I take illegal drugs for inspiration(susanblackmore.co.uk)
susanblackmore.co.uk
I take illegal drugs for inspiration
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/telegraphdrugs.htm
103 comments
>same level of power as one of my children dying.
See, that's terrifying to me. I've never taken LSD but I don't think I would ever want to put myself in the sort of situation that trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill.
This talk of using MDMA for couples' therapy because it releases vasopressin scares me too. Vasopressin is the bonding hormone, and sure, you could probably make two people who were not in love fall in love artificially- but that's also scary. I'm not sure I would want to be married to someone I could only stand because I took drugs.
I'm pretty libertarian, and I do think that drugs should be a choice- but these accounts scare me more than any crap about flashbacks and hallucinations.
See, that's terrifying to me. I've never taken LSD but I don't think I would ever want to put myself in the sort of situation that trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill.
This talk of using MDMA for couples' therapy because it releases vasopressin scares me too. Vasopressin is the bonding hormone, and sure, you could probably make two people who were not in love fall in love artificially- but that's also scary. I'm not sure I would want to be married to someone I could only stand because I took drugs.
I'm pretty libertarian, and I do think that drugs should be a choice- but these accounts scare me more than any crap about flashbacks and hallucinations.
"I'm not sure I would want to be married to someone I could only stand because I took drugs."
That's not how it works. The drugs allow you to explore feelings that you're otherwise not able to explore, and work through whatever emotional roadblocks you're having with your partner. Essentially it lets you find the source of your anxiety and problems, when normally you'd just be really anxious and unhappy all the time but you wouldn't know why. And then once you know why you are unhappy it allows you to communicate these feelings with each other so that you can use them to rebuild the relationship. It does also make you love and care much more about the other person's wellbeing, which is an important part of the process, but it's not why it works. The love and empathy part is just what allows you to fix your relationship, it's not actually what fixes it.
"I've never taken LSD but I don't think I would ever want to put myself in the sort of situation that trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill."
You should take some time to learn about what the experience is actually like. You're trivializing the psychedelic experience by saying that LSD trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill.
That's not how it works. The drugs allow you to explore feelings that you're otherwise not able to explore, and work through whatever emotional roadblocks you're having with your partner. Essentially it lets you find the source of your anxiety and problems, when normally you'd just be really anxious and unhappy all the time but you wouldn't know why. And then once you know why you are unhappy it allows you to communicate these feelings with each other so that you can use them to rebuild the relationship. It does also make you love and care much more about the other person's wellbeing, which is an important part of the process, but it's not why it works. The love and empathy part is just what allows you to fix your relationship, it's not actually what fixes it.
"I've never taken LSD but I don't think I would ever want to put myself in the sort of situation that trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill."
You should take some time to learn about what the experience is actually like. You're trivializing the psychedelic experience by saying that LSD trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill.
The love and empathy part is just what allows you to fix your relationship, it's not actually what fixes it.
This is akin to taking meds to suppress panic attacks in order to undergo therapy to truly circumvent the panic/agoraphobia loop. The drug is a tool; it can't relieve you of the responsibility to do the work yourself (no matter what lazy people may want to believe).
This is akin to taking meds to suppress panic attacks in order to undergo therapy to truly circumvent the panic/agoraphobia loop. The drug is a tool; it can't relieve you of the responsibility to do the work yourself (no matter what lazy people may want to believe).
>That's not how it works.
How do you know how it works? It's possible it doesn't, but release of vasopressin in the brain is responsible for bonding behavior i.e. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v365/n6446/abs/365545a0...
On the other hand, there's no evidence for all this "exploring feelings" stuff.
How do you know how it works? It's possible it doesn't, but release of vasopressin in the brain is responsible for bonding behavior i.e. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v365/n6446/abs/365545a0...
On the other hand, there's no evidence for all this "exploring feelings" stuff.
"On the other hand, there's no evidence for all this 'exploring feelings' stuff."
What I'm saying is actually the currently accepted scientific theory. What we see in PET scans is that MDMA shuts down part of the amygdala, which allows people to process emotions and experiences that would otherwise be inaccessible.
Michael Mithoefer refers to this starting at 10:45 in this MAPS lecture:
http://www.maps.org/videos/source/video3.html
And Peter Oehen has a more in depth explanation in his lecture here:
http://www.maps.org/videos/source/video4.html
There's no question that couples therapy would be vastly less effective without the increased pair bonding and empathy, but if that was the only mechanism in play then we wouldn't expect the relationship to still be vastly improved 12 - 24 months after just one session. (Otherwise we'd be seeing a large percentage of marriages happening between people who met at raves, which is not the case. People who hook up under the influence of MDMA don't seem to have any lasting 'extra' feelings for each other after a couple weeks, beyond what would be normal without the MDMA.)
What I'm saying is actually the currently accepted scientific theory. What we see in PET scans is that MDMA shuts down part of the amygdala, which allows people to process emotions and experiences that would otherwise be inaccessible.
Michael Mithoefer refers to this starting at 10:45 in this MAPS lecture:
http://www.maps.org/videos/source/video3.html
And Peter Oehen has a more in depth explanation in his lecture here:
http://www.maps.org/videos/source/video4.html
There's no question that couples therapy would be vastly less effective without the increased pair bonding and empathy, but if that was the only mechanism in play then we wouldn't expect the relationship to still be vastly improved 12 - 24 months after just one session. (Otherwise we'd be seeing a large percentage of marriages happening between people who met at raves, which is not the case. People who hook up under the influence of MDMA don't seem to have any lasting 'extra' feelings for each other after a couple weeks, beyond what would be normal without the MDMA.)
The best verbalization I've heard of the experience is that it removes many of the filters of daily life.
What you do with that is up to you, but it's a powerful tool in some ways.
What you do with that is up to you, but it's a powerful tool in some ways.
I don't know how much of anything in the brain works, but I bet that something as complex as bonding is tied to more than one thing.
If by "no evidence" you mean the first-hand accounts of thousands upon thousands of people, I agree with you.
Forgive me, I did not clearly explain that. It does not trivialise the death of my child in any way. Having my first daughter dying was one of the worst things that ever happened to me. It slowly, but totally changed my life. Emotionally, I just hardened up. My outlook on life changed (realising the one chance to live, life is precious, enjoy every second, etc. etc.).
The other horrible event in my life was a series of severe panic/psychosis attacks. I stood next to my girlfriend, and truly did not know if I was me, if she was anybody, if I was an alien, or what. And then it was just a feeling of "absolute terror". You're utterly and completely terrified - no "reason", just a total sensation of dread. I would have cut my legs off if it would have stopped it. (BTW, this was all before I tried LSD.)
So, when I say "powerful", I mean, reflecting back on my life, looking at the events that stand out, that truly had an impact, that are "amazing" - what would those be? In no particular order:
The other horrible event in my life was a series of severe panic/psychosis attacks. I stood next to my girlfriend, and truly did not know if I was me, if she was anybody, if I was an alien, or what. And then it was just a feeling of "absolute terror". You're utterly and completely terrified - no "reason", just a total sensation of dread. I would have cut my legs off if it would have stopped it. (BTW, this was all before I tried LSD.)
So, when I say "powerful", I mean, reflecting back on my life, looking at the events that stand out, that truly had an impact, that are "amazing" - what would those be? In no particular order:
- The birth of my children (the first time I almost fainted, not from the blood but just from sheer awesomeness of holding her in my arms).
- The loss of my first child (when the doctor shook his head, I just collapsed, not to mention the effects for years to come).
- Panic attacks
- Some of the times my wife and I have made love.
- LSD: Even just the experience, let alone the impact on my life.
Panic attacks are truly awful. I'm sorry to hear that you've had them, and more sorry to hear about your daughter.
How long did your panic disorder last? How'd you get it into resolved? What therapies did you pursue, how long did they take, and how well did they work?
I developed PD after making the idiotic decision to work (at a Wall Street job) through a flu-- not a cold, but actual influenza-- taking only 2 days off. Stupid macho trader bullshit I tried to pull at 24. So I didn't recover properly and ended up developing a respiratory infection that intermittently made breathing difficult: hence, panic attacks. At the same time, two very close friends (a little bit too deep into psychedelics) were having nervous breakdowns at the same time and even though I wasn't using, I started worrying that it might happen to me, because I was dealing with their bullshit every day. Which meant that the panic attacks became self-reinforcing; because I saw mental illness in my daily life, I thought I might develop it. Of course, that didn't happen because, even though it feels otherwise, panic disorder is not "going crazy". I think panic disorder is actually more like a much less severe cousin of epilepsy (an acute, intermittent, and highly treatable physical problem) than chronic mental illness, but that's anther rant.
I don't have full-on panic attacks at this point, but I still have low-level anxiety attacks (the kind that normal people get once a decade or so, which are rough but NOT panic attacks) on a 1-2 per day frequency.
It was a fascinating experience, but a deeply negative one. It doesn't help that most people think of panic attacks as the punchline to a joke. Sometimes I feel the need to say, "No, you didn't actually have a 'panic attack' when you saw Lady Gaga wear the meat-dress." This must be what people with real insomnia feel when idiots write Facebook statuses like "farmville at 2:30 am. i'm such an insomniac lol".
What has actually stayed with me is the incompetence of the U.S. medical system. The experience of being neglected in a time of (perceived) exigent emergency is jarring. More scarring than the attacks themselves (during a panic attack, you don't write many memories, and this is a good thing) was how much medical incompetence and don't-give-a-shit attitude I experienced when I was sick with this "mystery" health problem (the respiratory infection and panic disorder onset happened at the same time) that turned out, thankfully, not to be that serious. I'm terrified of what it will be like in a few decades (fingers crossed) when I have to deal with real, serious health problems-- I hope the system is less broken, by then.
How long did your panic disorder last? How'd you get it into resolved? What therapies did you pursue, how long did they take, and how well did they work?
