hallucinogens

[fictor]

-People generally do not die or get serious injuries from psychedelics

Again, this is misleading since you are leaving out that just because taking psychedelics may not cause serious injuries internally, the behavioral toxicity of psychedelics can and does cause harm! How many times do I have to keep telling you that everything you are saying about these drugs is extremely misleading and dishonest, you're not informing anybody you're persuading them to your biased point of view! Give them the full story!

Ok, I will rephrase:
-People generally do not die or get serious injuries from psychedelics (indirect harm included).
If people hurt themselves or others badly while on psychedelics, show me the evidence! I can tell you, as I have before, that it is going to be a miniscule amount of docmentation, simply because these accidents do not happen very often. This build up under my claim; if you take a psychedelic, the chances of you hurting yourself or others are less than the chances that you dont do it.

-Most people who take psychedelics do not have any lasting negative effect

And yet there are people whose minds are permanently altered in a negative way, either through flashbacks of bad trips, their life being thrown into the drug scene, being caught up with the authorities for doing something illegal.

Yes, there are some people getting hurt from psychedelics. But, as you can read in the quotes you posted from wikipedia, it is actually very few who have permanent negative effects (psychological effects included) from LSD. The part about the drug scene and the police really has nothing to do with the drug itself, but with the fact that it is illegal. This illustrates my point; if it was legalized it would cause very few problems, compared to now. That being said, I do agree that as long as it is illegal, there is a very real risk of getting caught or get mixed up with the wrong peolpe. I never said it wasn't.

You're trying to make these drugs look as innocent as table sugar, and it's not going to be that easy.

I dont know where you take that from, but for the record, I am not saying that psychedelics are comparable with table sugar

-Psychedelics are not addictive

Again, extremely misleading. Psychedelics can be psychologically addicting just as any drug can be. People can be dependent on TylenolPM to fall asleep even if it has no basis on their physiology and it's just in their mind that they need their 'sleep fix'. Virtually all drugs have the potential for this trap, and as I've said many times now there is no need to put yourself in this position!

Ok, let me rephrase myself again:
-Psychedelics are not (physically) addictive, and users do not tend to use it very often (due to the experience being rather exhausting and the quick tolerance buildup).

-Psychedelics are not considered a "gateway drug"

And the reality is that people who use psychedelics are more likely to try harder drugs or do them again than people who don't use psychedelics.

Increased likelihood to do the same drug again does not make it a gateway drug. I would also like to know what these "harder" drugs are, and see some research that back up the claim that use of psychedelics increase the likelihood of using these substances.

People on this forum are here to make their lives healthier and better, and your recommendations that pumping your brain with drugs has spiritual benefits and very little risk isn't going to hold up in a DIET forum.

Please, stop sying I reccomend drug use. It is a lie. Also, I did not make this thread, I simply informed that psychedelics do have medical properties and that the side effects of using them are less serious and less common than most people seems to believe.

Yes, it MAY. Yet very few people actually DO hurt themselves or others while on LSD. Who cares what theoreticly might happen if it never or extremely seldom does?

Wow. Now you've completely deluded yourself into thinking that because something is theoretical, it's a freak accident? Newsflash, psychedelics are ILLEGAL, of course reports are going to be seldom. Do you think someone is going to rush to file a lawsuit against the drug dealer because their LSD caused them to injure themselves?

Are you saying that the media does not write about serious accidents? Is that some kind of joke? My claim is that people very seldom die or hurt themselves seriously while on psyhedelics. These things get picked up and written about just like any other accident (if not more), no lawsuit needed. I am not talking about the kind of injuries one can hide, like some guy tripping and burns his finger while lighting a candle.

I don't think a perfectly happy and healthy human being is the usual LSD experimenter. Why would they need to resort to using LSD if they're healthy and happy already?

It is obvious that you do not know very much about the effects of psychedelics. As I have written before, these are LOUSY drugs for escaping a harsh reality. Many trips are uncomfortable and mentally taxing. It is not something you do to relax, like a beer, a joint or some kind of depressant drug like opiates. Any miserable person who takes LSD is very likely to have a miserable experience.

I never said LSD cannot cause lasting negative effect. I said it USUALLY DOES NOT (and backed it up with references). Read my posts before you accuse me of lying.

Actually you said that anything besides massive overdoses cause no lasting negative effects.You can read your own words again to find out, it's there clear as day.

Maybe I was not being clear enough? What I ment was that LSD does not cause any physical long term negative effects, if one does not massivly overdose. This means any lasting side effects (from "normal" use) must be psychological. And, as already mentioned, not many people get this kind of lasting effect either (see the paragraphs you quoted from wikipedia)

You did however admit that when taking massive overdoses, lasting negative effects can happen.

