Yes, my teenage years were irresponsible, and a main reason I often chime in to suggest at least having serious knowledge about what you're doing and safety precautions before going this route.

Yes, because it is different for different people, and even different for the same person dependent on their mindset when they take it, it's impossible to be totally 'safe' when taking it, even with full knowledge. You can't know for sure how it will react with you, or how you'll react to it until it's too late.

Making your own, if you're a decent chemist, at least gives you a good idea of WHAT you're taking, but without spectral analysis, you can't know the strength of the psychoactives for certain. Also, that probably leaves you open to more legal trouble for manufacturing a schedule 1 narcotic...more reason to not go in public and take it and get caught.

The fear is that, when someone is having a bad trip, they aren't likely to think straight enough to take something to counter act the effects...even if they're smart enough to have that handy. Unfortunately, a clinical setting is probably also not conducive to a great experience, so 'under a doctor's supervision' isn't really totally helpful or practical.

The quantum mechanics part can be understood, he seemed to have just miss-stated/miss-understood what the experiment was about in his wish to find some science that explains his experience, which may not be understandable.

This video is a bit misleading. Very few kids here in Japan travel completely alone to school unless they live in very rural areas (and even then, they probably go with older siblings). As you see later in the clip, most kids go to school together with friends in small groups, at a minimum a pair but sometimes in huge groups. In my neighborhood, at around 8:45 in the morning, you can see virtually the entire local elementary school walking together towards the public school. They might not be under direct adult supervision, but they are rarely alone and there is always an adult nearby because people are usually commuting to work on the same roads/trains that the kids are using to get to school.

And like they said, the reason this can happen is that violent crimes against children such as kidnapping are almost non-existent here. Adults are far more likely to end up missing/dead here. Contrast that with Western countries like the U.S. or Australia and it quickly becomes apparent why people are escorting or bussing their kids to school in those countries.

I will say that there is a negative side to the "independence" they are touting in this video, which is that these same children often run completely free after school with zero adult supervision. Some of them can get a little wild (throwing rocks at passing cars and stuff or making way too much noise in a crowded residential area) but the cultural attitude here is that it's just "kids being kids," although I sometimes suspect that's code for "we don't want to actually have to parent our kids unless someone forces us to."

Adrenaline rushes aren't dangerous if they're done properly. Personally I'm going to make sure my little boy is exposed to plenty of 'scary' things as he grows up so he can learn about risk and how to assess/handle it properly.

I saw a great documentary about this with Danny MacAskill called Daredevils: Life On The Edge. It looked at adrenaline junkies and investigated why they do what they do. At the end of the program there's a really nice choreographed sequence with MacAskill and various others performing tricks as they descend down the step into an underground station in London, and through the station itself.

The sequence was directed by a hollywood stunt specialist who has worked with all the top guys in big blockbuster movies and he said that the stuntmen and women, far from what most people think, are the least likely people in the world to do something risky. There are two parts to this. Firstly they've learned how to be very good at assessing risk. They understand extremely well what makes something safe or risky. They've had a lot of experience and have learned from it.

Secondly they are very highly skilled. What would be very risky for us to do isn't for them because they have the training to perform safely. We only think what they're doing is dangerous because we ourselves would be very likely to be hurt doing it.

If you insulate a kid from risky experiences you deny them the chance to learn in a controlled environment. It's like teaching a kid to cook. If you look after them really well and provide everything they need and cook them fantastic nutritious meals every day until they leave home they'll love you immensely for it. Then they'll move out, try to look after themselves and end up burning the house down with a pan fire or cut the end of their finger off with a knife or shave the skin off their hand with a grater.

Teach a kid how to use a sharp knife safely and how to sharpen it and keep it keen and they'll be safe for the rest of their life. Kids should be able to use sharp knives, under strict supervision of course, to learn the safe way of doing it. They should be doing 'dangerous' things to learn to do them safely. Part of the learning process is probably going to hurt. They may well get a few cuts before they get their knife skills up to scratch, but if they're in a controlled environment these should be small compared to the injuries that happen when someone with no idea about knives forces a blunt one through something tough.

As for adrenaline sports, the more they fall over the better they learn to balance. If this kid goes on a bit of a bigger slide and gets thrown off in the corners it's going to hurt, but it's not going to kill him. He'll find his limits and respect them more.

