Thread: LDs and psychedelics

Originally Posted by sivason

What do we all think? Entertaining? Did not disappoint.


Let's see, I could say "What makes you think blah blah blah, duhh, umm, blah" and "why would blah blah duh erk" plus "what does that ummmm, blah?"


However, I will instead recommend that you start a thread in the lounge about legalizing drugs, and how people are so mean, and lie about things. Now, do you have anything to contribute that is on topic?

P.S. 23 'likes' in 4.5 years? How is that possible? Ohhhh,,, I see. Hey guys, let's all kick in and get this guy up to 30 likes. Please mark like on his post above this one. He has been providing us all with some quality entertainment, so we can 'like' some of his stuff for that.

I'm not here to be liked. You either agree with what I say or you don't.

Remember I'm not the one responding with zero, I repeat zero meaningful words.^

You're the one who wants to convince us that people ruin their lives on just weed man, and it's a gateway to other drugs too.. just like Reagan told us.. Not me.

I don't think people are mean, I think people deceive themselves on a daily basis, you'd have to be deceiving yourself if you honestly think your friends lives were ruined because they smoked pot.. and not something clearly more troubling.

P.S. For most of that time, I've been a fly on the wall.. the majority of my posts were in debate threads a few years ago with Onus.. and the science crowd.. You think I'm getting a whole lot of likes for talking about metaphysical stuff to people that need 100% scientific proof?

Originally Posted by BossMan

As far as the on-topic discussion goes, can someone please explain to me what constitutes "enlightenment" I've seen a few people aimlessly throw this word around. What makes you enlightened? Who decides you've achieved enlightenment? Is this kind of a religious thing because it sure seems like it.

That's an excellent question, and it would be great if someone offered up an answer; Sivason, Hermine? You guys seem to have a handle on this subject.

I personally don't have an answer, or, rather, my definition of enlightenment is probably not in line with traditional enlightenment. That definition, for what it's worth: Enlightenment is the transcendent, complete, unification of body (waking consciousness), mind (unconscious), and spirit (my life's, and perhaps others' lives, accumulated thought energy), forming a greater, infinitely flexible "whole" of my Self from the parts that are always there, but are very bad at communicating with each other. Also, for me LD'ing represents a clear path to enlightenment...

I know that can't be the right answer, and I never liked the dictionary definition, which is essentially exposure to real truth (what does that even mean?) ... and for a word as old as this one, there likely is a correct answer.

After we're clear on enlightenment, maybe we can go back to the OP?

The totally bazar thing is that I am fairly pro-drug, and yet Deathcell and a couple others act like I am a Regan cronie. My only crime here is that I also insist on the dark side being presented. The whole idea that I am some anti-drug tool of a government propaganda machine is knee jerk radicalism. Truely pro-drug advacates like deathcell seems to be often are as extreme as religious radicals or people talking about prolife/prochoice. It seems like the type of one sided things you here from political parties. Any word that leads public opinion away from their established charter is demonized. It seems to me that Deathcell can not accept anything negative being said about drugs.



I am sorry that making fun of things as I did before seemed childish, but I feel as if certain people are pushing one sided agendas by any twist of words possible.


Me pro-drug? How could that be if I have said any negative about drugs? What I have said has been honest observation from first hand experience over at least 3 decades. I go visit my mom and often my step dad and cousins are sitting in the same room as me smoking pot, yet I do not walk out of the room or complain. My current career would be ruined if anyone had in writing a claim that I had used anything sinse I started the career, so I will say I have not, but let's say that on many occassions in the somewhat near past (not decades ago) I joined them.,,,,, experience? I did not take acid a couple times, we as a crowd did drugs like that every weekend for about five years, so that makes the number more in the hundreds, as much as it seems.

Did pot ruin my friends life? Yes, but only 3 brothers. It must be like geneticly desposed alcholics. Some how them all being brothers seems strange unless it can be a genetic trait. The guy who lived in his car is one, and one of his brothers has often lived in a car. They would be a thousand time better off if pot did not exist. None of the other decade long smokers can figure those guys out. They waste away and smoke more than can be believed, sometime going through an eight of high power weed in 24 hours. They can not be sober long enough to go to work, and will sell anything they own to get more. Others out side of that family do not have it so bad, but dozens do not miss a single day, and I am serious. One is in prision for growing 100+ plants, and the other guy was a meth-head, but I remeber a time when we first got high and he said he would not ever move up to anything stronger. Shout that it is bull crap, but it is honest.

