P. Cohen & the List
>
>
>cherylca at myway.com wrote:
>That's not true Dana, now your fibbing. I was at 
>the conference and you and Peter were screaming 
>at each other in the hallway so loud it was 
>louder than the back of the room which was the 
>only place left to stand.
>
>I don't think Mr. Clear cares what you all did 
>as long as you weren't the ones who set the 
>hotel on fire, since he gave Patrick the opening 
>plenary to speak to 1200 people and talk about 
>the ibogaine panel but you are not telling the 
>truth.
>
>Not to refute anything else in your message but 
>you and Peter were yelling and you were making 
>threats.
>
>
>Heated words is not the same as yelling insults. 
>And Peter, even though he says I was angry, 
>absolves me of any threats. What would I 
>threaten him with? Threaten to eviscerate his 
>argument? Hold him up to ridicule on the list? 
>Threaten that no one with any direct experience 
>with ibogaine would take him seriously?
>
>
>cherylca at myway.com wrote:
>Being a chronic pothead is no healthier then 
>being a heroin addict and yes you can say pot 
>has all kinds of health benefits and so too does 
>heroin. Harm reduction objects to your belief 
>that all of us need to be cured and get healthy 
>like people smoking pot all day. Give it a rest.
>
>
>
>The crowd represented by P. Cohen has argued the 
>action of cannabis and opiates in the brain are 
>really the same; but the dose-response curve is 
>totally different: every morning you do pot, you 
>don't have to keep escalating the dose. The 
>cannabidiol in cannabis is a mild glutamate 
>antagonist--much weaker than ibo but it stops 
>build-up of tolerance.
>
>
>I think ibogaine is a amazing thing but here's 
>news for you, people using drugs are no sicker 
>then
>you Dana, who is another person who uses drugs 
>all the time. What's the message in that?
>
>
>It's stretching the point to equate vegetable 
>matter with injectable white powders, but you 
>missed the point of my post, which has to do 
>with a system of regulation of legalized drugs. 
>Putting in a coffee shop system (albeit one 
>where people are discouraged from mixing tobacco 
>and cannabis) is aimed mainly at replacing 
>alcohol and tobacco, which kill 150,000 and 
>450,000 people a year in the U.S. from accidents 
>and cancer respectively, with something that 
>kills no one.
>
>
>I've never heard Dr. Cohen attack the use of any 
>drug or mandate that anyone has to take 
>anything. Dana Beal spent the whole 90's doing 
>exactly that and suggesting forced marijuana 
>maintenance after ibogaine. Which are exact 
>quotes of what you used to say, you've given 
>that speech at Hash Bash dana.
>
>
>Nothing forced about it. For some people it works.
>
>
>BiscuitBoy714 at aol.com wrote:
>Right now I'm addicted to coffee and one hits. I 
>smoke, but I never have more than 2.755 grams of 
>herb at any time so Uncle Salty won't give me 
>the chair or nothin'. They might come over and 
>drag me outta the house and jack boot me, but 
>I'm willin' to take that risk.
>
>and
>
>I'm on the marijuana maintenance plan. I am 
>jokin' ya know. I don't see herb as a problem 
>tho. Can you say Harm Reduction? Randy
>
>
>Obviously for a marijuana-friendly crowd I'm 
>going to emphasize the pot-friendly aspect of 
>ibogaine. BTW, 4 people long-connected with the 
>management of the Hash Bash were just treated, 
>successfully, for their various opiate, etc. 
>addictions with Ibogaine. I don't think they're 
>going to stop toking up.
>
>
>stevenanker at hotmail.com wrote:
>Nah, I don't want to pay for any plane fares, 
>Dana. It's just fun to give you shit. I just 
>can't help myself. Those darn relapsing 
>junkies... sorry that it always goes that way.
>
>
>Wasn't asking you to pay for anything. It's just 
>that I have to be relatively straight to put on 
>this forum, i.e: some people expect me to 
>reimburse them for their fares when they get 
>here, for instance. Can't have people telling 
>them: "He's off doing ibogaine today, you'll 
>have to wait."
>
>
>What, the man who knows iboga to be the holy 
>Eucharist, the man who wrote the book, the man 
>who spread the word of ibogaine (according to 
>you) can't hustle some up? In all these years 
>there has never been an opportunity? Strange. I 
>really can't think of a better place than 
>surrounded by the art of Alex Grey. Unless you 
>have tidied up your house a bit, it's better 
>there, no? Though your cats could be good 
>company.
>
>
>Of course I've had it at times. It's just that 
>I've always taken the position that you need a 
>legitimate medical reason to do it, which I now 
>have. Same as medical marijuana: you can smoke 
>all you want, but don't claim it's medical if 
>it's not. #9 would be a fine place to do ibo, in 
>the slow season. Which is the reason I wanted to 
>do it in November. (At least Mark could have 
>helped with that mortgage). Between now and May 
>7 I'm busy as can be.
>
>
>Another question that's been burning a hole in 
>my head: How did Jesus get his hands on iboga? 
>How did he get it in the wine? The Romans had 
>trade routes to Gabon? Iboga grew in the Holy 
>land? Jesus could fly faster than a speeding 
>bullet? It's just that you say it's "Implicit." 
>Curious, that's all.
>
>
>You know in my book I said it was peganum 
>harmala, which is abundant in Palestine, and 
>figured in the initiation rite for the Persian 
>Emperor, the King of Kings. Since the book was 
>published I've become aware of evidence that 
>iboga may have played a similar role in Egypt, 
>where friezes on walls of tombs, etc. show the 
>Pharaoh consorting with pygmies--symbols of 
>iboga due to their 20 thousand year association 
>with it throughout Africa. They're about one per 
>cent of the population in Rwanda and Burundi, 
>and Iboga looks to be much more widespread than 
>Gabon, occurring throughout the Congo basin and 
>up into the Rift valley--just up the Nile from 
>Egypt, so to speak.
>
>And since it's a rootbark, it travels rather 
>well. A natural tradegood. If the Pharaohs had 
>cocaine and nicotine, why not Iboga? So I've 
>come to the conclusion that ibo could have been 
>substituted for ephedra in the particular soma 
>mixture prepared for the Grail. It would 
>certainly be more neuroprotective, since it's 
>been patented by Olney for stroke and ischemia 
>(ischemia is a kind of stroke that killed the 
>victims of crucifixion). And it would have 
>incorporated the legitimacy of the Pharaonic 
>equivalent of harmala and of the Pharaohs 
>themselves into the mantle of the King of Kings.
>
>Since the alternative explanation is that Jesus 
>wasn't just faster than a speeding bullet, but 
>had half his genes direct from God, I'd go with 
>the Passover Plot hypothesis. The Rabbis say 
>that whatever the Pharaoh's magicians knew, 
>Moses knew better, so if the iboga secret was in 
>Egypt, the Jews took it with them back to 
>Palestine.