I'd rather my kid makes his mistakes while I'm still around to clear up the mess

Once again, your repeated blanket promotion of using black market DMT without supervision has gotten old, and you have repeatedly been chastised for promoting it in unsafe, irresponsible ways. I feel like you should have to list your actual name and address when you repeatedly suggest things like that with an air of knowledge, so people and estates know who to sue when it all goes bad.
You're also in danger of being nothing more than a skipping record. I rarely if ever see you post anything NOT suggesting random strangers do a hard core, illegal drug. Please find another topic to speak about. I'm starting to think that doing DMT makes your life about nothing but DMT from then on, and that's pretty sad.

FeddieW shows it can be escaped (though supervised) I don't see a YT version so a FB version will have to do...
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1043462089003417&set=vb.110201492329486&type=2&theater

Still not suggested...

"UPDATE: As I mentioned in the comments that I initially posted with this video, based on our dog's extensive training, temperament, and exceedingly gentle previous interactions with the baby (which are shown in our other videos), under our close supervision, we did not perceive that there was any realistic risk of harm to the baby by allowing her to try to take a bone from the dog. In contrast, a handful of visitors apparently strongly believed that we were putting the baby in imminent danger in this video.

Although I disagreed with those visitors' comments, based on those comments, I contacted the dog's trainer about the video and about the nature of the interaction shown in the video, as the trainer is specifically familiar with our dog's training and temperament. In short, based on her specific experience with our dog and other dogs, the trainer agreed with me that it's unlikely that the dog would harm the baby -- and in her opinion, the dog was not exhibiting any signs of stress or irritation in the video that would lead her to believe that the baby was at any risk of harm during that interaction. That said, she cautioned that a dog's "resource guarding" instinct cannot be 100% bred or trained away, and that a dog's tolerance for someone taking its resources can change over time as the dog develops and ages. Because of that, she cautioned that just because the dog is tolerant of such behavior now does not mean that he'll be so tolerant of such behavior in the coming months. So, particularly while the baby is so young, the trainer conservatively recommended against allowing the baby to take anything from the dog's mouth. Moreover, we intend to follow that recommendation -- so rest assured, we will not allow the baby to interact with the dog again in the way that's shown in this video.

Although I wish the detractors had been a bit more constructive and less alarmist in their comments, I do ultimately appreciate their concern, and I learned a little something from it. So, thank you." from there.

What in the world are you on about? The private sector gets just as many chances as "the government" to f-up and keep moving forward.

Take a look here for some consumer product recalls:
http://www.esopro.com/erp-blog/industry-musings/the-10-most-disastrous-product-recalls-of-all-time

On that list are corporations like Firestone, Tylenol, Graco, Hasbro, Ford and Toyota. Despite their negligence leading to deaths, they seem to be doing just fine. And those corporations killed way more people than NASA ever has.

Is accountability important? Sure, absolutely. In the case of the Apollo mission, the Program Director was fired. I would the same is true for a lot of those product recalls: the highest up person with direct supervision of the project should be fired.

In summary, I don't really see where "the government" gets off easy while the "private sector" is unfairly punished.

No, I don't HAVE to admit that. He's commander in chief, he should be involved to an extent.
I will say it's a GOOD thing he is forced to personally order a strike on Americans...at least, should that be litigated and found to be illegal, we'll know exactly who to prosecute, but that's certainly not the norm. Normal drone strikes are done by techs under minimal supervision and/or responsibility for the consequences.
It's too bad your political affiliation can't let you see that the last administration was even less transparent. I agree, Obama did not keep his word to have a 100% transparent white house, or anything close to it. It's quite disappointing. I will also say, however, that I assign a large portion of blame to the last administration for making that possible with their 'legalization' of subterfuge, misdirection, lies, obfuscation, declaration of 'state secrets', etc. If we ALL had gotten up in arms then and put a stop to it, Obama wouldn't be able to be so secretive, neither would the next guy (or gal).

It's another shame that his "evidence" is also complete supposition that a stay in a rehab (for illicit drug use) months earlier somehow equates to inappropriate hard core anti depressant usage without supervision.
I'll just hope for random patients sake that's not his own experience as a 'clinical psychologist' that he's speaking from. (Oh, my wife, an ex-pharmacist, just clued me into the fact that psychologists can't prescribe medicines, is it therefore likely his apparent anti-anti-depressant position is just an extension of jealousy of those who can?)
(Somehow I feel he doesn't tell his patients about Videosift, I think he might lose some if they read his posts and put 2 and 2 together).