Anyone like deathcell care to tell everyone one what is in it for me to 'lie' about all this? Could it be that nothing is wholey good and people should also hear the honest bad? You say you know a hundred daily smokers, but all of us started pretty normal. At first everyone could have jobs, and places to live. It was after say 15 years of daily use that the problems started piling up for most, or perhaps twenty years. However I hacve now watched a few of them for 28 years.

Here is the point, then I at least will move on, after asking Deathcell to prove one thing (see below). I can love my family who uses drugs in front of me and I can support an adults right to smoke pot, and still present an honest view from extreme first hand knowledge that casts drugs in a negative light. I get a bit pissed when people radicalize an issue, so that any statement against their cause is taken as blasphamy. Gateway drug? Only avid pot smokers complain about that as an idea. It was for me and my friends. Millions upon millions of people use caffiene, but they do not in any high amount turn to other things, yet everyone I knew who ever tried pot eventually became curious about what other euphoria inducing things they could try. Not propaganda, just some honest older guy saying what he has seen. Tainted drugs? I have had them and seen then them first hand. Pot addictive? First hand experience and knowing dozens of people who have smoked it daily for 30 years. I told my still stoner friends that I thought at least 10% of those who smoke pot for a summer, will never get off of it, and they laughed saying the number must be more like 40%. So here I am likely a bigger stoner (ahem, but not ever after starting my current career) than most, with decades of experience, but for me to tell what I have seen that is not good about it, amkes deathcell go all radical.

Deathcell, please prove to the crowd that you are not radicalized and totally one sided on issues. That is unless you are simply a propaganda machine for N.O.R.M.A.L., in which case you may as well be a politicion, unable to allow certain words from crossing your lips. here is how you can prove it. To suggest no negative side exists to pot, or acid or mushrooms, is just to radical to be viewed as anything different from propaganda. Please prove this is not you by listing at least 3 bad things about any one of those drugs.

Side note: exactly why would even the biggest drug user wish to encourage others to try them? Honest answers please.

snoop: I agree I haven't made a very good case for anything. But I think that's mostly because the few things I have said have relentlessly been turned into other things that I didn't say and didn't mean, and the discussion has been bogged down in that.

One of the things I contest is the true value of the drug experiences to the people who have them. There's a difference between having a transformative experience or insight and having an experience that tells you its transformative but isn't. Here's a non-drug example: If you ever let Mormon missionaries into your house, one of the first thing they do is set up a little shrine with Joseph Smith. They then ask you if you feel anything. If you say no, they put it away and move on to another approach. Obviously they're hoping for you to have some kind of supernatural experience, which you're supposed to interpret as evidence of the truth or value of the religion. If I had an experience like that, I'd say, OK, clearly your religion does something, its not 100% pretend. But it doesn't follow that your theology is mostly true or honest, or that it would be good for me to join.

When I talk to people about their drug experiences, many of them don't read anything into those experiences, they don't suppose that they're "learning" anything or that its changing them in a good way. Of those who do think that the experiences have some kind of 'spiritual growth' value, in my experience they seem to have a remarkable lack of objectivity about their experiences, they draw conclusions from them that just don't follow at all. For instance someone can do acid and experience a "past life", but the "life" they describe is impossibly implausible to anyone else hearing it, it just seems plausible to them because they felt it so strongly. From my standpoint, those experiences do not have the value that those having them assume they do, because the experiences are not what they believe them to be. Now obviously, people have a very wide range of experiences and interpret them in a wide variety of ways, different from the anecdotes I've given here. So for me to support my position well, we would have to talk about people's experiences and I'd have to share and explain what I've experienced in the same context. But we keep getting diverted in relation to our imagined views about side issues like legalization, so I don't see this happening.

Originally Posted by BossMan

Saying pot is a gateway drug to meth is like saying alcohol is a gateway drug to crack. The whole gateway concept is a fallacy from the get go.