>
>The Romans? Well, if they knew about it, the 
>trick wouldn't have worked, would it?
>
>
>mafinman at optonline.net wrote:
>I noticed that remark about ibogaine being the 
>same as methadone or any other treatment and the 
>"cult" comment. My first thought was that 
>someone who did Ibogaine and CHOSE to remain 
>sober from everything got his ear and turned him 
>off, possibly. For someone trying to promote his 
>stance on all drugs it probably sounded like 
>blasphemy!
>
>
>Blasphemous for anyone who insists that 
>addiction isn't really neurochemical, but a 
>matter of social construction-- that society 
>constructs the user as addict. Since 
>tolerance/withdrawal/craving don't really exist, 
>and are not deemed to vary from one substance to 
>another, Ibogaine can't really be doing anything 
>special, so the effect must be from mind-control 
>by ibogaine at mindvox. Not only that, since 
>ibogaine is more dangerous than heroin (in 
>proper medical doses) if you chose to exaggerate 
>its dangerousness, this particular cult is 
>offering poison koolaid.
>
>
>If he is at the conference and would like to 
>have a short chat with someone who was on 
>methedone and heroin and cocaine for over 20 
>years and tried to stop hundereds of times and 
>only had success with ibogaine, I would be 
>willing. I also at this moment in time am 
>choosing to remain sober of everything but quite 
>possibly for different reasons than others.
>
>
>It wouldn't do any good, because Peter is not 
>particularly interested in talking to ibo-nauts. 
>Far from making threats, I was trying to 
>continue a conversation with him; but it was my 
>impression that he had stated his argument, and 
>was not particularly interested in any facts or 
>people that contradict it. Facts, as I told him 
>at the time, are stubborn things.
>
>
>stevenanker at hotmail.com wrote:
>Sure, Dr. Cohen is a blathering fool for saying 
>iboga is the same as methadone, but his comments 
>on legalization are helpful. Why not have a 
>combination of harm-reduction, 
>de-criminalization and more and better treatment 
>options?
>
>
>Sounds like my position.
>
>
>Help from non-addicts as well as addicts? Fine, 
>if it is a disease, don't arrest me and make me 
>pray to god to get better. Options and choice 
>are lovely things. Sure, we like iboga better 
>than methadone; I have friends who were really 
>helped by methadone.
>
>
>But in New Orleans there was Joyce Woods from 
>NAMA, kind of smirking when Peter was giving his 
>rap. She was the one back in '91 who got me in 
>trouble with John Morgan by sending him the memo 
>that Howard and Sisko wrote, which I was trying 
>to get her to get them to change before it was 
>released on the ACT UP floor, because it seemed 
>to put their comment on methadone in his mouth. 
>I'd just left the only copy with her aide, Tom 
>Ward (one of the squatters then on a jihad to 
>take over the annual pot parade, which WE had 
>started 25 years earlier) who urged her to send 
>it to Morgan before I had a chance to call her 
>back. "Putting words in Morgan's mouth" got me 
>blackballed in NORML and the DPF for a decade. 
>And all it amounted to was careless writing 
>Howard and Bob would have changed if she'd 
>called them, instead of Morgan.
>
>But the whole DPF crowd were just looking for an 
>excuse, because they really didn't like ibo to 
>begin with. Tom Ward went on to become a 
>crackhead, and after 9/11, a Bush supporter.
>
>
>ms_iboga at yahoo.com wrote:
>Being an 'addiction specialist', yet having no prior
>firsthand experience with chemical dependency is kinda
>like trying to write a paper about the sensation of
>skydiving without ever having jumped- it's gonna be
>dry, detached and only partially-informed, and
>strongly influenced by personal convictions and biases
>rather than first-hand knowledge and experience.
>
>
>Not exactly an addiction specialist. That's 
>Peele. More like a specialist in the sociology 
>of addiction and prohibition.
>
>
>Even some of Dr. Cohen's work/views have merit; I just
>find some of his ideas a little angering, especially
>seeing as though Ibogaine has helped so many people,
>myself included. Almost 4 months of clean time behind
>me- the longest in four years. Why did Cohen find it
>necessary to compare Ibogaine with the 'Nazi's cure
>for homosexuality'(god, that's f*cking horrible.)?
>That just seems like an under-the-belt type of shot.
>
>
>Well, because the comparison has been out there 
>for a while, and it's the most alienating thing 
>the ibo opponents (proponents of heroin trials 
>who feel threatened by another live option) can 
>tell the people who determine AIDS policy in 
>this country. The object is to marginalize, to 
>keep us out of the legalization program.
>
>
>As an 'addictions specialist', he is pretty quick to
>dismiss the neurochemical side of dependence. I'm not
>saying it's the entire explanation for addiction, but
>it certainly plays a role.
>
>
>The point is to blur the distinction between use 
>(all of us would like to be able to use) and the 
>build-up of tolerance/withdrawal (not being 
>really able to enjoy using any longer).
>
>
>mafinman at optonline.net wrote:
>A cult....To be or not to be
>Are you a good cult or a bad cult?
>Do we have to be a cult? How about a club with a 
>secret handshake? No that won't work...to many 
>rules. I know, how about a list where pretty 
>much the only thing most people have in common 
>is a curiosity(interest) in ibogaine or are pre 
>or post and looking for info and a place where 
>they can check out some issues they have or 
>thoughts or get practical info. No one smacks 
>your hand with a ruler when you go off topic. 
>People come and go with no regular contact at 
>all.  No rules. It actually sounds like the 
>anticult.
>
>
>When something like Ibogaine can't be 
>marginalized by cold-shouldering the original 
>proponents as nut-jobs, when it puts down roots 
>and starts growing on its own, "cult" is the 
>next label you go to, I guess. But as I told 
>David Guard from DRCnet, when he remarked that 
>we both knew "leading personalities of the 
>legalization movement" had all decided a 
>psychedelic treatment for addiction had no 
>chance of being approved, our time and resources 
>are too valuable to waste on Lindesmith or the 
>Drug Policy Alliance, since we're on a mission 
>for ibogaine. Don't expect us to contribute 
>money, come to your conferences, or pay any 
>attention to you.
>
>
>cohen.cedro at uva.nl wrote:
>But, the ibogaine game puts us in the same 
>league as these weird addiction doctors that 
>need to cure us. Just today I bought a 1948 book 
>about the cure of homosexuality. Imagine a group 
>of people who said USE IBOGAINE TO GET RID OF 
>YOUR (CURSED) HOMOSEXUALITY.