I developed PD after making the idiotic decision to work (at a Wall Street job) through a flu-- not a cold, but actual influenza-- taking only 2 days off. Stupid macho trader bullshit I tried to pull at 24. So I didn't recover properly and ended up developing a respiratory infection that intermittently made breathing difficult: hence, panic attacks. At the same time, two very close friends (a little bit too deep into psychedelics) were having nervous breakdowns at the same time and even though I wasn't using, I started worrying that it might happen to me, because I was dealing with their bullshit every day. Which meant that the panic attacks became self-reinforcing; because I saw mental illness in my daily life, I thought I might develop it. Of course, that didn't happen because, even though it feels otherwise, panic disorder is not "going crazy". I think panic disorder is actually more like a much less severe cousin of epilepsy (an acute, intermittent, and highly treatable physical problem) than chronic mental illness, but that's anther rant.
I don't have full-on panic attacks at this point, but I still have low-level anxiety attacks (the kind that normal people get once a decade or so, which are rough but NOT panic attacks) on a 1-2 per day frequency.
It was a fascinating experience, but a deeply negative one. It doesn't help that most people think of panic attacks as the punchline to a joke. Sometimes I feel the need to say, "No, you didn't actually have a 'panic attack' when you saw Lady Gaga wear the meat-dress." This must be what people with real insomnia feel when idiots write Facebook statuses like "farmville at 2:30 am. i'm such an insomniac lol".
What has actually stayed with me is the incompetence of the U.S. medical system. The experience of being neglected in a time of (perceived) exigent emergency is jarring. More scarring than the attacks themselves (during a panic attack, you don't write many memories, and this is a good thing) was how much medical incompetence and don't-give-a-shit attitude I experienced when I was sick with this "mystery" health problem (the respiratory infection and panic disorder onset happened at the same time) that turned out, thankfully, not to be that serious. I'm terrified of what it will be like in a few decades (fingers crossed) when I have to deal with real, serious health problems-- I hope the system is less broken, by then.
I've have panic attacks like the OP. They lasted pretty strongly for a year, then tapered off. Treatment: Basically, lots of benzos (Xanax) that I titrated myself off of over time. (Xanax is a much lower risk drug than some of the powerful ones a psych might prescribe (SSRIs, for example)). For years though, I couldn't do anything that put me in an altered state. Even taking Benadryl to sleep (which makes you groggy at first), would make me freak out. Even a tiny hit of pot would make me get all scared. Apart from taking Xanax on-demand, it just mostly went away...
I still keep Xanax in my pocket (I think everyone should, to be able to remain clear headed if a panic situation arises), but hardly ever need them.
I still keep Xanax in my pocket (I think everyone should, to be able to remain clear headed if a panic situation arises), but hardly ever need them.
I'm on very low doses of Klonopin, which takes longer (about 30 minutes) to set in but I think that was a very good thing. First, there's no sudden change in psychological state. Sudden relaxation during panic could have a paradoxical effect. Second, it puts a 30-60 minute upper bound on the attack but still requires me to work at calming myself down. If it took effect immediately, I never would have had to go through the hard process of deliberately calming myself down, through which I learned a lot of skills that work on run-of-the-mill negative emotions as well as on panic. Thanks to that process, I'm probably actually above average in mental health post-panic. Panic disorder teaches in a very visceral way that most of the garden-variety worries are just not worth getting upset over.
When my wife was being treated for PD, she tried Xanax and hated it. She said it felt as though she was still having a panic attack but just couldn't act on it - which, for her, was even scarier.
People's minds are weird things.
People's minds are weird things.
That's the paradoxical effect. It happens, sadly, with most psychiatric medicines. No one really knows why, but a small percentage of people end up getting worse. That could have been at play with your wife. Or it could have been a nocebo (negative placebo) effect, or just the course of the attack. For example, the worst panic attacks tend to come on suddenly with a defined liminal point (not an upward creep of anxiety throughout the day) and peak 3-7 minutes afterward. If she took the Xanax at the liminal point and felt worse 5 minutes later, that's not because of the drug, but the panic attack's initial upward swing.
The truth is that benzodiazepines don't really abort a panic attack-- at least not in the short (<5 minutes) term. Nothing really can. What benzos are great for is recovering from a panic attack and preventing it from rolling into another one. If your wife felt shitty for 5 minutes, but great at T=30 minutes, then it's not the drug's fault because the drug worked.
SSRIs also have a paradoxical effect. I think SSRIs are somewhat like a less risky version of electroconvulsive therapy: they induce a change of state in the brain, and the brain's response gets it out of a depressive cycle, but it's not clear why one state change ("shock") works and another doesn't. To make it weirder, when people are on SSRIs for a while there's a tendency for the drug to stop working ("poop out"). No surprise: this sounds like tolerance. However, at this point both raising and lowering the doses can work. So it seems like any change in this state variable is what can cause the improvement, but no one really knows. (That said, never hard taper on an SSRI, and definitely don't reduce dosage without talking to a doctor.)
The truth is that benzodiazepines don't really abort a panic attack-- at least not in the short (<5 minutes) term. Nothing really can. What benzos are great for is recovering from a panic attack and preventing it from rolling into another one. If your wife felt shitty for 5 minutes, but great at T=30 minutes, then it's not the drug's fault because the drug worked.
SSRIs also have a paradoxical effect. I think SSRIs are somewhat like a less risky version of electroconvulsive therapy: they induce a change of state in the brain, and the brain's response gets it out of a depressive cycle, but it's not clear why one state change ("shock") works and another doesn't. To make it weirder, when people are on SSRIs for a while there's a tendency for the drug to stop working ("poop out"). No surprise: this sounds like tolerance. However, at this point both raising and lowering the doses can work. So it seems like any change in this state variable is what can cause the improvement, but no one really knows. (That said, never hard taper on an SSRI, and definitely don't reduce dosage without talking to a doctor.)
The death of your own child even, not just any child.
Just a thought: can you imagine that there may be many completely different ways you could think, all of them "sane"? That the patterns of thought you take for granted are mostly there by chance? Please take a moment and think before you answer.
Because if you can't, that would explain your reaction. GP found out something about himself by using LSD, and that something happened to be important enough that it changed his life. Why is that such a hard thing to imagine?
There are pills and there are pills. For my uncle 40 years ago, "just a pill" saved his life (penicillin). There are many pills that could kill you. And apparently there are pills that can change the way you think, and at least for some people this happens to have major positive consequences. Why is this by default evil?
I share your concern about MDMA use for therapy - but I don't think we should throw away the baby along with the bathwater. Drugs are extremely dangerous, especially for young and/or uneducated people, because they _work_. They have real, consistent effects, and if you manage to align those effects with your goals, good things happen. But if you don't... and this is why you usually have several horror stories for each successful one. Still - I think there is a lot of potential here.
My particular experience is of much smaller scale - a few months ago I found out that occasional melatonin use can fix my sleep schedule long term. Not a big thing, but I see it as one battle I've won with my genetics. And that's a good thing.
Just a thought: can you imagine that there may be many completely different ways you could think, all of them "sane"? That the patterns of thought you take for granted are mostly there by chance? Please take a moment and think before you answer.
Because if you can't, that would explain your reaction. GP found out something about himself by using LSD, and that something happened to be important enough that it changed his life. Why is that such a hard thing to imagine?
There are pills and there are pills. For my uncle 40 years ago, "just a pill" saved his life (penicillin). There are many pills that could kill you. And apparently there are pills that can change the way you think, and at least for some people this happens to have major positive consequences. Why is this by default evil?
I share your concern about MDMA use for therapy - but I don't think we should throw away the baby along with the bathwater. Drugs are extremely dangerous, especially for young and/or uneducated people, because they _work_. They have real, consistent effects, and if you manage to align those effects with your goals, good things happen. But if you don't... and this is why you usually have several horror stories for each successful one. Still - I think there is a lot of potential here.
My particular experience is of much smaller scale - a few months ago I found out that occasional melatonin use can fix my sleep schedule long term. Not a big thing, but I see it as one battle I've won with my genetics. And that's a good thing.
The analogy about penicillin is quite silly, because LSD didn't save this guy's life- it didn't do anything tangible- it was a mental experience disconnected from reality... whereas the death of his child was real. If the pill brought the kid back to life I wouldn't be criticizing it.
That last sentence bothered me so much I downmodded the comment. Maybe I'm just overly touchy; I have kids.
I think many people on here are missing the point about "same level of power as one of my children dying." He's only using that as a way to convey how much of a life altering event it was, not how tramatic, or depressing it is.
I've never taken LSD, nor to I plan to, but every, EVERY, person I've talked to that have, talk about how it changed thier lives dramatically.
It seems there are a fair ammount of people on here somewhat scared of the way drugs alter you, (hey, this is hacker news, why not hack yourself? you only live once, see what happens) but it's really one of those things you will never understand until you experience for yourself.
I've never taken LSD, nor to I plan to, but every, EVERY, person I've talked to that have, talk about how it changed thier lives dramatically.
It seems there are a fair ammount of people on here somewhat scared of the way drugs alter you, (hey, this is hacker news, why not hack yourself? you only live once, see what happens) but it's really one of those things you will never understand until you experience for yourself.
That is exactly how I see it, self hacking. The most fascinating thing about psychedelics is that they give you a momentary glimpse into what is pulling the strings behind the organism that is you. They allow you to selectively shut off or amplify the effect of different parts of your brain, which should be profoundly interesting for anyone with a hacker mindset.
I'm not sure I would want to be married to someone I could
only stand because I took drugs.
It's also the fallacy of the split middle: it's not either 'you love someone' or 'you can't stand them'. If you're in a loving relationship that has gone downhill somewhat and a few medicated sessions can renew the bonds, is that really any different from going on a second romantic honeymoon, where you also create artificial circumstances to strengthen the bond? Physical forces or cultural forces: they are equally real and do equal work.
> See, that's terrifying to me. I've never taken LSD but I don't think I would ever want to put myself in the sort of situation that trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill.