As far as the on-topic discussion goes, can someone please explain to me what constitutes "enlightenment" I've seen a few people aimlessly throw this word around. What makes you enlightened? Who decides you've achieved enlightenment? Is this kind of a religious thing because it sure seems like it.

Now, that is the kind of things we should be talking about in this thread. Thank you.

I will start with saying that it has been defined in many ways and some are based heavily on what religion is in the culture. There is probably no way to state a true definition, unless we limited it to something like 'what is then Bon Buddhist definition?"


I can make some observations.


First, only a fool would proclaim himself enlightened. It is just like the term genious. Only a very foolish man would break out a M.E.N.S.A. card and mention that he was offically a genious. Really, how could they be that dumb and count as genious, if get my point.

Second, it is a word like mastery, that everyone will have their own view on. Is anyone who can perform good classical music on an insterment a master, or do we reserve that title for someone who has had that ability for at least 20 years, or has taught at least 3 people to that level, and so on.


Here are things I feel are part of becoming 'enlightened.'


1) Truely seeing that you exist in many parts and that often what you experience is not a simple issue. The ego is often going to convince you to do certain things, as will the training or religious things placed on you in childhood. An enlightened person, may experience anger when someone says a certain thing (yes, they can still experience normal emotion), but it will be more like observing that they have become angery, and then be willing to analize what is truely at the core of why they are responding that way. The answer is rarely 'I am angery, because they are stupid' and more likely ' I am angery, because they are making me feel like I did when my sister used to do such and such.'

This also involves seeing when a reaction is based on chemical and biological items. An example is sexuality. We all know the sterio type of the man feeling a certain way until they have completed having sex, and then could care less. The enlightened person still feels the effect of hormones, but can realize that they are under the influence of their own body.

2) IMO. Enlightened people will have compassion for life in general and not honestly wish pain or suffering on anything or anyone. An enlightened individual does not need to be vegitarion or even abstain from hunting, or from a support of exacution (those are individual choices) but will not want suffering to be a part of it. Hunting will be for food, not soley for trophies, exacution will be viewed as putting down a sick animal in as swift a manner as is available.

3) IMO. The more eastern view (which I hold) also involves the person realizing the true nature of things. Yes, it is hard to understand. The idea is that most of what we think is going on is influenced by us being in the body of an animal. An enlightened person can accept and see that it is hard eperate from the prespective given by being in the body of an animal. Hmans are a form of ape, and being in a human will make you view the world in ape like manner, as where if you were enbodied in a cat reality would appear much different. It also includes being tuned into metaphysical things, that lead to the actual understanding that this reality is more akin to the dream state then is readily observable. The beginning of this type of enlightenment is easily compared to becoming lucid in a dream. Most people do not become aware in a dream. Becoming lucid to the real world (O.P.) is begining the path to enlightenment, with enlightment being compared to mastery of LDing.

4) IMO. enlightened people will view enlightnement as a path towards something, not a destination that is ever reached. People may call one enlightened, but thatonly means they have gone very far along the path.

5) In most peoples opinion enlightened people would not make fun of someone who spouts crazy sounding or brainwashed sounding retoric, or who appears to be disturbed in a parinoid way. So in that light perhaps Sageous and Shadowofwind have more sense than me. That is unless those on the path who are doing ok can make slips as far as making fun of someone, and then demonstrate their continued effort on that path, by admitting to the weakness involved in riduculing, and proceeding forward.

In my view the word 'enlightened' generally has so many unsupportable assumptions piled into it that its worse than meaningless. Yes I agree its a religious thing in that sense. That doesn't mean of course that someone can't reasonably say what they mean by the word and use it anyway.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

In my view the word 'enlightened' generally has so many unsupportable assumptions piled into it that its worse than meaningless. Yes I agree its a religious thing in that sense. That doesn't mean of course that someone can't reasonably say what they mean by the word and use it anyway.

I agree that the word is almost meaningless. It is one of those things that is undefinable like saying someone is wise. We can test intelligence in a specific field, but how could we gage wisdom. The unsupportable issues make it impossable to prove enlightenment. It is generally just a term followers bestow on someone they view as very wise. Most wise people do not ever encourage such a title or use it themselves. In the spiritual world it is almost like the term 'really awesome,' so it has little true meaning. Even the traits I listed are just examples of my own view on things.