>(Actually, a medically discussed 1948 method of 
>cure was to inhale a mixture of some 
>gasses-right after the war!!-,can you imagine 
>how short ago maxi primitive ideas reigned about 
>homosexuality!)
>
>
>Actually, given the recent findings on Ibogaine 
>and binge behavior, it wouldn't instill 
>heterosexuality, but rather stop you from 
>binging on speed and cialis and fucking 20 guys 
>in one night without a condom. Ironically, 
>that's what many of the same people who voted to 
>discontinue Ibo development in ACT UP ten years 
>ago are looking for now. In the meantime, 
>however, the binge behavior in question created 
>super-AIDS.
>
>
>The Nazi's indeed had a cure for homosexuals; 
>mostly they gassed them to death in 
>extermination camps ( many tens of thousands of 
>them) together with jews and gypsies. That is 
>why I made my remark on the 1948 book, as I did
>
>pc
>
>
>So now I'm not just a DEA agent, I'm advocating the ovens!
>
>
>Peter Cohen <cohen.cedro at uva.nl wrote:
>I have never accpeted the old theory about 
>addiction as disease, nor much else about the 
>concept of addiction. I consider the concept of 
>addiction as an outgrowth ( in the 18th century) 
>of the then already used concepts of 
>'possession, and being'bewitched'. Concepts that 
>refer to the snatching of the soul, or the will, 
>by an evil alien force. These concepts reflect 
>our incapacity to understand particular 
>behaviour as very 'human' and therefore they are 
>'extra human', alien. Drugs are an alien force ( 
>like the devil , or a witch), and in the alcohol 
>litterature from the mid 18th century the model 
>for alcohol as a soul snatcher is created. Later 
>this model was generalised to other drugs. All 
>these soul snatchers ( witches, drugs alcohol 
>included), have been prohibited in the USA at 
>some time or another since the mid 17th century.
>
>
>In your New Orleans talk, you were much more 
>explicit in linking this attitude set to 
>Jesuitical exorcism of demonic or Satanic 
>possession. I think that you omit the factors 
>that differentiate the attitudes of secular 
>Europeans from Protestant Americans. You know 
>this history, but for people on the list, it is 
>important to understand that after the reign of 
>Charlemagne, the Low Countries and Burgundy were 
>left under one kingdom. They became incorporated 
>into what became known as the Holy Roman Empire, 
>which included elector princes from there, 
>Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and 
>northern Italy. The Austrian Habsburg family 
>provided the Holy Roman Emperor and Spain, 
>although not technically part of the HRE, was 
>Austria's partner through royal intermarriage in 
>the Habsburg Empire. Emperor Charles V, although 
>nominally Austrian, was a grandson of Ferdinand 
>and Isabella of Spain. He was responsible for 
>the transfer of power over the Low Countries to 
>Spanish Prince Philip in 1555.
>
>This was terrible news to those Netherlanders 
>who dared convert to Reformation faiths---which 
>were especially catching on in the north. Spain 
>had a policy of exporting its most terrible 
>Inquisitions to lands that became subject to it. 
>This meant genocide for many Dutch, and things 
>became particularly bloody when in 1567 Spain 
>sent Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alva, 
>with an army of 10,000. He was know as the "Iron 
>Duke" and his "Blood Council" was responsible 
>for at least 20,000 executions, including 
>Protestant leader Counts Egmont and Hoorn. 
>Bodies would be hung in public squares, at 
>gateways into cities, and even over public 
>fountains as a form of gruesome intimidation 
>(which no doubt helped fuel epidemics.)
>
>Genocide was being carried out by Spanish, 
>Belgian, and Dutch Catholics, but most Dutch 
>Catholics stopped helping the Spanish when 
>Toledo demanded a 10% sales tax for the Spanish 
>crown. Protestant exiles and Catholic deserters 
>formed a privateering fleet that defeated the 
>Spanish in the north, with English, Hanseatic, 
>and Danish financial support. Toledo retired in 
>1573 and was replaced by Luís de Zúñiga y 
>Requesens, whose troops mutinied that year. 
>Independence for the United Provinces of the 
>Netherlands was won by the sword and cannon, but 
>it would take 75 more years of struggle >for 
>Spain to recognize it. This 18-year Holocaust of 
>Protestants was a foretaste of what awaited 
>Germany and the Czech regions 45 years later in 
>the Thirty Years War.
>
>Where you err is in failing to understand that 
>America was largely settled by Protestants who 
>were trying to get away from Popes and Emperors. 
>It wasn't until the Irish potato famine that 
>significant numbers of Catholics settled 
>here--but under conditions of enforced 
>tolerance, where they were just another 
>religion. In fact, when Willie Nelson showed an 
>early version of Jack Herer's book with this 
>Dutch history (from Georg Behr's original hemp 
>book) to Ann Richards, she asked why they were 
>bashing Catholics, and they took it out of the 
>next edition.
>
>Therefore, Americans do not see religion, or 
>salvation, as a bad thing, but as a basic human 
>right, that belongs to every individual. And in 
>fact, prohibition in the U.S. didn't get started 
>until the 20th Century.
>
>
>Modern neurological theory that says addiction 
>is brain disease is a small permutation of the 
>original dogma, that alien forces can deregulate 
>(sicken) our inner self, our core self. 
>Neurology tries to understand now where this 
>happens, and it says: in the brain. And 
>neurologists make theory about this and create 
>images ( brain scans they call them) to 
>illustrate their ideas. In a nutshell they say 
>that drugs will incapacitate the brain's centers 
>of 'good' decision making and then they locate 
>the cells where this happens.( They, of course, 
>define what 'good' decision making is, not I, 
>the head of which they made the scan)
>
>
>The power of half-lies is that they are 
>half-truths. Brainscans only indicate where the 
>activity is taking place. A better way to 
>understand it is that every chemical we put into 
>the body sets off its own particular cascade of 
>effects. You don't get narcotic effects from 
>stimulants, or psychedelic effects from 
>narcotics. All drugs are not equivalent, nor are 
>all drugs equally popular with druggies. Heroin 
>will never have the mass following of cannabis, 
>no matter how many experts on both side of the 
>legalization debate say that their action in the 
>brain is really the same.
>
>
>If addiction is a way of learned adaptation, we 
>should no longer use the word addiction, but ' a 
>life style in which the intense and sometimes 
>frequent use of drugs is an adaptive tool".
>
>
>Aside from the question of build-up of 
>tolerance, which no user really wants because 
>they don't want to spend more money to get the 
>same result, the longterm learning which results 
>in cues in the environment triggering intense 
>cravings simply may not be very "intelligent." 
>Mice bio-engineered to knock out the mGLUR5 
>receptor could not be trained to self-inject 
>cocaine. All other mice self-inject in 
>preference to food and water until they die. But 
>not these mice. Their dopamine was spiking, 
>their serotonin was spiking--they were getting 
>plenty of reward. But without the glutamate to 
>hardwire in the self-injection, they soon lost 
>interest and drifted back to their food and 
>water.
