|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Robert CohenRobert Cohen Date: Mar 3, 2008 19:50
This is not an endorsement of psychedellics for having religious
experiences
Besides, the *authoritarian majority of the Supreme Court does not
think your State has the perogative to legalize a drug per se, no
matter if the people by majority referenda want it so.
But now that i think about it, how did the peyote case(s)come out,
because...
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html
*yes, they are our de facto (if not "de jure") secular deity so to
speak
|
| |
|
| | 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 3, 2008 22:43
On Mar 3, 7:50 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:> This is not an endorsement of psychedellics for having religious
> experiences
>
> Besides, the *authoritarian majority of the Supreme Court does not
> think your State has the perogative to legalize a drug per se, no
> matter if the people by majority referenda want it so.
>
> But now that i think about it, how did the peyote case(s)come out,
> because...
>
> http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html
>
> *yes, they are our de facto (if not "de jure") secular deity so to
> speak
What are the "peyote cases?"
from txt at the link;
"But not everyone who uses a plant like this brings the Torah," Shanon
concedes. "For that, you have to be Moses."
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Mar 3, 2008 23:06
On Mar 3, 10:50 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:> This is not an endorsement of psychedellics for having religious
> experiences
>
> Besides, the *authoritarian majority of the Supreme Court does not
> think your State has the perogative to legalize a drug per se, no
> matter if the people by majority referenda want it so.
>
> But now that i think about it, how did the peyote case(s)come out,
> because...
>
> http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html
>
> *yes, they are our de facto (if not "de jure") secular deity so to
> speak
|
| Show full article (12.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 3, 2008 23:42
On Mar 3, 11:06 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Mar 3, 10:50 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:
>>> This is not an endorsement of psychedellics for having religious
>> experiences
>
>> Besides, the *authoritarian majority of the Supreme Court does not
>> think your State has the perogative to legalize a drug per se, no
>> matter if the people by majority referenda want it so.
>
>> But now that i think about it, how did the peyote case(s)come out,
>> because...
>
>
>> *yes, they are our de facto (if not "de jure") secular deity so to
>> speak
|
| Show full article (3.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert CohenRobert Cohen Date: Mar 4, 2008 06:48
So, the ancients visited the rabbinical meta-physicians, were issued
prescriptions (on "tablets"), and discount apothecaries in Canada
filled 'em in clay pots that children and elderlies had trouble
opening.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Mar 4, 2008 21:06
On Mar 4, 2:42 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
(digested)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 5, 2008 10:58
On Mar 4, 9:06 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Mar 4, 2:42 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> (digested)
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 5, 2008 11:02
On Mar 4, 6:48 am, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:> So, the ancients visited the rabbinical meta-physicians, were issued
> prescriptions (on "tablets"), and discount apothecaries in Canada
> filled 'em in clay pots that children and elderlies had trouble
> opening.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Mar 5, 2008 23:34
On Mar 5, 1:58 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 4, 9:06 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 2:42 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (digested)>
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Mar 6, 2008 00:05
On Mar 6, 2:34 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Mar 5, 1:58 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 9:06 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:>
>>> On Mar 4, 2:42 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> (digested)>
>
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