Yes, like if you massivly overdose on water. LSD can be toxic, if taken in ridicilous amounts, but that is besides the point, and does not undermine any of my claims.

I never tried LSD (see, preassumptions), and found out that the dangers of drugs in general, and psychedelics especially, are not what the public believe them to be a long time before I tried any illegal drug (not that I have tried many).

How misleading is this? You say you found out that psychedelics are not as dangerous as the public believes them to be, yet the debate here is that these drugs, even if not as dangerous as believed by the public, are still very dangerous! So what is the point in saying that 'oh everybody is wrong, it's actually not lethal or bad, it's a great idea!' when people who read the same stuff you do react to the same exact information as being 'it's actually not lethal, but still dangerous.'

Dangerous is a loose term. I agree that there are risks involved with taking psychedelics, but these risks are so small (as we have been over a million times, there is a slim to noen chance of dying from it, you dont get physically addicted, serious accidents resulting in serious harm seldom happen) that I do not find "dangerous" a fitting word. Driving a car can potentially be very dangerous, but you dont go around telling people not to drive a car, ever, do you? On the other hand, you tell them to drive safely, wear a seatbelt etc. Same thing can be done with psychedelics (use a trip sitter, do not operate heavy machinery etc.).

That is your definition. Native Americans had a saying that "deer and corn was food for the body, and peyote (mescaline) was food for the soul". Besides, many activities that are usually thought of as harmless by the public are actually more risky than taking psychedelics. For example, it is more risky to ride a horse than to use ecstasy (a drug I personally think is much more harmful than psychedelics).

All this soul and spiritual mumbo jumbo doesn't belong here. The soul isn't proven to even exist so why would you bring it up when talking about dangers or benefits of an illegal drug? I could argue that there is great spiritual benefit in having yellow colored walls and that it nourishes and feeds the soul of all who enter thy yellow colored room, but it doesn't belong in an intelligent debate.

If people have lasting positive effects on their mood and overall wellbeing from yellow walls, but these walls are forbidden, I would say it is highly relevant. I do not argue that there is a soul, I am simply saying that scientific research have shown that people who got a single dose of psylocybine had an experience described as "spiritual", and that they felt uplifted afterwards and that the experience was very meaningfull to them (I linked to an article about this study earlier).

That is a crazy way to look at it. Getting back to normal is not an adverse effect. It is in the nature of the drug that the effects are temporary.

Actually it is an adverse effect, just like how having low blood sugar makes you crave foods to get your blood sugar back to that different state is an adverse effect and sign of addiction to modern food. If you have some sort of reason why it isn't an adverse effect other than it being crazy in your opinion, I'd love to hear it.

No drugs lasts forever. They get broken down in your body, and as it is broken down and excreted, its effect passes. No one ever talks about this as an "adverse effect". You are simply speaking a different language than the rest of the world here. Blood sugar regulation and apetite are also perfectly normal, and not regarded as adverse effects of not eating. Adverse effects of not eating would be starvation, and that does not occur when not taking LSD.

I repeat myself: Personally, I love it (rollercoaster rides). I do it maybe once a year, or once every second or third year. Would you call it addiction? (...) The bottom line is that psychedelics can be enjoyable, fun and interesting, but it is not usual to do it very often (and it is somewhat impossible, due to tolerance buildup and cross tolerance).

Yeah, it's still addiction.

You are addicted to something you do once a year? Basically to everything you do more than one single time in your lifespan? Ok, fine. But tell me then; what are the horror of being addicted to take a drug that does not cause physical harm and seldom cause mental harm, once every year? I simply do not see the problem.

Even if you can't keep getting the same effect from that drug, you can still crave that feeling or drug effects in general, and go to other ones, meanwhile forgetting or undermining the necessities in your life which will matter later when reality gets back in your face..

A grim picture indeed, but does it happen? Can you back up the claim that people who use psychedelics turn to other substances when they build up a tolerance? Of all the people I know who uses psychedelics, very few use other drugs regurarly, and not a single one is addicted to any other drug (except a few that are addicted to nicotine, but that hardly passes for an "acid substitute).

Also, you blatantly state that there is no "need" to take psychedelics, completely ignoring the fact that for many it is a highly spiritual experience.

Again, if something being deemed highly spiritual from people who are under the influence of mind altering substances (can you FEEL the irony here) pardons it from all scrutiny, then we might as well just consider the human race doomed right here and now.

This is only true if you believe that these drugs are bad and the experiences they bring you are worthless. Many people disagree with you on that point. Many scientists included, like Mullis (see earlier posts).