Three of us have said drugs are not a shortcut to enlightenment. I can only speak for myself, but what I meant is simply that while drugs may cause interesting experiences, the traits most would attribute to enlightenment are more a matter of developing a truely good nature and being at peace, in a long term way, plus really knowing why you feel the way you do, so you can see things clearer. That sort of thing takes work and time.

So I guess the answer to Bossman's question is that enlightenment is a goal that means many different things, but is ultimately about seeking something spiritually important, and that importance is defined by the seeker.

Maybe, in this thread's context, it's just another word for extreme personal growth.

First of all, I would like to add that I largely agree with the view Sageous, Shadowofwind, and Sivason have been stating and I not old, ex-hippy, or out-of-touch. I was still using various drugs fairly regularly as recent as three years ago and currently have a hallucinogen at home I planning on experimenting with soon. So, I am very much "in touch" with the current drug market and still agree with Sivason that purchasing any drug comes with the risk of getting something other than what you purchased. I have had this happen to me several times, despite buying from someone I knew and being extremely well informed. The only time I felt completely free of this risk, was when I had a trusted friend who sold various types of drugs and tested them himself before selling. He was the only dealer I have ever trusted that completely, and I have known many, many dealers.

Nothing of what Shadowofwind, Sageous, or Sivason are saying is fear-mongering. I too, have seen friends fried by acid. I also have a friend who committed murder while under the influence of PCP, which is the drug Sivason mentioned mushrooms are sometimes laced with. I am not anti-drug, but if someone is going to do a drug, they should enter in with the full knowledge of what risks they are taking.

I occasionally will hallucinate something when completely sober. When I am really drunk or really stoned I start to hallucinate, and am much more prone to paranoia when smoking. These are direct effects of taking large amounts of LSD in my late teens/early twenties. I also have extreme anxiety in large crowds, which never happened to me when I was younger, so I suspect this is an effect of LSD also. If someone had warned me of these effects, I still would have taken LSD, but I would have thought twice about taking it as often as I did. Another adverse effect of LSD, is that when I started having interesting effects from meditation/LDing, I overlooked them for a while b/c I just chalked it up to my acid flashbacks!

Originally Posted by Sageous

That's an excellent question, and it would be great if someone offered up an answer; Sivason, Hermine? You guys seem to have a handle on this subject.

Thank you for your kind words! I wouldn't presume to have a handle on the subject of enlightenment, but I can speak to what it means to me. I actually very much agree with Sivason's definition. I will break my definition into parts as well:

1. The ability to see the true nature of all that is.
2. Compassion for all beings.
3. The ability to see/think/experience outside of one's ego.
4. A true, deep understanding and knowing of the interconnectedness and oneness of the universe.
5. Existing completely in the now.

Enlightenment is a religious term for me. It is partially influenced by Buddhist thought, so it is biased in that way. It is also partially based on my own discoveries and experiences. When I said drugs are not a shortcut to enlightenment, my meaning is that while drugs can and do offer groundbreaking insights, they rarely produce a lasting, positive change that will effect how you function on a daily basis. The kind of long-lasting change I view as enlightenment, only comes through committed, daily practice to rewriting our minds habits.

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

1. The ability to see the true nature of all that is.
2. Compassion for all beings.
3. The ability to see/think/experience outside of one's ego.
4. A true, deep understanding and knowing of the interconnectedness and oneness of the universe.
5. Existing completely in the now.

Enlightenment is a religious term for me. It is partially influenced by Buddhist thought, so it is biased in that way. It is also partially based on my own discoveries and experiences. When I said drugs are not a shortcut to enlightenment, my meaning is that while drugs can and do offer groundbreaking insights, they rarely produce a lasting, positive change that will effect how you function on a daily basis. The kind of long-lasting change I view as enlightenment, only comes through committed, daily practice to rewriting our minds habits.