Maybe we just read it differently (hopefully the OP will step in), but I don't think he meant LSD trivialized the death of his child in any way. I think he meant that looking back, LSD had a similarly profound impact on his life. Losing a child can make you re-evaluate some things (or so I've heard). So can LSD (that I know).
Maybe we just read it differently (hopefully the OP will step in), but I don't think he meant LSD trivialized the death of his child in any way. I think he meant that looking back, LSD had a similarly profound impact on his life. Losing a child can make you re-evaluate some things (or so I've heard). So can LSD (that I know).
The difference is that losing a child gives you real information about your surroundings. Taking LSD doesn't allow you to take in any different input- it simply changes the way your brain interprets that same information. I can see why people would enjoy this, but not how they could take it seriously. Taking drugs breaks the way your brain is supposed to function; I mean that quite literally.
I mean, if I introduced bugs into my simulation code and got results that I liked, I'd be like, "I need to fix those bugs" not "boy are these great results! Look, I can stop the HIV epidemic!" Because I'd be wrong.
I mean, if I introduced bugs into my simulation code and got results that I liked, I'd be like, "I need to fix those bugs" not "boy are these great results! Look, I can stop the HIV epidemic!" Because I'd be wrong.
> Taking drugs breaks the way your brain is supposed to function; I mean that quite literally.
I don't agree at all. Many people's brains are "broken" without drugs--depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc. The default state isn't always perfect. Who's to say the drugs are the bug? Maybe they're a patch.
I don't agree at all. Many people's brains are "broken" without drugs--depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc. The default state isn't always perfect. Who's to say the drugs are the bug? Maybe they're a patch.
Many people's brains are "broken" without drugs--depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc. The default state isn't always perfect. Who's to say the drugs are the bug? Maybe they're a patch.
Thank you. I've tried explaining this to various people when discussing my on drug use. There's a common presumption that a person's brain, in its default state, is "OK", and that any messing with it is bad. Yet people typically do not have this same view of the (rest of the) body; few people get bent out of shape over diabetics shooting insulin. The brain is a meat machine sitting in a chemical soup and is no more or less inherently perfect than your heart, blood, or pancreas.
The stigma attached to drug use is horrendous and keeps many people from getting proper treatment or even understanding that they may need help.
People whose brains are broken by default end up self-medicating, or living miserable lives, or both, often because people believe that "drugs breaks the way your brain is supposed to function."
Thank you. I've tried explaining this to various people when discussing my on drug use. There's a common presumption that a person's brain, in its default state, is "OK", and that any messing with it is bad. Yet people typically do not have this same view of the (rest of the) body; few people get bent out of shape over diabetics shooting insulin. The brain is a meat machine sitting in a chemical soup and is no more or less inherently perfect than your heart, blood, or pancreas.
The stigma attached to drug use is horrendous and keeps many people from getting proper treatment or even understanding that they may need help.
People whose brains are broken by default end up self-medicating, or living miserable lives, or both, often because people believe that "drugs breaks the way your brain is supposed to function."
The way I think about it, we're all made out of drugs.
Someone famous actually said this, I forget who.
Someone famous actually said this, I forget who.
Taking LSD doesn't allow you to take in any different input- it simply changes the way your brain interprets that same information. I can see why people would enjoy this, but not how they could take it seriously.
Asserting that "simply changing" the way inputs are interpreted provides nothing of value seems odd on a site where a lot of the participants are programmers who regularly take input and massage it through iterative development of software that interprets that input and produce actual value.
Cyphertext and an encryption key looks random until you apply a cryptographic transform to it. Same inputs, different output, different value.
Asserting that "simply changing" the way inputs are interpreted provides nothing of value seems odd on a site where a lot of the participants are programmers who regularly take input and massage it through iterative development of software that interprets that input and produce actual value.
Cyphertext and an encryption key looks random until you apply a cryptographic transform to it. Same inputs, different output, different value.
Great point, bit more specific than I was thinking but spot on: science is a field which uses new tools, mechanisms, and systems of measurement to continue looking at the same universe but determine more specifics from it!
It doesn't work like that at all. MDMA gives you a sense of euphoria while slightly altering your perception (it's considered a slight psychedelic in that sense) - it also makes you very empathic to the people you are with. MDMA isn't like a love potion, usually, once you come down you go back to being "you". It doesn't make you addicted to the people you experienced it with at all. What it does do is open you all up, so at controlled doses that can be highly beneficial in a therapeutic setting because both people will feel love for each other and empathy. Which, at a controlled dose, they should also be able to coherently iron out their issues.
Once they come down, they go back to being who/what they were, but with a whole lot more "sharing" now - they both now know how each other feel because it was expressed out of love and empathy rather than witheld or stated in a defensive/offensive manner.
Psychedelics really shouldn't be toyed with unless you are psychologically stable - if you can imagine, being "normal", then psychedelics take you to the reciprocal of "normal". I've played with Magic Mushrooms and really hated the experience, I also did two nights of Ayahuasca - extremely powerful experience, beyond LSD for sure, but a very rough ride (Ayahuasca is a shamanic "purging" psychedelic, it causes you to vomit uncontrollably while having the hallucinogenic and psychedelic experience of LSD x 5 for about 8 to 10 hours straight).
I will say this: I believe all of the benefits people would seek in the use of mind-altering substances can, without question, be found through meditation - deliberate thinking - introspection - and just "chilling the fuck out".
Once they come down, they go back to being who/what they were, but with a whole lot more "sharing" now - they both now know how each other feel because it was expressed out of love and empathy rather than witheld or stated in a defensive/offensive manner.
Psychedelics really shouldn't be toyed with unless you are psychologically stable - if you can imagine, being "normal", then psychedelics take you to the reciprocal of "normal". I've played with Magic Mushrooms and really hated the experience, I also did two nights of Ayahuasca - extremely powerful experience, beyond LSD for sure, but a very rough ride (Ayahuasca is a shamanic "purging" psychedelic, it causes you to vomit uncontrollably while having the hallucinogenic and psychedelic experience of LSD x 5 for about 8 to 10 hours straight).
I will say this: I believe all of the benefits people would seek in the use of mind-altering substances can, without question, be found through meditation - deliberate thinking - introspection - and just "chilling the fuck out".
I imagine that the experiences that you have while taking certain drugs don't just exist in a vacuum and disappear when you re-join earth. They stay with you. It is another experience to add to all of the other experiences that you have had in your life -- experiences that shape you.
Having an overwhelming and profound experience while taking LSD does not trivialize or diminish other experiences in your life. The soul has plenty of room for boarding.
Experiences do not have to be equivalent in order for the end result (i.e. you changing a particular behavior or making a decision to go on a different path in life) to be quite similar.
Having an overwhelming and profound experience while taking LSD does not trivialize or diminish other experiences in your life. The soul has plenty of room for boarding.
Experiences do not have to be equivalent in order for the end result (i.e. you changing a particular behavior or making a decision to go on a different path in life) to be quite similar.
Do you feel the same way about "natural" sources of vasopressin, i.e. sex?
Like it or not, if you're in a relationship you are taking drugs.
Like it or not, if you're in a relationship you are taking drugs.
I've known a lot of people who've used drugs in different ways, and my observation is that people tend to attribute far too much, in terms of their own cognitive ability and potential, to the drugs. (Example: "Because of LSD, I was able to see past <psychological blockage X>." How does this person know he couldn't have seen past it without it?) People who use a lot of psychedelics (in my moderate amount of experience) tend to see reality through a drug-colored lens. To them, there's "reality" which is boring and gray and psychedelia which is interesting and profound. They lose the skill of intermingling these two aspects of life. This is what proper study of spirituality does and drugs do not: it gives you the ability to integrate your profound experiences with everyday life and to apply them to the real world.
If you are even a late beginner at meditation and go out into the woods for 4-5 hours, you'll probably have positive and beautiful experiences. No, you don't get the "trippy" visuals, but that's not the important part. Most people don't have the focus to achieve this until they start practicing, but drugs aren't a way out. I prefer meditation's failure mode, which is no experience, to that of drug use, which is negative experience.
I think psychedelics have great potential as medicines and, in ritual use, can bring lay people in contact with spiritual experiences that might not be accessible to them. The idea that these drugs are "evil" is a mixture of xenophobia, bigotry, and religious puritanism. They're not evil; they have great potential for good. On the other hand, I think the recreational use of drugs is seriously overrated.
Psychedelic dependence (of a psychological kind, because these drugs are not physically addictive) exists, but it's much more subtle than physical addiction. When you know someone has a real problem is when he starts attributing positive things (creativity, spirituality, insight) that should not rely on drugs to psychedelics. This leads into materialistic nihilism and a very unsettling style of ennui in which a person has to get further detached from reality to feel good.
If you are even a late beginner at meditation and go out into the woods for 4-5 hours, you'll probably have positive and beautiful experiences. No, you don't get the "trippy" visuals, but that's not the important part. Most people don't have the focus to achieve this until they start practicing, but drugs aren't a way out. I prefer meditation's failure mode, which is no experience, to that of drug use, which is negative experience.
I think psychedelics have great potential as medicines and, in ritual use, can bring lay people in contact with spiritual experiences that might not be accessible to them. The idea that these drugs are "evil" is a mixture of xenophobia, bigotry, and religious puritanism. They're not evil; they have great potential for good. On the other hand, I think the recreational use of drugs is seriously overrated.
Psychedelic dependence (of a psychological kind, because these drugs are not physically addictive) exists, but it's much more subtle than physical addiction. When you know someone has a real problem is when he starts attributing positive things (creativity, spirituality, insight) that should not rely on drugs to psychedelics. This leads into materialistic nihilism and a very unsettling style of ennui in which a person has to get further detached from reality to feel good.
Unless you can truly experience reality through their eyes you simply don't know if what they have gained would have been possible without drugs.
I, for example, don't believe in God. But I would never be so arrogant as to claim that people who do cannot reach a more complete understanding of themselves or their potential, or that this understanding is somehow more shallow than my perspective on the world. Even if I believe to my very core that my perspective is grounded in reality, and theirs in superstition.