Yeah, I mean I've done it all sorts of different ways except IV'ing. I refuse to IV anything unless under medical supervision

Honestly, I think nasally just is not going to be beneficial which exactly like you said is the result of pinwheels & confusion. Plus, a burning nose.

Orally, you are going to want to make sure you are using a MAOI that you are comfortable with already so that the MAOI vs. DMT effect is somewhat understood.
Then obviously, dosage is everything. If you don't know how much you did, you may have only had a very sub experience. Which is when it seems like LSD... that is when you know you just need more because you are no where close yet.

These states I would say aren't really even "sub-breakthroughs" and approach a level similar to other psychedelics. I would NEVER recommend a breakthrough dose because it is not "confusing" as to what is going on. It's wildly real when you are "there".

How much did you smoke? And what kind of tool did you smoke it out of? There is definitely a "mystical" state in there you just have to do enough. I was apprehensive as well until I stopped saying it was bullshit and did it myself whilst taking heed to all of the information I had gathered over the years on the topic. I am flabbergasted to this day and anyone else who has "received the message" knows what I am talking about.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

@VoodooV
totally agree that there needs to be a strong message and people need to get organized.

as for my obama comment.i read an article when it went down that had the memo from the sec. of state.
i dont have it on hand so believe what you wish,its fairly irrelevant now but if you recall..all occupy movements were shut down within 48hrs.
that takes co-ordination.

as for the state being violent.
it is.
thats what it does.
just look up the labor movement.look up the west virginia mining strikes.just for ONE example to see the violence the state will perpetrate in the name of their masters.even back then corporations wielded immense power and influence.
anything good,decent and moral that this country has gained was NEVER a gift from the government but rather through opposition and bloodshed.

i do not accept the "lesser of two evils' argument.we can do better..period.

i do not accept that because the government consists of people that it automatically translates to benevolence.

the soldier who supervised the gas chamber in auschwitz may have been a great husband and father but he still presided over the execution of thousands.

people give authority and power to those who do not deserve it and sometimes that translates to a spiritual illness.

yes,you are correct.we have a voluntary military but have you ever questioned why?
why are these young people joining?
while there a myriad of reasons the main one?
they are poor and un-educated.thats the biggest reason.
and right now our military is experiencing the largest suicide rate ever..3 times the normal rate.

wonder why? might have something to do with a compromised moral compass?

maybe the american public SHOULD be made aware of what is being wrought in our name.
maybe that revolution would start a lot sooner.

i do not know whats going to happen.
but i am glad of your optimism.
i hope you are right my friend.
i hope you are right.

Helping coordinate acts like this is the single most effective way we as adults can fight bullying. If you don't teach kids to watch out for and help each other, the only times kids will be safe from bullying is when directly under the exclusive supervision of adults.

First of all, there is no "norm in America." It's a big fucking place, and schools are locally managed. I suppose waivers are relatively normal when children are expected to be in a risky situation without the supervision of their guardian. Suppose for example your kids were going to go on a rock climbing field trip. Would parents not be asked to consent to that? That's fucking weird. The weird part is that this waiver is clearly not related to the situation. These particular people at this particular school are clearly particularly stupid. That's why it's a video on the internet. It's not weird that they want 5 year olds' guardians to arrange for some sort of supervised transport home. I think it would be strange to just let a 5 year old walk miles down a highway to their home. The school would clearly have some liability if they allowed the child to do that without their guardian's permission.

As for the cop, well, again, that's a locale to locale sort of thing. He might not be a permanent fixture at the school (although some schools have rent-a-cops). He may have been called in because the guy caused a ruckus off camera. Do you not have cops go to places where there is an incident? So, for example, if someone went to a school and refused to leave until his demands were met, would you not call in a cop to mediate the situation?

Certainly nothing to this extent, but I did have a funny little disagreement with the local school when my daughter was in kindergarten. In kindergarten you are not allowed to drop your child off at the school property entrance on the city sidewalk. You have to walk them the 30 feet to the doors (completely in line-of-site). Starting in Grade 1, you can drop them off at the city sidewalk.

I asked them if in kindergarten was the greatest threat to my child the 30 foot walk on their property under teacher supervision that magically goes away the next year? At least they thought it was funny and said they never looked at it this way.