>
>For regular mice, their learned adaptation was 
>fatal. What ibogaine seems to do is scrub this 
>particular glutamate pathway, without 
>interfering in interest in real rewards like 
>food, water, shelter, etc.
>
>
>Sometimes tools become obsolete, and the 
>explanation of why so many people leave 
>dysfunctional adaptations is exactly that: loss 
>of usefulness.
>
>But some tools may also carry heavy stigma 
>.Religeons were forbidden, sexual behaviours 
>chosen by some were forbidden, types( patterns) 
>of drug use are forbidden because they all 
>conflict with general ideals about human 
>existence. This is a sort of legitimization of 
>prohibiting these behaviours.
>
>
>If a user takes ibogaine because of family 
>pressures, etc., and doesn't really want to 
>quit, let me assure you that they are perfectly 
>capable of going back to drugs. It happens all 
>the time. That's why we only claim a certain 
>success rate in getting people clean with 
>ibogaine. After ibogaine, you can really FEEL 
>your drugs. But beware of overdosing on your 
>regular dose following a session.
>
>
>I agree fully with Dana that methadone is not 
>only a chemical compound, but much more an 
>instrument of discipline in a world that 
>prohibits the self chosen use of opiates in 
>spite of the fact that some people like them, 
>and some even need them to survive. If I choose 
>to use opiates it is not okay, but if my doctor 
>makes that choice for me, it is. We prohibit not 
>so much the opiate, but the intention and 
>symbolical context of some types of use. The 
>doctor can give me methadone to help me live 
>with my type of adapatation, but not the type of 
>opiate I like better.
>
>Methadone can help people, but only ( or mostly) 
>at the conditions of the doctor.
>
>And here we reach the core of what I would like 
>to clarify: the doctor stands for society's 
>choice to prohibit me the self chosen use of 
>opiates. He wants me to be either abstinent, or 
>use his opaites in ways he prescribes.If I fail, 
>hopla. to jail ,or at least no more assistence.
>
>Overcoming use and reaching abstinence is 
>society's goal with me if I use opiates. 
>Overcoming 'addiction' by means of 'treatment' 
>is what is supposed to happen. The ibo people 
>say: use ibo to overcome addiction.The 
>whitecoats say: use my compounds or life rules 
>to overcome.
>
>
>But Ibogaine's effect was discovered by a drug 
>user, and promoted for addicts by drug users. 
>AND the U.S. government apparently is trying to 
>extend its prohibition of ibogaine worldwide. By 
>shunning it and downplaying its significance 
>because of your institutional commitment to 
>schemes of opiate maintenance, the legalization 
>camp is complicit in this prohibition. Which 
>leads to this big split between the academics 
>and policy wonks on the one hand, and the addict 
>advocates of ibogaine.
>
>
>My mistake is that I approach these things in a 
>too theoretical fashion. I reason: the desire to 
>become abstinent is a solid by product of our 
>social ways of prohibiting opiates and other 
>drugs, and the idea of an ideal human being that 
>lurks behind these prohibitions.
>
>But, as some of the ibo people told me, it may 
>not be a by product of social force alone; it 
>may be a genuine desire ,never mind the way this 
>desire developed in me.
>
>Okay. That is true.
>
>If I approach the ibo people with this Okay, 
>could they approach me with more understanding 
>of my problems with the self chosen use of ibo? 
>Ibo can not dissociate itself from the social 
>context in which it has created its usefulness: 
>prohibition. I see ibo as 'just one of these 
>treatments' in a very symbolical sense.I am not 
>talking about the pleasure of taking ibo, or its 
>high level of interestingness, I am not refering 
>to its subjective functionality, but to its 
>social symbolism.
>
>
>What if ibogaine is just a much more interesting 
>experience than doing coke or dope for the 
>umpteenth time? Why be stuck in a rut? We don't 
>pay much attention to what the prohibitionists 
>think anyway. What if it's simply time to move 
>on?
>
>
>I maintain that the illustration I used about 
>homosexuality could clarify this. People of 
>course have the right to not want to be gay. But 
>if society jails gays, marginalises them, 
>blackmails them and ultimately destroys their 
>identity, it is not fair to ask people to remain 
>gay, and true to their 'inner self'.Of course I 
>understand their desire to ungay themselves, and 
>if they use ibo to do that ,be my guest.But the 
>social function of the ibo in that context is : 
>society's soldier that chases the gayness out of 
>gays. And I do not accept that because of my 
>weird idea that gays have the right to be gays, 
>and similar, intense drug users have the right 
>to pursue that life style.
>
>
>Like I said during my presentation in New 
>Orleans, which you missed, ibogaine is not about 
>elimination of all drugs, but self-determination 
>for drug users. Part of any effort to reduce 
>demand for the more addictive drugs, and force 
>the market to supply more psychedelic "soft" 
>drugs.
>
>I once asked you to find the source of the 
>following, apparently taken from Dutch 
>government fact sheets:
>
>"Out of the total population of 727,000, 
>Amsterdam has around 5,100 hard-drug users. The 
>primary thrust of policy is to discourage the 
>use of drugs, and to combat the trade in drugs. 
>The authorities also seek to minimize the risks 
>incurred by drug users and to reduce as far as 
>possible the nuisance factor for the general 
>public. In the context of use, Amsterdam's drug 
>policy differentiates between hard and soft 
>drugs, i.e.: cannabis is available, but at 
>locations where no other illicit substances may 
>be sold, and this "market separation" is 
>strictly enforced. Of some 5,100 hard-drug 
>users, around 2000 are of Dutch origin, with 
>some 1350 having roots in the former colony of 
>Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles and Morocco. 
>Around 1750 users come from other European 
>countries, mainly Germany and Italy. The total 
>number of hard-drug users is steadily 
>decreasing, while their average age is rising, 
>from 26.8 years in 1981 to 39 years in 1999. In 
>the same period the total number of drug users 
>under 22 years of age dropped from from 14.4 
>percent to 1.6 %."
>
>At the time you informed me you were not really 
>interested in helping find the source of this, 
>because no matter how laudable the decline in 
>heroin use involved, you do not support market 
>separation because you do not believe in 
>differentiating between pot and heroin. 
>Subsequently, I came to understand that in 
>Holland, cannabis was until recently consumed as 
>hashish in tobacco cigarettes, while in America, 
>everyone smokes pot, which is ubiquitous, 
>including hard drug addicts. Junkies use pot to 
>get over their jones. So people view going back 
>to just smoking pot as returning to a more 
>innocent, more easily manageable existence.
