Or, just do drugs. I mean, LSD is great, and people should try it. Smoking pot is also nice, I've done some great writing while stoned. Heck, Paul Erdos did amphetamines his whole life. Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?
I guess you could say that occasional use is not a big problem for most drugs. But I wouldn't recommend it, because most people go through some vulnerable time when they could become addicted (or otherwise abuse drugs), and at that time you don't want to have the stuff in your house or a dealer friend ready to supply.
We dismiss people who join cults that sound crazy -- an alien ship coming to rescue them or something -- but I think a high percentage of people could be recruited if the cult appears at just the right time in their lives.
If you are a regular user of drugs, it's like always having the cult recruiter in your house, just waiting for the right time.
Sometimes people do drugs to cope with their other problems in life. They need drugs as a reprieve. Life can be hard and people have used alcohol, pot and many other substances to create a refuge. Of course that doesn't solve the problem, but solving the problem is not always the top priority, and many times the problem has no solution. Why should we morally deny a refuge from anxiety and suffering to other people?
I'm not suggesting we deny anyone anything. I'm answering the question: "why do we try to convince people not to use drugs?".
It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive.
LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went on the be preachers or priests later in life. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. But anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning.
Amphetamines certainly seem pretty cool. Especially if you have ADHD. But it definitely has side effects and potential for addiction. It's long term effects are not well studied, and a few studies I did see were concerning. E.g. brain damage in monkeys, and a group of kids taking it did worse than the control group after 3 years.
I think people should be educated on the risks and facts before they decide to take a drug. If they still want to do it, fine. But at least they know the risks. And it's not enough just to put a warning sticker on the back of it that no one reads. Even widespread education that a drug is dangerous isn't enough. Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer, but why do new people take up smoking?
I'm no advocate of the claims that marijuana is "harmless" or, as some even claim, "good for you". But harm is relative. Sitting in your chair all day is harmful. Eating half the food we do is harmful, as are most medications.
Arguing that marijuana is "not harmless" isn't much of an argument at all.
I find that statement absurd, anything with an effect that powerful should be cherished! Would life be desirable if it were stripped from all emotions, as they too have a powerful effect on the mind? Even if you agreed to that, it wouldn't be feasible as we are biological creatures and not pure rational beings. Denying that our biological self exists, with feelings and all, doesn't solve anything. The spiritual experience you describe is just another part of the human condition, I don't quite believe that 9 out of 10 people on LSD would become preachers, but I see how it can lead to a better understanding of religion. This doesn't require superstition, quite the opposite. When you know that those effects are caused by LSD or substances contained in Mushrooms, ferns or cacti, you don't need a higher power as an explanation for this peculiar state of mind. You might however find yourself coming to conclusions about life that other people on similar states of mind (whether induced by drugs or other means is irrelevant here) had before you, and who used the vehicle of religion to transport them.
So yes, psychedelics, as well as most drugs, should not be taken lightly, but banning them is like razing the Niagara Falls because someone might fall over the edge.
What if it became widespread and our society became super religious? What other irrational things can it convince people of?
I don't know if they should be banned or not. I'm just saying they are not safe
And on a personal level, would you want to take such a drug? Knowing it can convince you of something irrational and change your entire life path for the worse?
Why do you condemn people that find something different to help them with that than you?
There is a difference in having a spiritual experience and merely following a ritual for the sake of the ritual.
It anything, more widespread LSD usage would make people less religious by your definition.
We don't know that. All we know is that the drug made them become obsessed with something irrational.
Would you take something like that? Would you want something like that to become widespread? Do you want a society that is far more religious and devoted to their religion?
Please provide a link to said study where the words you use above are quoted from.
Otherwise you making just as much assumptions as pantalaimon
And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite others to take spin on the russian roulette. If you have any mental illness in your family, it is strongly advisable you steer clear, but even if you don't, it is not worth the risk.
Citations please.
It's a powerful drug but has incredible value when used properly. If you're going to start wringing your hands over dangerous drugs, start with the killers of today: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.
"21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental health outcomes. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems."
And yes, temporary schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous. This is something no one can argue. I hate pedants.
There's no such thing as "temporary schizophrenia." If you're referring to acute psychosis, as you seemingly experienced, then yes it's certainly a possible side effect--though never a permanent one.
Bad experiences are usually triggered by an uncomfortable setting, or a dose for which you were not prepared. I'm sorry that was your experience, but concerned your reaction doesn't add to the scientific discussion.
LSD increases glutamate and modulates the 5HTA (seratonin) subtypes, as well as having modulatory effects on D2 (dopamine) receptors--it alters conscious processes and lowers the inhibitory threshold of the action potential, allowing "new" neuronal pathways to develop. While we don't know the specific pharmacokinetic MOA, we do know it has a favorable toxicological and therapeutic profile, and that the content of one's hallucinations depend far more on the individual and the setting than the substance.
Yes, it can be dangerous. Yes, you can take steps to effectively minimize the danger like you do in every other area of your life (seatbelts? helmets?). Like anything there's a cost-benefit ratio for each individual to consider--are you willing to risk a potentially terrifying experience for a chance at novel insight?
I think that's a choice everyone should be able to make for themselves.
"The 3 patients in whom an extended psychosis followed a single ingestion of LSD clearly had long standing schizophrenia..."