This is what you are doing though, only you believe your perspective is grounded in spirituality (whatever that means) and theirs in materialism.
Yes, psychological dependence exists, but people become psychologically dependent on all kinds of things. That some of these things exist materially, doesn't mean the individual concerned is descending into materialistic nihilism. I don't understand why drugs get singled out as such a particular evil in this regard.
I, for example, don't believe in God. But I would never be so arrogant as to claim that people who do cannot reach a more complete understanding of themselves or their potential, or that this understanding is somehow more shallow than my perspective on the world. Even if I believe to my very core that my perspective is grounded in reality, and theirs in superstition.
This is what you are doing though, only you believe your perspective is grounded in spirituality (whatever that means) and theirs in materialism.
Yes, psychological dependence exists, but people become psychologically dependent on all kinds of things. That some of these things exist materially, doesn't mean the individual concerned is descending into materialistic nihilism. I don't understand why drugs get singled out as such a particular evil in this regard.
You make a fair point, and we can only reason from what we've seen.
What I've seen is a LOT of false enlightenment in a certain subculture. Hang out for a few hours with the drugged-out burnouts in Williamsburg, Brooklyn to get a sense of it. There's a certain arrogant, self-congratulatory nihilism in the "hipster" culture, and if it's taken more seriously than it deserves, it leads to some very bad places. Is it the drugs or the casual sex alone? Of course not, because drugs and sex are generally harmless (if not possibly beneficial) in moderation. It's a certain self-centered experience-chasing mindset that, for a variety of reasons, is very attractive to young people whose personalities and ideas haven't yet formed.
If people want to use drugs, then I have no problem with that. Certainly I think these chemicals should be legal and that their possible benefits should be researched. But the false enlightenment that I've seen some people fall into is dangerous. It kills a person's work ethic and leaves that person prey to mental illness. Does everyone who uses drugs fall into this pattern? Obviously, no. Do a lot of people who don't use drugs fall into it anyway? Certainly. I think that drugs make people who are exposed to that mentality and culture a lot more susceptible to falling into it, and that's the primary danger.
For the record, I think drug prohibition (which is immoral and should be ended) makes these drugs a lot more dangerous. A lot of people have to be connected to a depraved culture even to have regular access to these drugs. I've often thought that less dangerous than the chemicals themselves are the sorts of toxic people you can end up surrounding yourself with if you want regular, frequent access, due to the drugs' illegality.
What I've seen is a LOT of false enlightenment in a certain subculture. Hang out for a few hours with the drugged-out burnouts in Williamsburg, Brooklyn to get a sense of it. There's a certain arrogant, self-congratulatory nihilism in the "hipster" culture, and if it's taken more seriously than it deserves, it leads to some very bad places. Is it the drugs or the casual sex alone? Of course not, because drugs and sex are generally harmless (if not possibly beneficial) in moderation. It's a certain self-centered experience-chasing mindset that, for a variety of reasons, is very attractive to young people whose personalities and ideas haven't yet formed.
If people want to use drugs, then I have no problem with that. Certainly I think these chemicals should be legal and that their possible benefits should be researched. But the false enlightenment that I've seen some people fall into is dangerous. It kills a person's work ethic and leaves that person prey to mental illness. Does everyone who uses drugs fall into this pattern? Obviously, no. Do a lot of people who don't use drugs fall into it anyway? Certainly. I think that drugs make people who are exposed to that mentality and culture a lot more susceptible to falling into it, and that's the primary danger.
For the record, I think drug prohibition (which is immoral and should be ended) makes these drugs a lot more dangerous. A lot of people have to be connected to a depraved culture even to have regular access to these drugs. I've often thought that less dangerous than the chemicals themselves are the sorts of toxic people you can end up surrounding yourself with if you want regular, frequent access, due to the drugs' illegality.
I agree for the most part, and I apologise if I came off over strong in my last post.
For what it's worth I have spent a great deal of time in the company of such people. Perhaps it's the case that the majority are simply living in a deluded drug-addled mist, and certainly a great many are hedonists first and last, and would be happy to admit it.
The thing is though, I see a lot of false enlightenment everywhere. There are whole swathes of people who would consider themselves spiritual for one reason or another but don't seem the least bit capable of critical thinking, open mindedness, introspection or subtlety. Ultimately, dogmatic ideology has stunted more people's personal development than drugs ever will. Not to mention the billions murdered over the centuries.
Yet in any community you will find deeply thoughtful individuals who have clearly gained and grown a great deal from their experiences and beliefs. For this reason I cannot bring myself to write any tool of potential enlightenment off, no matter what the behaviour of the average user, or if it comes in the form of scripture or white powder.
For what it's worth I have spent a great deal of time in the company of such people. Perhaps it's the case that the majority are simply living in a deluded drug-addled mist, and certainly a great many are hedonists first and last, and would be happy to admit it.
The thing is though, I see a lot of false enlightenment everywhere. There are whole swathes of people who would consider themselves spiritual for one reason or another but don't seem the least bit capable of critical thinking, open mindedness, introspection or subtlety. Ultimately, dogmatic ideology has stunted more people's personal development than drugs ever will. Not to mention the billions murdered over the centuries.
Yet in any community you will find deeply thoughtful individuals who have clearly gained and grown a great deal from their experiences and beliefs. For this reason I cannot bring myself to write any tool of potential enlightenment off, no matter what the behaviour of the average user, or if it comes in the form of scripture or white powder.
I think you're right on a lot of this. I guess that all I would say is that the proportions are different. You're more likely to find false prophets, psychosis, and disturbing detachment from reality in Williamsburg drug culture than in monastic Buddhism, but this is a contrived comparison that maybe doesn't mean very much. Still, I'd much rather (in the distant future when I'm raising kids) find out that my 17-year-old kid was practicing Zen Buddhism than find out that he or she was using LSD. If the latter, I'd do everything I could to encourage him or her to use it safely and in an intelligent way, but I'd still prefer the former. And I'd definitely let a child attend a meditation retreat if I thought he was ready; I wouldn't give help him or her find LSD, though.
I'm a pragmatist at heart, much more than a moralist. If drugs can make peoples' lives better, they should be used.
I'm a pragmatist at heart, much more than a moralist. If drugs can make peoples' lives better, they should be used.
Totally hear you, and that's why I've always said "dumb people do dumb stuff on drugs". Brilliant people have very interesting experiences on drugs. One of the reasons university is such an important community to experiment in!
Your points are all valid. Nevertheless the amount drugs have contributed to various creative and technological innovations cannot be quantified. Things we all enjoy were at least aided by them. Thus drugs, whether we like it or not, are a part of what we have and who we are.
This is true nowhere more than in Northern California where we're also uniquely a land of pioneers, and eccentrics. We are all of the above and it's not clear which is cause or effect. Nevertheless, this hodge-podge has led to a center of innovation and a culture that seeks to overthrow traditions. For many individuals drugs are important in their own cultural development, how they see the world, etc.
Like the woman says in the article: drugs can help people 'see the top of the mountain', so they realize they don't need to keep on doing what they were otherwise doing. If you've personally not experienced this, that's fine, but please don't diminish important experiences from others, solely because you don't like the idea of requiring an external adulterant to achieve.
Keep in mind we're all reliant on adulterants, whether they're friends, education, caffeine, or a walk in the woods like you say. All of this is life experience, and we are life.
This is true nowhere more than in Northern California where we're also uniquely a land of pioneers, and eccentrics. We are all of the above and it's not clear which is cause or effect. Nevertheless, this hodge-podge has led to a center of innovation and a culture that seeks to overthrow traditions. For many individuals drugs are important in their own cultural development, how they see the world, etc.
Like the woman says in the article: drugs can help people 'see the top of the mountain', so they realize they don't need to keep on doing what they were otherwise doing. If you've personally not experienced this, that's fine, but please don't diminish important experiences from others, solely because you don't like the idea of requiring an external adulterant to achieve.
Keep in mind we're all reliant on adulterants, whether they're friends, education, caffeine, or a walk in the woods like you say. All of this is life experience, and we are life.
"I prefer meditation's failure mode, which is no experience, to that of drug use, which is negative experience."
You can actually develop 'meditation sickness', which is essentially psychosis brought on from either excessive meditation or else meditation the wrong way. It's not super common, but it's still generally advised that people not take up a meditation practice without expert supervision.
You can actually develop 'meditation sickness', which is essentially psychosis brought on from either excessive meditation or else meditation the wrong way. It's not super common, but it's still generally advised that people not take up a meditation practice without expert supervision.
What is "excessive" meditation? People die after playing video games for 16 hours, but no one is going to argue that playing them for a couple hours a day is physically dangerous.
I generally think the "meditation sickness" is more scare than substance, without much evidence for a causative link, but I think it's possible in certain circumstances. For example, I've heard of inexperienced people (i.e. people who've taken one hatha yoga class) going on week-long retreats and having negative experiences (including temporary psychosis and anxiety disorders) but that's not what I'm talking about. That's about as irresponsible as for an overweight person who can barely walk a mile to try out for a marathon.
I think that a lot of "meditation sickness" comes from people who are prodromal of some sort of psychological crisis and (because of their increasingly difficult mental state) become interested in altering their consciousness, and that the psychotic break was not caused by the meditation but would have happened anyway. I can't prove that, but it's been my suspicion for a long time. For those who might argue that meditation is therefore bunk because some people who meditate end up getting frank mental illness anyway, my counterpoint would be that it's foolish to expect that a novice meditator can meditate his way out of a potentially physical mental illness; he needs medical help.
What is very dangerous is when people try to use meditation or yoga in lieu of other well-tested, scientific medical treatment, which some New Age types believe in even though most actual meditators and yogis advise strongly against it. I talked to a very accomplished yoga teacher about using meditation to treat panic disorder (didn't want to use benzos) and he said, "Meditate, but see a doctor and take his advice. You can't meditate your way out of this, right now, any more than a person with heart disease can meditate out of that."