>
>
>I have used the word ibo CLAN because of the 
>special circle in which ibo is developing its 
>mythical status. For me it is just another 
>'miracle' compound within prohibition, and 
>within a theoretical NIDA governed dominance of 
>pharmacological understanding of intense drug 
>use, not a psychological understanding or a 
>societal one. Its like ( not the same!) as these 
>compounds the industry now works on to block ALL 
>'addictive' behavior or 'craving', to be 
>injected from birth on.What a money maker ,this 
>ulimate pharmacological zombyiser.
>
>
>Come on now. Those vaccines are not going to be 
>psycho-active like ibogaine. That zombie clan 
>image is just more horror movie stuff, which 
>will only impress folk already skeptical, or 
>opposed to ibogaine. And how can NIDA do 
>containment on a miracle?
>
>
>To Sara, giving me ibo, and making me part of 
>the interesting experience, would not change my 
>ideas. My subjective reaction to ibo and my 
>discussion of the social function of ibo are 
>different levels of observation or analysis.
>
>pc
>
>
>Sara's right. You should take it. I may not have 
>taken the big dose, but at least I've been 
>immersed in the subject for 20 years.
>
>Your take on its social function can have no 
>insight until you better understand the drug 
>itself.
>
>
>
>PS Dana shouted at me at the top of his voice in 
>the New Orleans hotel. I did not really mind. 
>Angry people do that.
>
>
>But heated words are not insults, nor threats. 
>And I at least was trying to continue the 
>conversation, while you were keen to break it 
>off.
>
>
>nick227 at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>For me, you have to take into account the effect of the drug upon the body
>and the brain. The democracy you are speaking of seems to claim that there
>is an absolute independence of will regardless of intoxication, that someone
>who has been using, say, heroin, for 5 years, has complete free will as to
>whether he or she takes the next hit. Do you really believe that? "Uhm now,
>well, what drug of choice shall I take today? How will I, with my free will,
>choose to alter my consciousness today? Hey, how about heroin?! Ok, so I've
>made the same choice for the last 5 years, but well that's my free will."
>Heroin is an analgesic, an industrial strength painkiller. If you're
>struggling in life and your body's repression system is fighting to hold
>down feelings then just one hit of heroin is going to give you such a
>feeling of elation that you aren't easily going to stop using, maybe not
>ever, and certainly not until another emotional process comes along with
>sufficient strength to shake you out of it, a crisis of some sort, or a
>progressive maturation. And, even then, it isn't going to be easy to stop.
>You're going to need all the help you can get.
>
>
>The hells we make for ourselves are much more confining than any government.
>
>
>I submit that this whole thing you have of making ibogaine into the tool of
>some regime to oppress those who seek freedom of choice is simply not
>grounded in the reality of today's world. I mean, no one, possibly bar
>myself, is even suggesting this happen. No government agencies seem remotely
>interested in ibogaine, they don't give a shit about addicts and mostly, in
>the case of the US government, basically finance all sorts of suspicious
>covert operations disrupting foreign governments with the money they gain
>from the drug trade anyway. They've got no interest in stopping anyone
>taking heroin, beyond paying lip service at voting time.
>
>
>Just look at Afghanistan. Ibogaine, by 
>undermining the status quo, offers perhaps the 
>best chance of overthrowing it.
>
>
>So I urge you to look again at ibogaine and perhaps see the liberation it
>profers, frequently to those who had given up all hope. And maybe even to
>take a dose. To say it will not change your ideas, now that sounds pretty
>closed. How can you know?
>
>
>Actually, Nick, since Peter is articulating the 
>doubts and objections of the "Heroin Solution" 
>camp as a whole, it is rather unlikely the ideas 
>will change that fast.
>
>
>andria3a at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>Some comments about this 'resistance' from Prof Cohen:
>
>***A) PC is a brilliant man though using his 
>huge intellect to bad-rap a treatment for 
>addiction, which clearly has validity, use and 
>healing for our peers/community and family and 
>therefore our communities generally, annoys me A 
>LOT.
>
>B) At the New Mexico Lindesmith Conference, 
>Marsha Rosenbaum, a woman I happen to admire a 
>lot otherwise, tried to stop Dana from speaking 
>and had I not intervened, would prolly have 
>succeeded. I called her weeks later, to ask why 
>she did that and she said she had forgotten even 
>doing it..
>
>C)There clearly is something about Iboga that 
>upsets those with money and power in the 
>movement, but I am unclear as to what it 
>is...whatever it is, they are not articulating 
>with any convincing to me. I think it's 
>personal, not theoretical, political or economic 
>actually. BUT y'know when people have such 
>fantastic brains, they can waste time with 
>arguments that some will find interesting if 
>unhelpful
>
>D) PC is a star in some circles, so people like 
>to connect to him: I love his mischievious 
>childlike nature but I have had many one to ones 
>with him and I often end up feeling 
>unappreciated, so i keep a little distance from 
>him nowadays.
>
>E) I have written a longish e-mail to him, 
>Nadelmann & Rosenbaum, saying in short, PLEASE 
>stop being so arrogant..."if addicts are saying 
>that Iboga improves their lives, nobody 
>(including y'all) should be throwing theoretcial 
>spanners in the works."
>
>
>So I'm not paranoid. It is not personal, 
>however. Anyone who kept pushing ibogaine in 
>Peter's in-crowd would face the same ostracism 
>eventually, because they're bucking the program. 
>Their group is excluding us, but almost 
>unconsciously, or automatically. Marsha 
>Rosenbaum doesn't remember, you see....
>
>
>GardenRestaurant at comcast.net wrote:
>Peter Cohen second letter is effectively more coherent than the first one
>but I still believe that is position is stiff and incoherent.
>
>The The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the
>World MedicalAssociation at Genevra in 1948 and 
>amended bythe 22d World Medical
>Assembly at Sydney in 1968 It is a declaration of physicians' dedication to
>the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially
>importantin view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in Nazi
>germany.
>The Declaration of Geneva reads "AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER
>OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:
>
>a.. I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE myself to consecrate my life to the service of
>humanity;
>b.. I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their
>due;
>c.. I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity;
>d.. THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
>e.. I WILL RESPECT the secrets which are confided in me, even after the
>patient has died;
>f.. I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble
>traditions of the medical profession;
>g.. MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
>h.. I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed,
>ethnic origin, gender, nationality, politicalaffiliation, race, sexual
>orientation, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
>i.. I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life from its beginning
>even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the
>laws of humanity;
>j.. I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honor."
>Now if a dying addict is not sick, of course, you don't have to help him .
>Did I understood it , ?/!
>You don't have to help an alcoholic. What about a diabetic ? An obese ?
>What if your country had 27 % of the men are addicted to opium, like after
>the two Opium war in China ?
