NationStates Jolt Archive

Over the past decade, their has been a very apparent lack of good art, all art has been either socio-ergonomic art, or a stack of cambells soup cans. If we have institutions set up in specified areas, true art could possibly be made again, if they can use a restricted amount of pyschedelic drugs. Thus, this will bring back a more easygoing society. It could also stop all this rap and bad music being poured into the radio and bring back Beatles, Moody Blues, and the guess who. Without the side effects other drugs make, like the degeneration of ozzy osbourne. I need support for this please help the Oppressed People of Daressalaam.

The drugs might make the people more "easygoing" as you put it and it might even make for better art but It would destroy the artists in the process. Also, how exactly do you plan to have no sideaffects? Even with small amounts of drugs people would still get addicted and therefore when you tell them they can't have anymore they will just get some from illegal means thus totaly messing themselves up. Saldaeans will vote aggainst any sort of proposal like this because any minor positives of drugs are outweighted by the overwhelming negative affects.

when i said it would take the side effects away, it must have been poorly worded, for what i meant was, only certain drugs that are Pyschedelic like marijuana would be used, marijuana, if used in a safe and restricted area would have no more negative side effects than ciggarettes. Sure their could be some substance abuse, but if we were going by this mind set wouldn't we want to ban sleeping pills, any pain relievers, and any ciggarettes. When i said it would take negative side effects away i was leaning towards not using drugs that promote just *high* feelings, or only hallucininetic feelings. While heroine has many pyschedelic qualities, it is still to dangerous and addictive to the user to use. Thus the example of Ozzy Osbourne, *he used cocaine though*, i hope this helps clear things.

ok, thats not as bad but it would still take a molmentous effort to control a this once you started it. Also about marijuana not haveing anymore sideaffects then cigaretts, well cigaretts do terrible things to your body too, so not going for that argument. Besides I pretty sure that marijuana is harder on your body than cigaretts (which are bad enough as it is). I still don't see the as many pros as cons to this idea.

The Ambassador from Catawaba blinked a few times in disbelief. "You wish to repeal a ban on the use of mind-altering drugs in the name of art?"

Stunned, Seigfried stayed silent for a moment. "There is no ban on mind-altering drugs. The UN Drug Act leaves policy on the legal status of the use of recreational drugs solely up to its member nations. If you wish have your 'artistic asylums' where 'true art' can be made, you best return home and have a word with your national legislature."

He shook his head. "It is beside the point, but how can you ask the United Nations to pass a resolution in the name of 'true art.' Frankly, 'true art' is a relative term. Personally, I find the sort of easy-going cattle-trap that you wish to encourage to be downright awful, even if I've never heard of a single artist you sanctify. I find photorealism to be the height of visual art, especially depictions of ships at sea, but you may believe otherwise. There in is the foolhardy nature of any general body such as the UN trying to act in the name of art."

I'm glad somebody agrees with me that the drugs are terrible and it probubly won't help art in the least bit anyways.

Both Marijuana and ciggarettes have tar. After this the chemicals differ greatly, for in Marijuana the only side effect is disoriented thinking, which could cause lots of damage which is why their would be many restrictions on area and amount. Also the fact it has 4 times as much tar, but being a more lax hobby than a full blown addiction, it is less tar in the long run. On the otherhand ciggarettes contain many different carcinogens, and the tobacco contains nicotine which has been proven more addictive than the stimulant in marijuana. Cigarettes will cause more disease and death just because of whats added to it then marijuana, because marijuana is all natural.
On the other hand i do see why it could leak into the public, or cause haphazard for our youths goals, but as i see it, that could not be a ultimately bad thing. Granted i agree with you that it is bad, but one, it already happens anyway, but two it would leak marijuana instead of other dangerous drugs, and the next generation would not have to be *creative* in trying to make drugs and killing themselves and their peers in the process.

wow you guys gave me a new mindset, *astounded* forget the whole thing ever happened, I personally agree throughly with your thoughts on the opinion of true art. This obviously was a bad idea to even bring up, alas i will only argue about ideals that are morally correct and not by personal opinion against the mass. Sorry

My point was not that cigarets were better than Marijuana its that they both are incredibly bad for the human body, I'm sorry I would like my population to be able to breath properly and make choices without disorientation. And Yes its impossible to stop it all but that doesn't mean we should give up and let our minds rot due to drugs!

ummm, sorry but did you read my last message, i was argueing about a unreasonable issue with no backup evidence and voiced on opinion and art, with a very personalized opinion, this was bad. I can think of better than this foul example.

repeal to bring back pyschedelic drugs for artistic purposes
Now what? Which resolution are you wanting to repeal? Do you even understand what a repeal is?

none, thought processs on this is over

"Bad Proposal, if this is an attempt at one. The Shazbotdom Empire is herby against this rediculous proposal. If you want this type of thing, then legalize it in your own nation and leave mine out of it."

you know what, i totally agree with you

Is there a ban of these drugs within the UN? or is it up to the country itself.

OOC: Is anyone else amused by the implication that Andy Warhol never used drugs?

Is there a ban of these drugs within the UN? or is it up to the country itself.
It's up to the individual nations: There's actually a resolution, the UN Drug Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131355&postcount=192), that guarantees this...

I'm glad somebody agrees with me that the drugs are terrible and it probubly won't help art in the least bit anyways.Tell that to The Beatles...