I generally think the "meditation sickness" is more scare than substance, without much evidence for a causative link, but I think it's possible in certain circumstances. For example, I've heard of inexperienced people (i.e. people who've taken one hatha yoga class) going on week-long retreats and having negative experiences (including temporary psychosis and anxiety disorders) but that's not what I'm talking about. That's about as irresponsible as for an overweight person who can barely walk a mile to try out for a marathon.
I think that a lot of "meditation sickness" comes from people who are prodromal of some sort of psychological crisis and (because of their increasingly difficult mental state) become interested in altering their consciousness, and that the psychotic break was not caused by the meditation but would have happened anyway. I can't prove that, but it's been my suspicion for a long time. For those who might argue that meditation is therefore bunk because some people who meditate end up getting frank mental illness anyway, my counterpoint would be that it's foolish to expect that a novice meditator can meditate his way out of a potentially physical mental illness; he needs medical help.
What is very dangerous is when people try to use meditation or yoga in lieu of other well-tested, scientific medical treatment, which some New Age types believe in even though most actual meditators and yogis advise strongly against it. I talked to a very accomplished yoga teacher about using meditation to treat panic disorder (didn't want to use benzos) and he said, "Meditate, but see a doctor and take his advice. You can't meditate your way out of this, right now, any more than a person with heart disease can meditate out of that."
> People die after playing video games for 16 hours
Really? In what context? Do you have a link or citation I could read?
Really? In what context? Do you have a link or citation I could read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction#South_Kore...
There was a rumor a while back that some of these South Korean internet cafes were putting low doses of mood enhancing drugs in the air so that people got depressed when they left, though I'm pretty sure that was just an urban legend.
There was a rumor a while back that some of these South Korean internet cafes were putting low doses of mood enhancing drugs in the air so that people got depressed when they left, though I'm pretty sure that was just an urban legend.
Reminds me of stories about casinos who pump additional pure oxygen into the air to make gamblers feel "more alive and awake" while they're there (and thus experiencing a low when they leave).
I could be wrong but I believe the purpose of oxygen in casinos is purely to help people play longer without getting tired, thus losing more money that way.
> I don't think I would ever want to put myself in the sort of situation that trivializes the death of a child by making it equivalent to downing a pill.
I would have thought he meant it the other way around.
I would have thought he meant it the other way around.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience here. Your comment reminded me of this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2545731/Drugs-like-LS...
From the article:
"When they were interviewed again 14 months later 58 per cent rated the experience among the five most personally meaningful of their lives and 64 per cent said it had increased their well-being."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2545731/Drugs-like-LS...
From the article:
"When they were interviewed again 14 months later 58 per cent rated the experience among the five most personally meaningful of their lives and 64 per cent said it had increased their well-being."
> LSD is something everyone should seriously consider doing at least once in their life.
Yes, but no matter how great it sounds, you still have to consort with drug dealers to find it. Not sure that the risk of arrest (or worse) is really worth that reward.
Yes, but no matter how great it sounds, you still have to consort with drug dealers to find it. Not sure that the risk of arrest (or worse) is really worth that reward.
Some closely related psychedelics that don't require any interaction with drug dealers:
Hawaiian Baby Woodrose seeds:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/hbw/hbw.shtml
Morning Glory seeds:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/morning_glory/morning_glory.sht...
Both of the above should be available from ordinary gardening suppliers and/or plant nurseries.
They contain LSA (Lysergic acid amide), which is closely related to LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide).
And another common psychedelic you can pick from a forest or a meadow:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml
There are many, many others as well:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/plants.shtml
Hawaiian Baby Woodrose seeds:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/hbw/hbw.shtml
Morning Glory seeds:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/morning_glory/morning_glory.sht...
Both of the above should be available from ordinary gardening suppliers and/or plant nurseries.
They contain LSA (Lysergic acid amide), which is closely related to LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide).
And another common psychedelic you can pick from a forest or a meadow:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml
There are many, many others as well:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/plants.shtml
For both individuals and society, all drugs present a dilemma: are they worth the risks to health, wealth and sanity? For me, the pay-off is the scientific inspiration, the wealth of new ideas and the spur to inner exploration.
The most prolific mathematician of all time, Paul Erdős, justified his amphetamine usage in similar terms [1]:
"After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence mathematics had been set back by a month: 'Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper.' After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine use."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s
The most prolific mathematician of all time, Paul Erdős, justified his amphetamine usage in similar terms [1]:
"After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence mathematics had been set back by a month: 'Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper.' After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine use."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s
The article in Wikipedia says he was "one of the most prolific publishers of papers in mathematical history", that doesn't mean he was the most prolific mathematician of all time.
What about Euler[1] for example? (I don't think he used drugs though)
Anyway, I agree with your comment in the sense that intelligence, talent or success are not mutually exclusive with drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler
What about Euler[1] for example? (I don't think he used drugs though)
Anyway, I agree with your comment in the sense that intelligence, talent or success are not mutually exclusive with drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler
How do you measure?
Erdos published more papers with more collaborators than Euler.
Euler published more pages of material and founded more areas of research than Erdos. (Yes, Euler has the benefit of having had people think about his stuff longer, and attribute more to inspiration from him. But Erdos won't ever come close to catching up.)
I think that Arthur Cayley is in third place on both measures.
Erdos published more papers with more collaborators than Euler.
Euler published more pages of material and founded more areas of research than Erdos. (Yes, Euler has the benefit of having had people think about his stuff longer, and attribute more to inspiration from him. But Erdos won't ever come close to catching up.)
I think that Arthur Cayley is in third place on both measures.
As long as we are trying to determine causes of people's success, we should consider their location in time.
Imagine if Erdos had been around before Euler? Who's to say that he wouldn't have discovered some or more of what Euler discovered. The earlier discoveries were the easier one, the low-hanging fruit.
If I went back in time it would be easier for me to make some ground breaking discovery, like pythagoras theorem. But today, I need to be smarter and more clever than centuries of mathematicians to add something new to our collective knowledge of the universe. All of the easy problems are solved :(
Imagine if Erdos had been around before Euler? Who's to say that he wouldn't have discovered some or more of what Euler discovered. The earlier discoveries were the easier one, the low-hanging fruit.
If I went back in time it would be easier for me to make some ground breaking discovery, like pythagoras theorem. But today, I need to be smarter and more clever than centuries of mathematicians to add something new to our collective knowledge of the universe. All of the easy problems are solved :(
Of course it would be easy to "discover" the Pythagorean theorem if you went back in time---you already know it.
Now, go back in time and <em>take away all your knowledge</em> (and the knowledge that there was a theorom to be discovered in the first place) and see how easy it would be for you to discover that theorom.
Now, go back in time and <em>take away all your knowledge</em> (and the knowledge that there was a theorom to be discovered in the first place) and see how easy it would be for you to discover that theorom.
I don't think anyone would argue that drugs is the answer for everybody.
Perhaps some people are blessed with the creativity and vision to see a blank canvas as full of ideas. Other people have to resort to aids to get to that point. Yet otherer people probably couldn't get there even with aids.
Perhaps some people are blessed with the creativity and vision to see a blank canvas as full of ideas. Other people have to resort to aids to get to that point. Yet otherer people probably couldn't get there even with aids.
But imagine if he had!
"The drugs can take you up in a helicopter to see what's there, but you can't stay.
In the end, you have to climb the mountain yourself - the hard way."
Thats a really good way to put it.
Thats a really good way to put it.
The metaphor I've often preferred is that meditation is like biking into the woods. You know the path, and you only get so far as you are in shape to go, but you also know that you can get back out and that you're safe. Taking drugs is like hitch-hiking. You can go a lot farther with less effort, and you're probably OK, but you have no idea where the fuck you are or how to get back.
Having done many of the ones listed in the article, I would like to throw in my two cents:
Drugs, like LSD or DMT, are not at all like seeing things from a helicopter. Sure, they are from a "new perspective", but unfortunately it's all in your head. My closest analogy is to dreaming--it seems to make perfect sense when you're dreaming, but when you wake up, you realize that all your thoughts were nonsense. I've had high ideas before. The feeling of revelation is unparalleled... even if it's all in my head. Once I sober up, though, I suddenly realize that they're a load of crap.
Rather being a helicopter to check out what's up there, drugs more so resemble staring out the window and pretending to visualize things past the horizon. You don't come to your senses until you realize it's all in your head.
I've quit them all now and honestly I only miss acid from time to time. But the fact that it's just eight hours of false epiphanies makes sure that I don't care to ever trip again.
Drugs, like LSD or DMT, are not at all like seeing things from a helicopter. Sure, they are from a "new perspective", but unfortunately it's all in your head. My closest analogy is to dreaming--it seems to make perfect sense when you're dreaming, but when you wake up, you realize that all your thoughts were nonsense. I've had high ideas before. The feeling of revelation is unparalleled... even if it's all in my head. Once I sober up, though, I suddenly realize that they're a load of crap.
Rather being a helicopter to check out what's up there, drugs more so resemble staring out the window and pretending to visualize things past the horizon. You don't come to your senses until you realize it's all in your head.
I've quit them all now and honestly I only miss acid from time to time. But the fact that it's just eight hours of false epiphanies makes sure that I don't care to ever trip again.
"Once I sober up, though, I suddenly realize that they're a load of crap."
That's your experience. A lot of other people have really good ideas when they are high, and those ideas are still really good while sober.
Part of this is that normally when you have an insight while sober, there is a unique feeling of pleasure you get in your brain. This is because part of the way we identify when we've had an insight is when we get this feeling. However, when we're high we get this feeling much more easily, even if what we're thinking about isn't actually at all insightful. Thus you need to sort of reteach yourself how to think and evaluate the quality of your ideas in a way that isn't reliant on whether or not something 'feels' insightful.
It's a big step once you can divorce the depth of insight from the intensity of the eureka feeling. They are not necessarily linked.
That's your experience. A lot of other people have really good ideas when they are high, and those ideas are still really good while sober.