>What if a superpower with the help of alcohol is destroying your people and
>culture like in the "American Genocide" Europe versus Americas.? What if
>goverments try to push addiction to their citizens?
>To many questions for a busy specialist in addiction trying to reach his
>quota of 10 % success rate.
>God bless you
>Francis
>Sorry, nothing personal. Just few questions. Have you ever read " brave new
>world " ?
>
>
>With proper follow-up, our success rate is higher than 10%
>
>
>ms_iboga at yahoo.com wrote:
>I guess I am trying to
>understand why you made the reference to the 'cure for
>homosexuality' in the first place, and how it so
>easily segued into Ibogaine. It seemed to me to be a
>non-sequitor.
>
>
>Not in the context of the proponents of heroin 
>trials trying to influence gay AIDS bureaucrats 
>via the harm reduction movement. Their ace in 
>the hole is that there is no alternative to 
>heroin maintenance. It's inevitable, so just 
>implement it. But the ibogaine makes that not 
>true. So there IS an alternative. And THAT'S a 
>big problem for Peter Cohen, Morgan, and Drucker.
>
>
>I don't believe drug users should be persecuted
>either. Heroin maintenance for opiate dependency
>seems like a great idea to me, as opposed to
>methadone. However, many opiate users would like to
>either (1) take a break from using, or (2) cut down
>their dosage. As you have never been dependent on
>opiates, you have no idea how hard this can be, both
>physically and psychologically.
>
>
>His arguments do give that difficulty short shrift.
>
>
>nick227 at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>What I see is that Peter is taking a libertarian 
>stance with drugs. That's fine, very Dutch, and 
>I support it. The Dutch had bullshit Calvinism 
>rammed down their throats for generations and 
>it's great to see them get up and move in the 
>opposite direction. One day they're even gonna 
>stop being so stingy too! Anyway, I'm being 
>childish.
>
>What I don't see is any grounding, any 
>connection to feelings. It's just a mindy 
>argument that makes sense for libertarian 
>academics and wins adoration from a generation 
>of individuals that don't want to look at their 
>drug-using behaviour. Yes, I'm just exercising 
>my democratic right to use, struggling against 
>the Oppression of the State that wants to 
>control my behaviour. I'm OK! I'm justified. In 
>fact, I'm actually a freedom fighter!
>
>
>I actually have elicited this reaction. It's not 
>as bad as it once was, because people have more 
>respect for ibogaine the longer it's around. And 
>if they're junkies, some day they might need it.
>
>
>Adopting this Us and Them belief pattern mimics 
>the action of an opiate. The drug will push down 
>feelings, it represses the influence of the 
>body, it creates a duality - mind vs body. The 
>belief does the same, it's the mental version of 
>an opiate.
>
>Ibogaine is a drug that can show you Who You 
>Are, and that person is not a junkie, that 
>person is never a junkie. Really. Well, maybe 
>one in one million but no more! It is not 
>natural to reinforce the mind-body split. I 
>don't care if people have been using opium or 
>other drugs of repression for aeons, that 
>doesn't make it natural. The movement towards 
>holism is natural, the movement towards 
>mind-body split is unnatural. That's my take. 
>Heroin is a learning tool but ibogaine is the 
>teacher. The one leads to the other.
>
>Nick
>
>
>
>sara119 at xs4all.nl wrote:
>All ways are ways, some ways will be looked at 
>as better ways then other ways but each and 
>everyone of us has to follow a way in this 
>physical body,
>
>So let's just except that for what it is. and if 
>some of you have come across ibogaine that's 
>cool, but don't become a  "Yahweh witness " of 
>ibogaine cause
>
>
>I donno. I just saw Ben DeLoenen's film. It could make a believer out of you.
>
>
>It isn't for everyone, just like every other way 
>, if you are supposed to live a sober life that 
>will happen to you no matter what, the awakening 
>will happen when it is suppose to happen with or 
>without ibogaine, it is all up to you what path 
>or way you have to follow/or not follow , and 
>not up to the ibogaine to light your path in a 
>way that you can see that you have a path but up 
>to your understanding/or not understanding of 
>the self /mind body spirit which lifestyle you 
>sink in or walk.
>
>In short, who are we to be judgmental/or in 
>control of any body's state of consciousness. 
>Consciousness is a individual growing process 
>and not a forced Process from society.
>
>On the other hand those who were addicted and 
>became free of it think that it is a way that 
>everyone should follow as a magic way to freedom,
>
>But really you are the lucky one's to feel that 
>way, and for sure that you get your act together 
>when you are not dope sick or broke and stressed 
>out.
>
>It is all about the true joy we have in our 
>lives, if your life is better being clean then 
>so be it and if not then so be it.
>
>Both is human lifestyle and the key for any 
>change is in the hand of the higher self, the 
>connection we have with the universe.
>
>The nice thing about Iboga experience is that you are reminded of that.
>
>
>
>freedomroot at gmail.com wrote:
>Peter said he thought even partaking of the Ibogaine Interesting
>Experience wouldn't alter his subjective position that anchors his
>thinking on the matter.
>
>I'm not sure that assumption will/would hold up in practice. It is
>perhaps, how did the sandbagger put it?, a "mindy" approach to the
>mystical.
>
>And, for a counter-example, all of the social scientists who went and
>"looked" at the hippie or commune or psychedelic cultural revolution
>or whatever you wanna call it, were changed by the experiential
>dimension of the participant-observation.
>
>It would, I cerebrally offer, be likely to change something.
>
>love from ny, rachel, ibo-wife
>
>
>
>cohen.cedro at uva.nl wrote:
>Why I make a reference to the 'cure for 
>homosexuality'? Because I see the philosophy 
>driving such cures as the same as the philosophy 
>driving the 'cures for intensive drug use'.
>For me it is all very clear and I understand 
>that for you is it is not clear at all.
>
>
>But gay behavior stretches over a spectrum from 
>committed monogamy to binge sex with 6 guys a 
>night on levitra and crystal meth. No one on 
>this list is against using drugs, or for the 
>government prohibition. We just don't want to be 
>ADDICTED, because it's time-consuming, 
>inconvenient, and expensive.
>
>
>I am trying to work with the theoretical 
>problems that the concept of 'addiction' bring 
>and that is also why I approach all this in a 
>theoretical way.
>Once you think you see how the history of the 
>concept of addiction played, and to what types 
>of social practice this has lead, it becomes 
>necesary to 'deconstruct' the concept of 
>addiction and find out how exactly it was 
>constructed in the first place, by whom and on 
>what evidence. What behaviors were created into 
>'addiction' and what theoretical notions, 
>available at the time, inspired this? Thats what 
>I do.