Regardless of the fact that we do not believe that true art is made by mind altering substances, this proposal is ridiculous. It repeals where there is no repeal necessary, moreover, without mentioning what should be repealed.
Aside from this, we suggest that the proposing nation looks into art, beyond the overly popularised art. The argument that recent art is socio-economical - how art is ergonomic is beyond me, unless we are talking about designer furniture - and therefore bad, or false, is equally debatable; we observe that most art throughout the ages had an agenda other than the aesthetic aspect.
Furthermore, we observe that for certain art forms, like sculpture and architecture, the use of mind altering substances is very dangerous, both to the artist himself, as to the general public.
I confess that I don't understand all contemporary art either, and there have been some absurd ideas - which may have been conceived under the influence of aforementioned substances - but there is an aesthetic quality in the forms used.
It is, furthermore, my opinion that where there is no talent without drugs, there is none with drugs.

Respectfully,

Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques,
former minister of culture,
National Emissary to the NSUN,
for the Principality of Beaucalsradt

OOC:Actually, I do find that amusing.

Tell that to The Beatles...

And to another myriad of musicians. Listing them all would be pointless -- There are so many.

Tell that to The Beatles...

OOC: I don't think the beatles and for that matter most of the artists listed here did drugs to create art. I think they did drugs because that was the accepted thing to do. I think a sober artist can be just as good as a high one.

OOC: in fact, Eric Clapton went to drugs to experience the Blues first hand, in an attempt to belong to the Blues, to some extent, while most of his colleagues tried to dissuade him, as he was Blues enough already, and his music couldn't be improved by it.

I believe the term "Drugs" covers too much ground. I believe psychedelic drugs should be legal, and harmless drugs like Marijuana should be legalized for use, not abuse, and be treated similarly to alcohol. Anyways, I'm for the repeal.

OOC: I don't think the beatles and for that matter most of the artists listed here did drugs to create art. I think they did drugs because that was the accepted thing to do. I think a sober artist can be just as good as a high one.

Yet notice that many of these artists music was highly influenced by their drug use. "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds..."

ok, thats not as bad but it would still take a molmentous effort to control a this once you started it. Also about marijuana not haveing anymore sideaffects then cigaretts, well cigaretts do terrible things to your body too, so not going for that argument. Besides I pretty sure that marijuana is harder on your body than cigaretts...

While it is true that Marijuana has up to 6X the amount of cancer causing chemicals in its smoke, the High inducing chemical in Marijuana (THC) completely halts the process of these chemicals, and actually affects breast cancer and tumors in a positive manor. Even then, the cancerous materials in the smoke can be avoided with a simple Vaporizer, which would be easier to come by if Marijuana were legal.

OK, let's stop dragging this thread off topic. If you want to discuss RL artists who use drugs take it to General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227). This thread is supposed to be about repealing the laws banning artists form using pyschedelic drugs which is pointless since there aren't any UN resolutions to that effect.

Amen, this obviously was a dying idea on my part sorry

Ooh, we have skill.

Seigfreid looked up from the papers covering his table as he tried to catch up on the myraid of resolutions that were forming up overwhelm him. "What I think the delegate from Daressalaam is trying to say, my friends, is that he is withdrawn his proposal. He has conceded the point, and I think we should just let this discussion die." He gumbled and leaned back asked his aide where'd he left his glasses. The chagrined aide tentatively pointed to the man's balding head. Seigfried blushed and retrieved his glasses from the top of his head.

ok, thats not as bad but it would still take a molmentous effort to control a this once you started it. Also about marijuana not haveing anymore sideaffects then cigaretts, well cigaretts do terrible things to your body too, so not going for that argument. Besides I pretty sure that marijuana is harder on your body than cigaretts (which are bad enough as it is). I still don't see the as many pros as cons to this idea.


Marijuana has never once in the history of its existance caused a death by consumption. It has significantly less carcinogens than tobacco. Also, it is inhaled less frequently. Meaning that when you smoke a cigarette you take about, (round guess) 20-30 drags. When you smoke marijuana, it takes maybe 1-6 hits to get the desired effect. It is impossible to overdose on (it would take consuming two times your body weight which is impossible to do). Motor skills are not impaired. In some cases, motor skills are improved. It can be used to treat many diseases such as glaucoma and arthritis. It is also a lot cheaper to manufacture than tobacco or similar products, since it grows naturally in EVERY STATE in the U.S.

OOC: Might I point out that recent research has in fact proven that Cannabis smoke contains ten times as much carcinogens as tobacco smoke? Besides, it has five times as much hydrogen cyanide, which will cause heart problems. Additionally, it has been linked to psychosis and schizophrenia.
And then there are almost all negative effects that tobacco has as well. So, on the whole; even though I don't smoke, I'd stay with tobacco.
It has equally enslaving effects, and has more violent withdrawal symptoms than tobacco. The effects in combination with other drugs (on prescription), can be more devastating as well.
Hallucinogens while driving are never a good idea, and so far, I have not heard of rapes or murders induced by tobacco use. Also, your reaction time is significantly lower for as long as 8 hours after smoking a single one. So, slower reaction time, connected with hallucinogen, is an accident waiting to happen.

OOC: This topic is pretty much dead, and this discussion is really not for here. Take it up in General.

*ahem*, once again im going to say that i totally agree with all of you, lets pretend i never posted this and let it die out a short painless death. This isnt even a law to be voted on, it is utterly stupid, please for the love of god just let it die.