Part of this is that normally when you have an insight while sober, there is a unique feeling of pleasure you get in your brain. This is because part of the way we identify when we've had an insight is when we get this feeling. However, when we're high we get this feeling much more easily, even if what we're thinking about isn't actually at all insightful. Thus you need to sort of reteach yourself how to think and evaluate the quality of your ideas in a way that isn't reliant on whether or not something 'feels' insightful.
It's a big step once you can divorce the depth of insight from the intensity of the eureka feeling. They are not necessarily linked.
As somebody who has smoked pounds...this tripe gets tired quickly. Any effort towards legalization must focus not on broad social acceptance (by representing ganja as some holy, enlightening agent) but rather on analysis of the terrible damage prohibition does to society. Writing of this sort is very snooty towards casual smokers who honestly just want to get high, which should be as acceptable as any other use.
Agreed but to bring about legalization we need to normalize, and to do that in all communities. The intellectual community is one to target, one of many.
Explaining a drug's effect to someone who's never done it is like describing red to a blind person. They're just not going to get it until they experience it for themselves.
I read her text book 'introduction to consciousness' in a fourth year course in cognitive science. Probably the reason she was able to study parapsychology early in her career was that it was during the cold war when there were branches of the US government that took ESP seriously, and wanted to prove and exploit or disprove it before the soviets. But her rejection of parapsychology was pretty complete, and that text for example did not make reference to it.
A recent edition I read a couple months ago mentioned it in a sidebar, as a personal anecdote. But it was mainly about her realization that the scientific methods of her colleagues were rather less sound than they at first appeared.
edit: in light of this: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html I'd have to agree that the coverage of the matter in the book was rather insufficient.
edit: in light of this: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html I'd have to agree that the coverage of the matter in the book was rather insufficient.
<soapbox>
I just don't buy it. IMHO, saying that using drugs to get to ideas/inspiration is like saying a wheelchair can help you get from one place to another even though your limbs are perfectly adequate. Maybe it'll help you get here but you could have gotten there without it.
If you like to get high, don't make excuses for it. Just admit to yourself that you like to get high. People who like to go to strip clubs don't say they go there for the lighting and it helps with design. People who watch TV don't say they watch for the education. Why do people who like to get high make up excuses to make their behavior socially acceptable. If you like to do it, own it.
</soapbox>
It's definitely possible that I am completely wrong as I haven't done LSD, Coke, etc.
I just don't buy it. IMHO, saying that using drugs to get to ideas/inspiration is like saying a wheelchair can help you get from one place to another even though your limbs are perfectly adequate. Maybe it'll help you get here but you could have gotten there without it.
If you like to get high, don't make excuses for it. Just admit to yourself that you like to get high. People who like to go to strip clubs don't say they go there for the lighting and it helps with design. People who watch TV don't say they watch for the education. Why do people who like to get high make up excuses to make their behavior socially acceptable. If you like to do it, own it.
</soapbox>
It's definitely possible that I am completely wrong as I haven't done LSD, Coke, etc.
You're wrong. And your metaphors are wrong.
Some people like to eat for the taste, not the sustenance. Some people like to get high for the shift in perspective, not to get high. Some people like to drink wine for the taste, not to get sauced.
And some people do go to strip clubs for non-standard reasons. When I was going through my nude photography hobby phase, I went for inspiration and ideas. Of course, I met my wife there so I went for that as well.
Some of the most "beautiful" code I've written has been under the influence. The document and video encoding system we used at massify, a self-scaling multi-format disconnected conversion cloud, was designed and built in a very stoned haze. It's been running by itself with 100% uptime and without human intervention or maintenance for 3 years now.
If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong.
Some people like to eat for the taste, not the sustenance. Some people like to get high for the shift in perspective, not to get high. Some people like to drink wine for the taste, not to get sauced.
And some people do go to strip clubs for non-standard reasons. When I was going through my nude photography hobby phase, I went for inspiration and ideas. Of course, I met my wife there so I went for that as well.
Some of the most "beautiful" code I've written has been under the influence. The document and video encoding system we used at massify, a self-scaling multi-format disconnected conversion cloud, was designed and built in a very stoned haze. It's been running by itself with 100% uptime and without human intervention or maintenance for 3 years now.
If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong.
If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong.
That doesn't sound right. What if I put it this way:
"If you haven't got cancer then you can't really comment on it. In fact, probably everything you know about cancer is wrong."
But in fact cancer is being studied by people who don't have it - should they not be allowed to comment on it?
That doesn't sound right. What if I put it this way:
"If you haven't got cancer then you can't really comment on it. In fact, probably everything you know about cancer is wrong."
But in fact cancer is being studied by people who don't have it - should they not be allowed to comment on it?
You can't put it that way. Part of understanding the effects and experience of drug use requires the actual experience of drug use, unlike studying cancer.
It's like someone criticizing the taste of a mango without ever experiencing eating a mango directly, or other life experiences like sex, having a child, riding a bike for the first time, etc...
It's more like: "If you haven't ever tasted a mango, you can't really comment on the experience of it."
It's like someone criticizing the taste of a mango without ever experiencing eating a mango directly, or other life experiences like sex, having a child, riding a bike for the first time, etc...
It's more like: "If you haven't ever tasted a mango, you can't really comment on the experience of it."
It's definitely possible that I am completely wrong as I haven't done LSD, Coke, etc.
Then I have to ask, on what do you base your opinion?
Some people take drugs as enhancers; perhaps that's like your analogy (though I'd replace "wheelchair" with "bike" or "car").
Some people takes drugs as normalizers. For example, people who have insufficient levels of serotonin or dopamine and are prone to clinical depression. That's like someone with broken legs using a wheelchair. Or like a diabetic taking insulin.
It's hard for people to know quite where they stand. To the best of my knowledge there's no good way to determine if someone has low levels of dopamine. Judging people as if they are taking drugs for the sake of enhancement presumes that person isn't in fact trying to compensate for a deficiency.
Curious that some people dislike the idea of chemical enhancement but have no problem with mechanical enhancement.
If taking drugs is like riding a bike or driving a car (or even using a wheelchair) instead of walking, why don't people disparage bike riding, etc.? I mean, you could have travelled that same distance without it, right?
No one gets upset because someone rides a bike for the fun of it, but somehow taking drugs for the fun of it is suspect, something you have to (gasp) admit to.
Then I have to ask, on what do you base your opinion?
Some people take drugs as enhancers; perhaps that's like your analogy (though I'd replace "wheelchair" with "bike" or "car").
Some people takes drugs as normalizers. For example, people who have insufficient levels of serotonin or dopamine and are prone to clinical depression. That's like someone with broken legs using a wheelchair. Or like a diabetic taking insulin.
It's hard for people to know quite where they stand. To the best of my knowledge there's no good way to determine if someone has low levels of dopamine. Judging people as if they are taking drugs for the sake of enhancement presumes that person isn't in fact trying to compensate for a deficiency.
Curious that some people dislike the idea of chemical enhancement but have no problem with mechanical enhancement.
If taking drugs is like riding a bike or driving a car (or even using a wheelchair) instead of walking, why don't people disparage bike riding, etc.? I mean, you could have travelled that same distance without it, right?
No one gets upset because someone rides a bike for the fun of it, but somehow taking drugs for the fun of it is suspect, something you have to (gasp) admit to.
"If you like to get high, don't make excuses for it."
The amount of weed you need to consume to get extra creativity is far below the amount weed you would consume for recreational purposes. For someone without a tolerance looking to get the benefits of creativity, the proper vaporized dose would be around .03 grams. Whereas to get 'high' the proper dose would be around .1 - .2 grams.
It's the same as how the analgesic dose is below the recreational dose of every drug. Which is why you can take opiates for medical purposes without getting addicted as long as you don't abuse them. This also includes marijuana; people using marijuana for medical purposes use way less than those using the drug for recreational purposes, though different conditions warrant different doses. For example, those using marijuana to treat cachexia generally need a higher dose than those treating anxiety or insomnia.
The amount of weed you need to consume to get extra creativity is far below the amount weed you would consume for recreational purposes. For someone without a tolerance looking to get the benefits of creativity, the proper vaporized dose would be around .03 grams. Whereas to get 'high' the proper dose would be around .1 - .2 grams.
It's the same as how the analgesic dose is below the recreational dose of every drug. Which is why you can take opiates for medical purposes without getting addicted as long as you don't abuse them. This also includes marijuana; people using marijuana for medical purposes use way less than those using the drug for recreational purposes, though different conditions warrant different doses. For example, those using marijuana to treat cachexia generally need a higher dose than those treating anxiety or insomnia.
Totally agreed, but dosage is just one dimension of marijuana that is generally misunderstood. The other 2 dimensions are consumption form and cannabis strain - combining these 3 dimensions results in very different mental states. However, the laymen looks at marijuana effects and thinks "high", "stoned", or some other mental state that is equivalent to their college experiences or perhaps a drug addict.
Consuming marijuana through ingestion vs inhalation results in a completely different mental experience as a function of how these consumption methods throttle dosage over time. Ingestion will spread a dosage over 4-6 hours, whereas inhalation will expose your mind to this same dosage in in .5-1.5 hours. Also, inhalation has a THC absorption threshold that is much lower than ingestion.
And, of course, cannabis strains themselves each offer completely different experiences. Small doses of sativa strains vs large doses of indica strains produce a light, highly energetic feeling vs a stoned feeling, respectively. http://www.leafly.com/explore#
Combing these 3 dimensions, dosage, consumption type and strain produces a broad range of mental states that can be anywhere from empowering, to euphoric, to self-destructive. Like anything else in life, the key is to be disciplined and adjust these 3 dimensions for your personal goals (of course, being disciplined about adjusting dosage to 0 as a bias).