>
>
>As a matter of fact, the standard dopamine model 
>of 10 - 15 years ago has been rendered obsolete 
>by new findings--partially by ibogaine research 
>itself. Dopamine turns out not to be reward, but 
>craving. The mice without the mGLUR5 pathway, 
>remember?
>
>
>Let me try another example. (Hoping I do not 
>create even more confusion because no example is 
>really good enough, or precise enough) The Bill 
>of Rights was written in the America of the 18th 
>century by people who owned hundreds of slaves. 
>For them it was not clear as it is for us, that 
>there is a contradiction in their thinking. How 
>can you try to define a state system that would 
>ensure freedom for its civil population while 
>enslaving millions?
>
>
>The answer is that there was never consensus on 
>slavery, and that contradiction lead to a civil 
>war.
>
>
>These slave owners were of course part of their 
>times in which black people from Africa were not 
>seen as humans but as a sort of animal. One did 
>not define human rights for these beings, they 
>were not human to begin with.
>So, if educated slaves from these days would 
>support the version of human rights that 
>excluded them, I would have told them that, in 
>my view, they were seeing themselves thru the 
>eyes of their masters. making any form of what I 
>see as emancipation impossible.
>
>
>To the contrary, each group that has since 
>attained its freedom did so by insisting that 
>those rights included them.
>
>
>When I look at the notion of 'freedom' or 'human 
>right' these people used I can understand why 
>they did not include black Africans. And I could 
>fight them better.
>
>I could go on , and discuss the concept of 
>democracy and its history in the USA, where a 
>blind horse can see that the USA has never had 
>even a remote diluted version of democracy and 
>now is further away from it even.
>
>
>But we have a plan for dealing with that, which 
>I outlined at the end of my last post. I do not 
>believe your plan to end prohibition is 
>realistic. You would set up a kind of Weimar 
>situation where the Nazis would simply take over 
>again, really pissed, in about 10 years.
>
>
>Now back to addiction. If one, like me, does not 
>recognise this concept, one has a serious 
>conflict with the psychiatric class and their 
>notions that exist all around. If there is no 
>such thing as a pathology called addiction, why 
>would any one have any claim or desire to 
>'curing' it? Do you now see why I use the 
>example of homosexuality?
>
>
>This would be news to purveyors of the 
>conventional wisdom that addicts are incurable, 
>and will always be in the system, either as a 
>social service client, or as a homeless junkie 
>sustaining the police state via petty crime that 
>converts middleclass surplus capital into 
>liquidity to prop up the banking system.
>
>
>The social existence of the concept of addiction 
>legitimises a vast discriminatory system not 
>unlike slavery.It forces the 'addict' to obtain 
>'cures', but the addict may resist -for good 
>reasons-, but "we,psychiatrists acting in the 
>name of a deep social prejudice, will force you 
>to accept this cure".
>
>
>William Burroughs said that if you wish to alter 
>or annihilate a pyramid of numbers in a serial 
>relation, you alter or remove the bottom number. 
>Take away addiction, the system collapses.
>
>
>I used to see the ibo clan as part of that 
>philosophy, an identification with the system 
>that severely discriminates against them, forces 
>them into miles deep of social misery and 
>marginalisation.Do not think I do not know about 
>the behaviour of intense and frequent drug use.I 
>do. I speak to the people that here in this 
>country are on the receiving end of a gram of 
>heroin each day, if they so wish. I know how the 
>security of heroin each day slowly and 
>profoundly changes their lives and their 
>possibilities, altho the social prejudice 
>against them is not changed much.But because 
>they improve so much, both physicall and 
>spiritually, they are able to move freely into 
>social space they had not entered for a long 
>time.
>Some hate the psychiatric and medical 
>supervision, rightly so, and some even decide to 
>go back to blackmarket heroin or methadone. But 
>try to understand where I want to go.
>
>
>I do not understand how we could be identifying 
>with the system, since the impulse to seek out 
>ibogaine is much more akin to rejecting the 
>supervision of methadone and going to the 
>blackmarket.
>
>
>Some one on this list wrote me that ibogaine was 
>a kind of salvation for her, but the heroin in 
>her heroin habit did not hurt her at all. The 
>drug war destroyed her, forcing her to leave her 
>ways and seek a 'cure' which she found with ibo.
>
>
>I'm not going to apologize for the bunch of 
>little Nazis running the system, and I don't 
>have to. We did this to free our own people. You 
>keep thinking that all drugs are equal, that 
>there are no entheogens, nothing more salvific 
>than good old smack.
>
>
>This is exactly what I say all the time. The 
>drug war is not a war on drugs but on its users. 
>Heroin, or any other opiate can be used almost 
>without limit in both quatity and time, if 
>proper food habits etc are chosen.Opiates are so 
>non toxic it is hard to find anything better. 
>For those who like or need opiates, it is a 
>fabulous substance with in general less problems 
>than the average marriage.
>
>
>This is where you become utopian. We have to 
>wait for ibogaine until you get legal heroin. 
>The tawdry reality is methadone, and methadone 
>up-regulates HIV production and trashes the 
>liver of anyone on AIDS meds. Ibogaine, on the 
>other hand, seems dramatically to improve Hep-C 
>status, and Glick's synthetic 18 MC is a 
>potential treatment for HIV.
>
>
>So once again, I do not have any personal 
>problems with any of you. Or with your liking 
>for ibo. It is the social context in which ibo 
>has become what it is that I try to combat, in a 
>rather radical way,thats true. But I consider 
>the cruelty of prohibition and the medieval 
>backwardness of the ideas behind 'addiction' as 
>so terrible, that only a radical rethink can 
>open some eyes.
>
>When you say
>
>many opiate users would like to
>either (1) take a break from using, or (2) cut down
>their dosage
>
>I know that. For me this is a proof of my 
>accusations towards the system that ruins lives 
>of opiate users and forces them into this 
>imaginary 'cure' or 'a break' that modern days 
>Inquisition has concocted for the unfaithful(= 
>users of wrong drugs )
>
>
>There you go again. Ibogaine is imaginary; the 
>effect is all mind control by mindvox.
>
>
>The hatred that these 'wrong drug users' receive 
>or develop for themselves is a brutal and 
>terrible thing that has no other ground than 
>prejudice.So, I do have a serious problem 
>accepting the core validity of people's claims 
>who 'want' to take a break. Most people will 
>take a break or diminish or stop altogether when 
>they are not forced, if time has come.Or they 
>won't, which in my view is their right as well.
>
>
>You want to do something about the Drug War? 
>Organize or participate in some protest. Right 
>now we have 140 cities on 6 continents marching 
>on May 7th. I hope you will join us in 
>Amsterdam. When we hit enough cities with big 
>enough protests, the system will collapse, like 
>in the Ukraine. Then we must be prepared to 
>seize power ruthlessly and accord our enemies 
>unlawful combatant status. Bush has renounced 
>the protections of the Geneva Convention.as far 
>as all drugwar bureaucrats and law enforcement 
>personal are concerned.