Big difference, as a person being on psychedelics every day (or going to the amusement park every day, for that matter) is not going to get much else done. A person tripping say three times a year, can be a fully functioning individual and member of society, and usually is.

Again, that is not the danger of addiction whether it be physical or behavioral.

If that is not the danger of addiction, what is?

Prohibition of alcohol would not do much good. Did you not learn history in school, or watch Boardwalk Empire? I do not believe in prohibition or the war on drugs, and see legalization as a real alternative, yes.

Lol, I learned that people are so addicted to alcohol that they would revolt if it was taken away, I'm surprised that your solution to this is to cave in and say well, the human race needs their addictions thats the end of the story.

All drug use is not about addiction. People are not willing to give up the search for other states of consciousness. We have searched for this since the very beginning of our exsistance, and is probably never going to stop. It has fueled our developement as a spicies and is only a bad thing for those who believes drugs are inherently bad.

I realize that taking it away wouldn't help right now, it doesn't change my beliefs that it needs to be done in the future if we are to create a more healthy and peaceful existence. Your personal beliefs are your right, but if you're going to start shoving them on everybody else when it comes to painting a pretty target on illegal and dangerous substances, you're going to get a lot of resistance.

This is not about my poersonal believes. It is about the fact that;
-People generally do not die or get serious injuries from psychedelics (indirect harm included).
-Psychedelics are not (physically) addictive, and users do not tend to use it very often (due to the experience being rather exhausting and the quick tolerance buildup).
-Most people who takes psychedelics does not have any lasting negative effect
-Psycheelic is not considered a "gateway drug"

And that;
-Some healthy people using psychedelics report lasting positive psychological effects
-Some ill people might benefit from psychedelics

[panacea]

It's clear you have no grasp on what I'm saying, and have a funny way of looking at things (such as cars being more dangerous than drugs so drugs are okay, as if the two are comparable since you are actually fulfilling a life necessity using a car, and not risking your health/mental health simply for a drug trip, also: getting into a car doesn't tend to give you a miserable experience that can cause flashbacks or change your life for the worse, or get you mixed up with the wrong crowd, or get you in the mental habit of relying on illegal substances for thrills or leisure, on top of that it's not always your choice to get into a car (such as children), the list could go on). On top of that you are deceiving and biased, so I'm ending my replies. If what you say is true about not recommending drugs unless they were legalized, you have a really funny way of showing it. It's about the same as a tobacco company showing cool people smoking cigarettes, talking about how fun and cool they are and they have all these great social benefits.. and you can get them for an affordable price.. right here at store X, but they don't recommend you use them because they're bad for you in some way. Yeah right.

There's some risks associated with these drugs, although it's obviously debated how serious or unserious they are, they're still a bad idea because they're illegal and you can't get them from the good crowd... Hopefully people are smart enough to end it there. By the way, if something may benefit someone, but you have no way to figure out exactly who, then it's a null point - it's useless, there's zero worth in something like that. It's like having the answer to all the worlds problems, you just have to know the 1,000 digit combination. Oh, well if you don't know the combination then who cares? They already have tons of drugs for treating every kind of ill person, and look how great that system works out. Just because something is a more natural drug doesn't mean it's going to cure people any better than artificial ones. Generally, people here don't subscribe to the big pharma 'take pills and fix problems' theory, OR the homeopathic take some herbal concoction and cure your schizophrenia theories. I don't know how you've been here since 2008 and haven't figured that out yet..

[fictor]

It's clear you have no grasp on what I'm saying

Oh, I grasp it, I just dont agree

cars being more dangerous than drugs so drugs are okay

Again you are either twisting my words, or not really getting what I am saying. I used the example about cars to illustrate that everything we do have certain risks to it, but that to call something "dangerous", there must be a considerable amount of risk. For example, even though there is a risk of death or injury from driving a car, we do not generally speak of it as dangerous, because the risk is not very big. My claim, that people do not generally die or injure themselves or other by taking psychedelics, can be applied to cars as well. This does not mean cars are 100% safe, but it mean, in my opinion, that it is silly to call it dangerous. Since the risk of dying from psychedelic are equally low (if not lower), and the risk of permanent mental illness is relatively low (based on the wikipedia article you quoted, less than 1%), I argue that the risk is too low to call it dangerous. That is not the same as saying cars are more dangerous, so drugs are ok. Do you see that?

as if the two are comparable since you are actually fulfilling a life necessity using a car, and not risking your health/mental health simply for a drug trip