But consider work, play and deliberate practice (http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3881908748/tldr-summary-the...). Marijuana affects the hippocampus, and our ability to form memories while under the influence of the drug - this can be a positive in some contexts and a negative in others. For instance, when doing repetitive work, low doses of ingested sativa can actually enhance productivity of results for mundane work - no learning is necessary, just execution. For play, low doses of inhaled sativa or indica can inspire creativity for hours - leveraging the cognitive cycles previously reserved to querying and storing memories for your mind to test new hypotheses about incoming information. For deliberate practice language learning is key, so most contexts of deliberate practice would likely be harmed by introducing marijuana. Of course, some individuals may benefit from low doses that offset the mundane repetition for a net benefit.
Anyhow, I don't claim to be an expert in these matters, but simply to point out that judging Marijuana users as simply people that like to "get high" is utterly and completely ignorant of the reality. It is a judgement, a prejudice and a symptom of pervasive mis-education in our culture.
Of course, these are "opinions that [I] would be reluctant to express in front of a group of peers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) - present company apparently excluded. Rationally, it makes sense to me that drugs exist that allow me to exercise discipline and tweak my mental state for the task at hand - from caffeine, to ritalin, to THC - and everything in between. However, due to the legal status of marijuana, and people's own experiences with using the drug to get stoned, avoiding judgement and prejudice in todays world (even amongst the highly educated and successful) is a taboo. I look forward to the day when I can have open, educated conversations about the effects, benefits and harms of marijuana. I also look forward to the day when I can have educated conversations about marijuana with intelligent people and not be judged as someone who simply "likes to get high".
Consuming marijuana through ingestion vs inhalation results in a completely different mental experience as a function of how these consumption methods throttle dosage over time. Ingestion will spread a dosage over 4-6 hours, whereas inhalation will expose your mind to this same dosage in in .5-1.5 hours. Also, inhalation has a THC absorption threshold that is much lower than ingestion.
And, of course, cannabis strains themselves each offer completely different experiences. Small doses of sativa strains vs large doses of indica strains produce a light, highly energetic feeling vs a stoned feeling, respectively. http://www.leafly.com/explore#
Combing these 3 dimensions, dosage, consumption type and strain produces a broad range of mental states that can be anywhere from empowering, to euphoric, to self-destructive. Like anything else in life, the key is to be disciplined and adjust these 3 dimensions for your personal goals (of course, being disciplined about adjusting dosage to 0 as a bias).
But consider work, play and deliberate practice (http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3881908748/tldr-summary-the...). Marijuana affects the hippocampus, and our ability to form memories while under the influence of the drug - this can be a positive in some contexts and a negative in others. For instance, when doing repetitive work, low doses of ingested sativa can actually enhance productivity of results for mundane work - no learning is necessary, just execution. For play, low doses of inhaled sativa or indica can inspire creativity for hours - leveraging the cognitive cycles previously reserved to querying and storing memories for your mind to test new hypotheses about incoming information. For deliberate practice language learning is key, so most contexts of deliberate practice would likely be harmed by introducing marijuana. Of course, some individuals may benefit from low doses that offset the mundane repetition for a net benefit.
Anyhow, I don't claim to be an expert in these matters, but simply to point out that judging Marijuana users as simply people that like to "get high" is utterly and completely ignorant of the reality. It is a judgement, a prejudice and a symptom of pervasive mis-education in our culture.
Of course, these are "opinions that [I] would be reluctant to express in front of a group of peers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) - present company apparently excluded. Rationally, it makes sense to me that drugs exist that allow me to exercise discipline and tweak my mental state for the task at hand - from caffeine, to ritalin, to THC - and everything in between. However, due to the legal status of marijuana, and people's own experiences with using the drug to get stoned, avoiding judgement and prejudice in todays world (even amongst the highly educated and successful) is a taboo. I look forward to the day when I can have open, educated conversations about the effects, benefits and harms of marijuana. I also look forward to the day when I can have educated conversations about marijuana with intelligent people and not be judged as someone who simply "likes to get high".
Well I do think you're completely wrong anyway, but actually I hear plenty of people say they watch TV for the news and documentaries, and I hear plenty of anecdotes about guys going to strip clubs or hiring prostitutes because they're lonely.
People are different
People are different
Mmmh. You are wrong, but I would state that creativity and inspired thinking is something that can be cultivated without the aide of euphorics or psychedelics.
I take it then that your whole evaluation of psychedelics comes from your experience with alcohol and marijuana?
You are wrong ;-)
People should try the sensory deprivation tank. It is a really great experience. You'll have to try the tank many times and just let your mind go before you start tripping. The tank is the best way to get your creative muscles going without actually using drugs.
What's with this rash of illegal drug articles? Am I the only one who still thinks it's morally wrong to do something that's illegal, except in certain very special circumstances set out below?
Let me explain what I mean. There are just laws, and there are unjust laws. Just laws should be obeyed. Unjust laws should be changed. If you think a given law is unjust, you should be campaigning to change it, not breaking it willy-nilly. The cost of people taking illegal drugs is huge, from the drain on police and prison resources to the creation of the organized crime rings which support the drug industry, and if you're taking illegal drugs you're responsible for all of that. If you are correct and drug laws are unjust then... well shit, changing them is an important task for you, and you should get cracking on that.
Right now there's no great consensus over whether drug laws are just or unjust, but the majority wants to keep drugs illegal, even in California which recently failed to pass (by a huge majority) a legalization of marijuana. If you choose to live in a democratic society, why not obey the democratically ordained laws?
Yes, there are circumstances when it is acceptable to break a law which you regard as unjust. One such circumstance is civil disobedience, where you break an unjust law with the intention of getting caught and punished so that you can bring attention to how unjust that law is, but if you're not (courageously) trying to get caught and punished you're not a civil disobedient. Another such circumstance is if the law is so horrendously unjust that following it will directly harm others, but that certainly doesn't apply in this case.
In conclusion, if you want to take drugs then campaign for drug legalization. But don't go round breaking the democratically-devised law in the meantime.
Let me explain what I mean. There are just laws, and there are unjust laws. Just laws should be obeyed. Unjust laws should be changed. If you think a given law is unjust, you should be campaigning to change it, not breaking it willy-nilly. The cost of people taking illegal drugs is huge, from the drain on police and prison resources to the creation of the organized crime rings which support the drug industry, and if you're taking illegal drugs you're responsible for all of that. If you are correct and drug laws are unjust then... well shit, changing them is an important task for you, and you should get cracking on that.
Right now there's no great consensus over whether drug laws are just or unjust, but the majority wants to keep drugs illegal, even in California which recently failed to pass (by a huge majority) a legalization of marijuana. If you choose to live in a democratic society, why not obey the democratically ordained laws?
Yes, there are circumstances when it is acceptable to break a law which you regard as unjust. One such circumstance is civil disobedience, where you break an unjust law with the intention of getting caught and punished so that you can bring attention to how unjust that law is, but if you're not (courageously) trying to get caught and punished you're not a civil disobedient. Another such circumstance is if the law is so horrendously unjust that following it will directly harm others, but that certainly doesn't apply in this case.
In conclusion, if you want to take drugs then campaign for drug legalization. But don't go round breaking the democratically-devised law in the meantime.
You are probably not the only person to use the current boundaries of the law as an outer limit of your morality, but as you say, many people do not. People's morals vary and I'm not sure how far you will get by advancing your own particular moral code on others on this forum.
Most people would agree that in general, when living in a society, you should try to behave in a way that does not adversely affect that society. Is that the same thing as never breaking the law? People have different moralities, and they do not always closely track with the local laws where they live in all cases. Many people judge that their personal consumption of drugs does not adversely affect society in any significance, especially given that drug taking is common in society, and that there are legal drugs that are bad for society.
Judging whether something is good or bad is fairly easy with something like murder. Judging whether it's OK for you to smoke some of the weed your friend grew is very different. Morality is more complex than "is it illegal?".
The danger from the consideration that illegal acts are immoral is the reverse - legal acts are moral. I'm sure we can all think of legal acts that we would consider immoral. Is it immoral to smoke a Cuban cigar? Is it immoral to use a differently-sourced cigar the way Bill Clinton did? One is illegal, the other is not.
Most people would agree that in general, when living in a society, you should try to behave in a way that does not adversely affect that society. Is that the same thing as never breaking the law? People have different moralities, and they do not always closely track with the local laws where they live in all cases. Many people judge that their personal consumption of drugs does not adversely affect society in any significance, especially given that drug taking is common in society, and that there are legal drugs that are bad for society.
Judging whether something is good or bad is fairly easy with something like murder. Judging whether it's OK for you to smoke some of the weed your friend grew is very different. Morality is more complex than "is it illegal?".
The danger from the consideration that illegal acts are immoral is the reverse - legal acts are moral. I'm sure we can all think of legal acts that we would consider immoral. Is it immoral to smoke a Cuban cigar? Is it immoral to use a differently-sourced cigar the way Bill Clinton did? One is illegal, the other is not.
You think it is immoral to do anything illegal? Any action that is not yielding completely to authority (unless in the context of very public "courageous" civil disobedience) is just plain wrong? Even if your actions don't harm anyone else? I can't really agree with that ethos because you're outsourcing your own moral compass to lawmakers. By your logic, having gay sex is immoral in jurisdictions where sodomy is criminalized.
I definitely reject the notion that drug users are solely responsible for the high cost of enforcement when you look at the obscene and disproportionate amount of resources that are poured into the "War on Drugs." What has it ever truly accomplished? It's a failed policy. Yes we should change it, but society shares some of the blame with drug users for criminalizing something as harmless as pot use in the first place!
I definitely reject the notion that drug users are solely responsible for the high cost of enforcement when you look at the obscene and disproportionate amount of resources that are poured into the "War on Drugs." What has it ever truly accomplished? It's a failed policy. Yes we should change it, but society shares some of the blame with drug users for criminalizing something as harmless as pot use in the first place!
You think it is immoral to do anything illegal? Any action that is not yielding completely to authority (unless in the context of very public "courageous" civil disobedience) is just plain wrong? Even if your actions don't harm anyone else? I can't really agree with that ethos because you're outsourcing your own moral compass to lawmakers. By your logic, having gay sex is immoral in jurisdictions where sodomy is criminalized.