The page on it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_and_schizophrenia - there doesn't seem to be any strong studies. A small increased risk is possible/likely.
On the flip side, many folks seem to feel LSD is one of the most meaningful experiences they've had in life. It seems reasonable that healthy people should seek out such an experience in a controlled, safe, environment.
* crossing the road
* driving a car
* choking on <insert any food here>
etc etc
And this is where i suspect the big anti-pot push is coming from.
With alcohol you can go out for some beers after work, get buzzed, get up the next day with a nagging ache, and still come back to work.
With pot it is more likely that you go "fuck work!".
End result, pot is not good for business.
Looking across history, there is a whole mess or barely concealed agenda aimed at maintaining a workforce. Even the modern school system is perhaps put into place to produce and maintain a more useful workforce.
edit: actually he's published it as as an ebook too, titled "And Then I Thought I Was A Fish": http://www.amazon.co.uk/And-Then-Thought-Was-Fish-ebook/dp/B...
Occsionally,people do have bad trips, however, there is truth in that. For me, that goes back to making informed decisions. Legal sales from trained folks, with stableized ingredients and dosages helps with such things. Yes, a few people are gonna be stupid, but that basically happens with everything.
"Drugs" is a legal delineation, not one of substance. Like every substance you consume, amount, frequency--and sometimes intent--matter far more than molecular composition.
In regard to LSD specifically, please note that the link to schizophrenia has since been proven null, and the individuals studied were already displaying signs of the disorder. Further research in more recent years, while limited, has been unable to find any correlation between incidents of mental illness and the use of hallucinogenics.
As per cannabis... without it I'd most certainly be addicted to Rx painkillers. I like knowing that if I travel or go somewhere it's prohibited, I won't suffer crippling withdrawals. In fact, aside from the return of a dull aching pain from chronic hyper-flexion, I wouldn't notice anything other than increasingly vivid dreams caused by REM rebound. For me it's a clear choice. It allows me to function, and unlike other pain management regimens, after 7 years its minimum effective dose (MED) despite daily administration remains unchanged; if I skip a day or 6 months, my pain is not magnitudes above baseline.
I'm not here to tout the benefits of marijuana, but to explain how drugs are an indifferent tool, and just because they are harmful in one context doesn't mean we should discount their usefulness in another. Their value is relative.
Because of a substance, I can function. Because I can function, I've been able to nurture my business from 3 people to >500, and into the Fortune 1000. For others with traumatic disorders like PTSD, hallucinogenic therapy may hold promises anti-depressants have been unable to actualize. Regardless, generalizations like yours (while in good faith) prevent the regulatory changes needed to once again allow for open research.
In respect to the diversity of the human condition, I'd implore you to take a more laissez-faire approach: decide what's right for yourself, not for others.
LSD: I've tried it a handful of times. The last time resulted in a strip so strongly horrifying I nearly stole a car with people in it to escape my extreme schizophrenic trip.
Note: I've never had any symptom of it before in my life, and it doesn't run in my family. Nor do I believe I ever will. It was so extremely out of character, I know for a fact it was induced by the drug. In fact I think the dealer who gave it to my gave me a hugely high dose, which is a big danger of taking LSD from dealers.
Cannabis: It may be good for pain relief, I had stomach issues that I used it to help with for years. Then a doctor told me it could be causing my stomach pain. Look up "cannabinoid hyperemesis". It was horrifying. The worst stomach flu you could imagine that lasted for weeks, and didn't leave me for years. I don't know if it was the weed, but I stay away from it now. I've had three different doctors talk about it (in different states), and all told me they have seen big spikes in stomach problems due to weed.
So, yea. Nothings black and white. Drugs are an "arbitrary" definition (as all definitions are) for "something that affects you strongly". And anything that effects you strongly deserves a massive warning: if at all possible, don't rely on it.
As for cannabis, the condition you're referencing is exceedingly rare. In most cases the ER attendants I've known treating individuals with these symptoms have traced them back to synthetic "legal high" cannabinoid analogues, most of which are untested with an unknown toxicological profile. Their proliferation is a symptom of criminalization, and it is a burgeoning epidemic.
I can assure you your 'stomach flu' was not caused by cannabis, however there is some data to back up the link between dysphoria at high dosages and ghrelin (the precursor hormone that makes you hungry) deregulation with consistent usage. My extensive research has turned up no link between cannabis use and an altered micro-biome, but I think it's fair to say both acute and chronic usage can lead to altered/dysfunctional eating patterns. It is also well-known for causing dry mouth, which makes oral hygiene especially important if one wishes to avoid candida-related side effects (occasionally linked with GI upset).
Also worth noting, cannabis use in adolescence is correlated with a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders, and can trigger or accelerate latent conditions in those already predisposed to mental illness. It's not all fun and games, but it has a comparatively favorable side-effect profile to most similarly-indicated pharmaceuticals.
And that was Thompson's experience with pot - in which case, he should have learned thereafter not to do pot and expect good work from himself: Others find that pot makes them more productive, and yet others find that it is good for some portions of the work, but not others. Simply because his words seem to uphold the stereotype doesn't make it any more true.
It's interesting how vastly different everyone's qualitative experiences are when the physiological states are fairly uniform... I think observing those altered processes with next-gen EEG tech may offer some illumination in our current, limited model of neuroplasticity.