Very well said. I agree with every part of your definition too. I like the use of the words 'ground breaking insights' because it brings an image of a shovel thrust into the hard earth. As in, it may show you where to dig and that the ground can give way, but it does not dig the hole for you, and certainly has nothing to do with setting the foundation.

A similar phrase my dad taught me before he gave me my first mushrooms was "hallucinogens can simply show someone that a certain door exists, and allow a quick glimpse at what may be beyond it, but they in no way will walk you through the door, that is up to you."

Originally Posted by sivason

The totally bazar thing is that I am fairly pro-drug, and yet Deathcell and a couple others act like I am a Regan cronie. My only crime here is that I also insist on the dark side being presented. The whole idea that I am some anti-drug tool of a government propaganda machine is knee jerk radicalism. Truely pro-drug advacates like deathcell seems to be often are as extreme as religious radicals or people talking about prolife/prochoice. It seems like the type of one sided things you here from political parties. Any word that leads public opinion away from their established charter is demonized. It seems to me that Deathcell can not accept anything negative being said about drugs.

LOL? I don't want false things being said. That people ruin their lives from POT, they don't.. and that the gateway drug thing is anything but a tool of the reagan era, it is.

It's not my fault you've bought into the lies.. You don't hear me saying people don't die from heroin or ruin their lives, they do. It's still the fault of the person, but heroin is not comparable to the safety of a Cannabis. It's also not my fault you haven't bought any LSD since 1980 and have no idea what it's like in modern times..

It's not my fault you claim your "pro-drug" and than say the most ridiculously false propaganda talking points from the last 30 years... I'm not pro-drug, i'm pro-legalization and pro-freedom.. That is if you want to take something, be my guest, I am not your keeper. I also support, free and accurate information available on drugs, from actual science testing and letting us know the dangers.. I don't support the current system of the DEA controlling what substances & what scientists can study in this country.

I am sorry that making fun of things as I did before seemed childish, but I feel as if certain people are pushing one sided agendas by any twist of words possible.

What agenda? The agenda of accuracy?

Me pro-drug? How could that be if I have said any negative about drugs? What I have said has been honest observation from first hand experience over at least 3 decades. I go visit my mom and often my step dad and cousins are sitting in the same room as me smoking pot, yet I do not walk out of the room or complain. My current career would be ruined if anyone had in writing a claim that I had used anything sinse I started the career, so I will say I have not, but let's say that on many occassions in the somewhat near past (not decades ago) I joined them.,,,,, experience? I did not take acid a couple times, we as a crowd did drugs like that every weekend for about five years, so that makes the number more in the hundreds, as much as it seems.

Ok? That doesn't negate that you believe propaganda and spout it out willingly.. No legitimate scientists believe in the "gateway drug theory" Why do you?

Did pot ruin my friends life? Yes, but only 3 brothers.

It didn't ruin your friends life, they did. Please stop blaming a substance millions of intelligent and successful people use and never have problems.. Unlike heroin, which almost always leads to addiction... Like I've said, it was the environment that shaped them, not the pot.

It must be like geneticly desposed alcholics. Some how them all being brothers seems strange unless it can be a genetic trait. The guy who lived in his car is one, and one of his brothers has often lived in a car. They would be a thousand time better off if pot did not exist.

You are providing an excuse for your brothers lack of effort. I smoke pot and do work.

None of the other decade long smokers can figure those guys out. They waste away and smoke more than can be believed, sometime going through an eight of high power weed in 24 hours. They can not be sober long enough to go to work, and will sell anything they own to get more.

Not very good stoners if they can't work while stoned. I used to write A papers in university stoned. They wasted away not because of Cannabis, but because they had no drive. Stop giving them excuses.

Others out side of that family do not have it so bad, but dozens do not miss a single day, and I am serious. One is in prision for growing 100+ plants, and the other guy was a meth-head, but I remeber a time when we first got high and he said he would not ever move up to anything stronger. Shout that it is bull crap, but it is honest.

Being busted and in jail for drugs says a lot more about our failure of a law system than the drug itself.

and..

"Correlation does not imply causation"

Anyone like deathcell care to tell everyone one what is in it for me to 'lie' about all this?

I don't know, why does anyone online lie? Because they can?

Could it be that nothing is wholey good and people should also hear the honest bad?