Again, this is only true as long as you cling to the idea that a psychedelic experience holds now value. As I have said over and over again, there are both research and countless anecdotes that suggest othervise. One of the uses of psychedelics that deserves more research, is actually treatment from addiction. That should be very interesting for you, and other people who worry a lot about addiction You can read more about it here: http://www.clustercompagniet.no/wb/medi ... edelic.pdf)

also: getting into a car doesn't tend to give you a miserable experience that can cause flashbacks or change your life for the worse

Taking psychedelics does not TEND to do this either, even though there is a miniscule risk (again, less than 1% based on the article you quoted earlier)

or get you mixed up with the wrong crowd

I dont know where you live and how it is there, but where I live, drug dealers dont have psychedelics. People just buy it of the internet, never even meeting a multicriminal drug fiend or gunslinger, like you do when you buy drugs on the street.

On top of that you are deceiving and biased

You are the biased one. You hold on to an attitude to drugs in general that is much like what I learned in school as a kid. Since then, how much have you read about drugs? How much have you dicussed drugs? What do you really know about it, except that it is bad, bad, bad? I am actually interested in the subject, and by reading and writing about it, I changed my view on it. This was not a choice, but a consequence of learning more about it. I changed my standpoint because of new information. That is the oposite of bias.

If what you say is true about not recommending drugs unless they were legalized, you have a really funny way of showing it. It's about the same as a tobacco company showing cool people smoking cigarettes, talking about how fun and cool they are and they have all these great social benefits.. and you can get them for an affordable price.. right here at store X, but they don't recommend you use them because they're bad for you in some way. Yeah right.

How on earth is that in any way the same? I never said any of those things. Besides, I am a non smoker and made several people quit smoking. I also helped friends to cut down their drug use, or use drugs more responsibly. I dont think that drugs are "cool" or make users cool. I think drugs are interesting, and I think psychedelics can be a valuable tool for treating certain ilnesses, understanding more about who we are and how our mind works, and be of personal benefit to some "recreational" users as well, by lifting mood, increasing creativity etc.

There's some risks associated with these drugs, although it's obviously debated how serious or unserious they are, they're still a bad idea because they're illegal and you can't get them from the good crowd.

Yes, they are illegal, but if you buy it online with no traceable payment, you actually dont need to get in touch with any shady individuals, and you dont even risk to be arrested. The same happens if they are legalized. My point is that it does not have to do whit the drugs themselves, and is easily avoidable.

By the way, if something may benefit someone, but you have no way to figure out exactly who, then it's a null point - it's useless, there's zero worth in something like that. It's like having the answer to all the worlds problems, you just have to know the 1,000 digit combination. Oh, well if you don't know the combination then who cares?

This is a problem with all drugs, some responds well, other not. Is that a good reason to write them off, stop using them and discontinue all research?

Just because something is a more natural drug doesn't mean it's going to cure people any better than artificial ones.

Of course not, I never said anything like that.

Generally, people here don't subscribe to the big pharma 'take pills and fix problems' theory, OR the homeopathic take some herbal concoction and cure your schizophrenia theories. I don't know how you've been here since 2008 and haven't figured that out yet..

I have met no one on this forum that does not believe in medicine. They just think it is a bad idea to live unhealthy and rely on medicines to "fix" the problems you get from that lifestyle. I agree with this, and therefore live very healthy (100% raw for almost 4 years now, work out every day etc.).

By the way, using the expression "big pharma" makes you sound like a conspiracy-loon

.. Hopefully people are smart enough to end it there.

Hopefully, people will make up their own minds after doing their own research (I am not talking about taking drugs themselves, I mean review other peoples research).

[Mr. PC]

Ok, after reading all that, can we all agree

1 - While intoxicated a person can harm themselves
2 - A person may run into legal issues for consuming them
3 - Some* people can have long term physical harm caused directly by the drug (schizo, depression)

*some is a course for debate. Possibly less that 1%, but this may be controversial.



(Panacea, that video was awesome.)

[fictor]

Ok, after reading all that, can we all agree

1 - While intoxicated a person can harm themselves
2 - A person may run into legal issues for consuming them
3 - Some* people can have long term physical harm caused directly by the drug (schizo, depression)

*some is a course for debate. Possibly less that 1%, but this may be controversial.

I have changed and added a little to the first one;
1-While influenced by any psychoactive substance, there is a theoretical increase in the risk of causing harm to oneself or others. Even though
psychedelics are not known to cause such accidents very often, users should always have a sober "trip sitter", not operate machinery and generally
not expose themselves to situations that demands their full intellect and focus to prevent damage the surroundings, while the drugs are in effect.

Or something like that

[waiwilliams]

I would seriously discourage DMT for your first hallucinogenic experience