If you live in a jurisdiction where sodomy is criminalized, then that is an intolerable situation which should not be allowed to stand. Even if you personally are smart enough to get away with it then undoubtedly there's some poor innocent who isn't going to get away with it. If you find yourself in a situaion like that you're morally obliged to either:
a) Leave, or
b) Actively campaign to change that law. If you choose to do it via civil disobedience then good luck to you... otherwise just get to work on campaigning.
If you live in a jurisdiction where sodomy is criminalized, then that is an intolerable situation which should not be allowed to stand. Even if you personally are smart enough to get away with it then undoubtedly there's some poor innocent who isn't going to get away with it. If you find yourself in a situaion like that you're morally obliged to either:
a) Leave, or
b) Actively campaign to change that law. If you choose to do it via civil disobedience then good luck to you... otherwise just get to work on campaigning.
Try telling that to someone who actually has a lot to lose by taking either path. Say they are too poor to leave and in an authoritarian state. Or maybe they face retaliation at the workplace in an otherwise free country for their activism.
Each person needs to make these decisions for themselves while you are getting all high and mighty and calling people immoral for not either:
A) submitting to authority unquestioningly
-or-
B) risking everything to change the laws.
Each person needs to make these decisions for themselves while you are getting all high and mighty and calling people immoral for not either:
A) submitting to authority unquestioningly
-or-
B) risking everything to change the laws.
What do the views of the majority have to do with my moral compass? Drugs in particular are a case where the benefits tend to be personal and individual. I don't expect most people to get it, especially given how many people are conservative, religious, or just believe whatever they have been brought up to believe. When I'm deciding what is right and wrong, the law is generally the last thing on my mind.
edit: As for "what's with the rash of...", I think there is a significant subset of hackers that are very interested in the workings of their brains, since we have typically been dependent on and defined by what our brains are capable of since childhood. In turn, there is a very powerful affinity between many of those who are fascinated with the brain, and psychedelic drugs.
edit: As for "what's with the rash of...", I think there is a significant subset of hackers that are very interested in the workings of their brains, since we have typically been dependent on and defined by what our brains are capable of since childhood. In turn, there is a very powerful affinity between many of those who are fascinated with the brain, and psychedelic drugs.
WHAT?
I hope you are one of few that thinks it's morally wrong to do something that is illegal.
Legality should reflect a subset of morality, not the other way around.
The idea that you are morally obligated to follow unjust laws is absurd. Especially in a country where the laws are so obviously controlled far more by corporate interest rather than genuine democratic consent.
I will continue smoking pot and any other drug I fancy and shaking my head in disbelief that anyone can believe marijuana in particular should be illegal.
I hope you are one of few that thinks it's morally wrong to do something that is illegal.
Legality should reflect a subset of morality, not the other way around.
The idea that you are morally obligated to follow unjust laws is absurd. Especially in a country where the laws are so obviously controlled far more by corporate interest rather than genuine democratic consent.
I will continue smoking pot and any other drug I fancy and shaking my head in disbelief that anyone can believe marijuana in particular should be illegal.
> If you choose to live in a democratic society, why not obey the democratically ordained laws?
As opposed to choosing not to live in a democratic society? Is there some psychedelic-utopian society out there that's just like a standard first-world social-democratic country (high standard of living, good education and job opportunities, I can speak the language, etc, etc) except that drugs are legal by fiat?
As opposed to choosing not to live in a democratic society? Is there some psychedelic-utopian society out there that's just like a standard first-world social-democratic country (high standard of living, good education and job opportunities, I can speak the language, etc, etc) except that drugs are legal by fiat?
"if you're taking illegal drugs you're responsible for all of that"
I'd argue that the legislators who made the consumption of these substances illegal are responsible for the current situation.
I'd argue that the legislators who made the consumption of these substances illegal are responsible for the current situation.
On being a rational anarchist:
"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
The reason that drugs laws are not up for debate is because out "democratic" government subtly silences citizens who decide to speak up and express their zealous ideas pertaining to illegal narcotics from any perspective. Yours ideals will be silenced, tactics will be defeated, and openly publishing that you do not wish to conform to the drug laws of America, that includes all drugs not just simple cannibis legalization, you will be signing a social death warrant for yourself and family. People who do not put on the FAKE, politically correct "face" of our capitalistic society will be dealt with and discriminated (avoided) from "normal" Americans and their ideals required for survival. The farthest you can possibly get is to the position that ron paul is in right now, the political black sheep who votes comprise of stoner college students and ignorant druggies, or zealous liberals. Our government knows the majority of Americans want to end the war on drugs, legalize cannibis, and end this losing battle of attrition. They have seen the polls, statistics, opinions, letters from johnny from Columbus Ohio, and they DO NOT CARE. If you think this country is going to risk economical downfalls, inflation of the American dollar, admit wrongdoings not only to its people, but to the multiple countries that follow out ideals of drugs willingly, or more commonly through force, you are living in a "dream world." This country will not legalize drugs that will eventually convince drug users to turn their back on capitalism, because materialism, competitiveness, and politically correct ideals of America do not matter to them anymore because they rather get high. It is a beautiful pipe dream that our country unethically, in a myriad of immoral ways, rips away from our freedom, along with so many other supposed freedom's Americans use to have ( and i guess don't matter anymore because they were written hundreds of years ago), so politicians can get votes, smear ideals of a race, and many other reasons. IM DONE FUCK U USA FREE MY ASS
I agree with you. But the conception of following the law is not a popular one in online culture.
oh, to put it another way:
geeks align hard towards chaotic good.
oh, to put it another way:
geeks align hard towards chaotic good.
I dare you.
I dare you, to not break the law in the location you are currently in, for a period of 24 hours. Unless you resort to not moving, you will be breaking a law (although that might be illegal as well). In most developed nations, you are dealing with a layer of international, national and local laws, with a history of several hundred years. Many of these old laws have not been revoked however, they are just no longer enforced.
"Oh" you say now, "I mean I just follow the laws that are still enforced actively". To that I say, "so do I". But I might just have a different set of laws I consider enforced than you do. That doesn't make me more or less moral than you. We both break the letter of the law. And we both hold ourselves to our own moral standards.
"Oh" you say now, "I mean I just follow the laws that are still enforced actively". To that I say, "so do I". But I might just have a different set of laws I consider enforced than you do. That doesn't make me more or less moral than you. We both break the letter of the law. And we both hold ourselves to our own moral standards.
Ah, how sweet the naivete!
As someone dying from cancer, medical marijuana is the only thing that allows me to eat.
Get a clue and stop bothering people.
Get a clue and stop bothering people.
> If you think a given law is unjust, you should be campaigning to change it, not breaking it willy-nilly.
If I were to heed that advice, I couldn't do anything productive. Heck, even as it is I'm worrying about stupid laws far too much, even though I'm not breaking any (that I know of), and it's taking time away from my productive behaviour. Your argument doesn't hold water in an environment where there are many, many stupid laws.
If I were to heed that advice, I couldn't do anything productive. Heck, even as it is I'm worrying about stupid laws far too much, even though I'm not breaking any (that I know of), and it's taking time away from my productive behaviour. Your argument doesn't hold water in an environment where there are many, many stupid laws.
I don't use any illegal drugs, but the drug laws are unjust and I don't think people who break them should be considered "morally wrong".
It can be irresponsible, in that a parent should not be engaging in activity that can lead to jail time, but it's not "immoral" and these laws shouldn't exist in the first place. The "drain" you speak of is the cost of drug prohibition, not use.
It can be irresponsible, in that a parent should not be engaging in activity that can lead to jail time, but it's not "immoral" and these laws shouldn't exist in the first place. The "drain" you speak of is the cost of drug prohibition, not use.
Dr Blackmore is a very interesting woman. Her early career was as a para pyschology researcher before she decided she was wasting her time and turned to real science.
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_13.html
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_13.html
A friend of mine freaked out after taking LSD for a while. She is fine now (it happened twenty years ago), but she was really scared - especially as there can be flashbacks, so you can not just opt out of not experiencing trips anymore.
Flashbacks are very rare, possibly even mythological. (A psyconaut friend of mine has reported only one 'flashback'-- it was a fraction of a second on the bus when she thought her hair had turned into a snake.)
There are some effects (often visual effects) that persist. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percept...
There are some effects (often visual effects) that persist. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percept...
There are very few instances where I would condone illegal drug use but this would probably be one of those instances where it works.
Huh? How can LSD be "worth it" when it has been proven to cause brain damage and hallucinations?
(Good bye karma)
(Good bye karma)
Yeah, vote me down. But people have talked about having chronic "tracers" and random hallucinations years after doing LSD.
SF drug propaganda FTW!
Doing drugs for "enlightenment" is for the lazy and stupid. There are many other ways to achieve this. Just ask a devout Hindu or Buddhist monk.
Typical Westerner attitude...
SF drug propaganda FTW!
Doing drugs for "enlightenment" is for the lazy and stupid. There are many other ways to achieve this. Just ask a devout Hindu or Buddhist monk.
Typical Westerner attitude...
And yet no one addressed my point. Vote me down, druggies.
LSD for fun, is great. Try playing an RPG while on a low dosage. You're coherent enough to play and understand it, but the realism spikes a thousand times. (I tried Fallout 3, and really felt as if I was in a nuclear wasteland.)
I've tried understanding technical documentation (on low dosages), and found it to be quite understandable and was able to retain everything. Immediately you start visualising and really "feeling" the underlying technology (even if it isn't actually that profound, it'll impact your mind in that way). I haven't done tests to see if this is more effective, but it looks like a promising possibility. (There was a thread on HN a few days back that talked about this.)
As far as the dangers, it might very well be. Wikipedia provides the indication that it's relatively safe, with patients that experienced psychosis (a few out of a thousand) to recover within a few days. The rate of psychosis is higher for people with existing mental illness. FWIW, I've been DX'd as bipolar I, with psychosis. As "far out" as LSD has made me feel during the experience, when it's over, I feel much more grounded than ever.
LSD is something everyone should seriously consider doing at least once in their life.