>
>
>I am not forcing any one of you you try to see 
>what I see, but at least-for me- it is a 
>worthwhile attempt. And, I have to say, I learn 
>because the attack on me, e.g. that I am to 
>'mindy' reminds me that I can not approach these 
>things from a purely theoretical position, as if 
>no real and very serious subjects are involved, 
>more than a 'social construction' that can be 
>dealt with in an unemotional theoretical way.
>
>
>You say we can't have ibogaine until we reach 
>utopia. Okay--at least our utopia is more 
>imaginative than your utopia.
>
>
>ptpeet at nyc.rr.com wrote:
>Well, while I tend to agree with you in most 
>ways Peter, I myself do know from experience 
>that under today's system of prohibition, it is 
>a very hard road to toe while strung out (call 
>it what you will- addicted, habitual user, 
>self-absorbed, whatever), dodging prohibition's 
>enforcers while trying to scrape enough money 
>together each and every day just to feel "not 
>sick," and life really can be extremely 
>difficult to live like that- and yet as 
>difficult and outright hellish as it can get, 
>many of us still have trouble stopping. Again, I 
>fully agree with you that we should be allowed 
>to live and take any drug we so desire, 
>including opiates and everything else really, 
>and shouldn't have to worry about stopping, but 
>we do unfortunately. With this in mind, I am 
>totally behind ibogaine, in that it sure was a 
>nifty, amazing, beautiful way to completely cut 
>my opiate use to miniscule levels (without my 
>stupid pain issues, I would not have continued 
>taking opiates actually).
>This is why people might have a desire to have a 
>way to "cure" the situation when people find 
>themselves really prefering not to use drugs 
>rather than go to jail, lose their home, etc, 
>etc, and yet find themselves unable to find the 
>"will power" (which I'm not entirely convinced 
>is what's needed anyway, having gone through 
>this stupid situation again and again my own 
>damned self) or whatever it is to quit taking 
>the drugs.
>
>
>You know, you and Nick would do the whole list a 
>service by concentrating of getting Peter to 
>justify himself, instead of throwing brick-bats 
>at each other. We are so marginal compared to 
>the Ethan Nadelmans that letting go of this 
>focus was a big mistake.
>
>
>BiscuitBoy714 at aol.com wrote:
>Sara, I think you mean free will coming from an 
>addicts point of view when stopping the 
>addiction. For me, I used opiates most of my 
>life to make me feel better in some way or 
>other. Pain, depression, anger, love....., etc., 
>made me feel uncomfortable. All I knew was when 
>I was opiated, I felt "better." For a while. I 
>fell in love with the euphoria of ALL opiates. 
>Well, after years of eating, snorting, smoking, 
>shooting dope I became so tore down from conning 
>DR's, being a middle man in dope deals, 
>generally spending all my cash, and putting all 
>my effort into keeping my jones at bay, that I 
>just didn't want to be addicted anymore. My 
>choice. I have things that I want to accomplish 
>that I just couldn't seem to get done addicted. 
>God knows that I gave it enough time to find out 
>if opiates were fucking me up or not. I love the 
>feeling of opiates, I just don't want to have to 
>be a slave to the grind anymore. I have to admit 
>that the reaction that I got from my family as I 
>nodded out at the table in front of my nephews 
>and my Mom had something to do with it. I never 
>could find that fine line between being half 
>sick or nodding out. I never had enough dope. If 
>I'd have had 5 kilo's of heroin, I would have 
>been wondering where to get more. I just 
>couldn't take it any more. All I knew was I had 
>to find a way that actually worked at keeping me 
>from being so sick when I tried to stop. I tried 
>everything that came down the road to no avail 
>until I found Ibogaine. Somehow Ibogaine has 
>interrupted my addiction enough to let me think 
>for myself instead of thinking about my 
>addiction all the time. I'm loving my state of 
>mind now, besides I'm sure there will be plenty 
>of dope out there if I change my mind about it. 
>I really don't think I will this time. Thanx for 
>asking Sara. Peace and love to you and your 
>family. Randy
>
>
>Well said. There has to be more to life than the 
>rat-race. Heroin is just variant of rat race. 
>Ibogaine is something else.
>
>
>GardenRestaurant at comcast.net wrote:
>This is a kind of marxist view of addiction as a creation of the "bougeois".
>
>In my humble opinion as soon man discover the potential properties of
>alcohol or drugs to create a state of euphorie or bliss: we found addiction
>I don't see why we should make a distinction beetwen an addict to drugs or
>alcohol.
>1600 BC we have already Egyptian texts referring to the social problems of
>drunkness .
>
>Hinduism has the largest following in India, and in the Hindu scriptures
>drinking is referred to as one of the five heinous crimes, which include
>murder and adultery.The ancient Tamil poet, Thiruvalluvar, whose work
>entitled offers some foundations for ethical values in society, also
>condemns alcohol, calling it a social evil and equating a drunkard to a dead
>body.
>
>In China there is archeological evidence of alcohol production 7 000 years
>ago. Early Chinese literature includes many references to alcohol. Dynasties
>appear to have fallen as a result of alcohol. The historical record clearly
>suggests that, at different times, governments have acknowledged
>alcohol-related problems and have used policies to prevent these problems.
>For example, the Emperor Yu (2205 - 2198 BC) imposed an alcohol tax to
>reduce consumption.
>
>A drunk is a drunk and an addict is an addict as far as we can go back in
>history.
>God bless
>Francis ( ex drunk :-) )
>
>
>Societies are going to make some kind of efforts 
>to regulate substances. I think that we can 
>justifiably require them to replace alcohol and 
>cigarettes with cannabis.
>
>
>Dana/cnw
>
>P.S: This digest was prepared for the Global Marijuana March.
>
>
>  /]=---------------------------------------------------------------------=[\
>[%] Ibogaine List Commands: http://ibogaine.mindvox.com/IbogaineList.html [%]
>  \]=---------------------------------------------------------------------=[/


-- 
>-------------------------------------------------
>Peter D.A. Cohen Ph.D
>University of Amsterdam
>
>Centre for Drug Research (CEDRO)
>Office: Wibautstraat 4, Room D5.26
>1091 GM Amsterdam The Netherlands
>
>mail address: postbox  94208
>1090 GE Amsterdam
>
>email: cohen.cedro at uva.nl
>tel: +31-20-525 4278 or mobile: +31 6227 89441
>fax +31-20-525 4317
>
>World Wide Web: http://www.cedro-uva.org (with a large selection of
>original CEDRO reports and publications in dutch, english and other
>languages)



More information about the Ibogaine mailing list