The honest bad? About Cannabis? LOL It's horrible.. you'll smoke it and live in your car.. it's true man!
Just ask Carl Sagan.

You say you know a hundred daily smokers, but all of us started pretty normal. At first everyone could have jobs, and places to live. It was after say 15 years of daily use that the problems started piling up for most, or perhaps twenty years. However I hacve now watched a few of them for 28 years.

I know people older than you who've smoked their entire lives.. Worked every damn day of it. It's as ridiculous as claiming that people after drinking for 15 years.. will just suddenly erupt as an alcoholic.

Here is the point, then I at least will move on, after asking Deathcell to prove one thing (see below). I can love my family who uses drugs in front of me and I can support an adults right to smoke pot, and still present an honest view from extreme first hand knowledge that casts drugs in a negative light. I get a bit pissed when people radicalize an issue, so that any statement against their cause is taken as blasphamy.

Nothing radical about realizing Marijuana doesn't ruin people's live, but people do.. and that comparing Marijuana to crack or heroin is disingenuous.. and that the Gateway drug theory isn't actually a scientific theory but a Reagan concoction.

Gateway drug? Only avid pot smokers complain about that as an idea. It was for me and my friends. Millions upon millions of people use caffiene, but they do not in any high amount turn to other things, yet everyone I knew who ever tried pot eventually became curious about what other euphoria inducing things they could try.

Correlation does not imply causation

And personal stories are not science.

Not propaganda, just some honest older guy saying what he has seen. Tainted drugs? I have had them and seen then them first hand.

Great.. It's not the 80's and most of us have friends.

Pot addictive? First hand experience and knowing dozens of people who have smoked it daily for 30 years.

Pot addicts.. ROFL. Doing something consistently for years, makes you an addict.. just like your a food addict and sex addict.. you do those for years too. And they activate chemicals in your body, omg it's a drug~

I told my still stoner friends that I thought at least 10% of those who smoke pot for a summer, will never get off of it, and they laughed saying the number must be more like 40%. So here I am likely a bigger stoner (ahem, but not ever after starting my current career) than most, with decades of experience, but for me to tell what I have seen that is not good about it, amkes deathcell go all radical.

Yeah.. you're so experienced.. that you seem to have no idea what your talking about.. Doing drugs alone doesn't make you an expert in drug policy or drug science.

Deathcell, please prove to the crowd that you are not radicalized and totally one sided on issues. That is unless you are simply a propaganda machine for N.O.R.M.A.L., in which case you may as well be a politicion, unable to allow certain words from crossing your lips. here is how you can prove it. To suggest no negative side exists to pot, or acid or mushrooms, is just to radical to be viewed as anything different from propaganda. Please prove this is not you by listing at least 3 bad things about any one of those drugs.

That's N.O.R.M.L , you're so pro-drug.

Pot - You might want to eat. Running out of snack foods, or healthy foods if that's your attitude.
Acid or Mushrooms - Bad trips.

Good day.

Side note: exactly why would even the biggest drug user wish to encourage others to try them? Honest answers please.

Sharing the truth is not encouraging.. But in all honesty.. with as many peoples lives that I've seen ruined and wracked by alcohol, I would always encourage Cannabis over alcohol.

Crazy I know, theirs only so much evidence of the ruins left in alcohols wake..... but lets go after the pot.

One of the things I contest is the true value of the drug experiences to the people who have them.

Couldn't we just contest the true value of any experience? Metaphysical, spiritual, etc, just as easily?

When I talk to people about their drug experiences, many of them don't read anything into those experiences, they don't suppose that they're "learning" anything or that its changing them in a good way. Of those who do think that the experiences have some kind of 'spiritual growth' value, in my experience they seem to have a remarkable lack of objectivity about their experiences, they draw conclusions from them that just don't follow at all. For instance someone can do acid and experience a "past life", but the "life" they describe is impossibly implausible to anyone else hearing it, it just seems plausible to them because they felt it so strongly. From my standpoint, those experiences do not have the value that those having them assume they do, because the experiences are not what they believe them to be. Now obviously, people have a very wide range of experiences and interpret them in a wide variety of ways, different from the anecdotes I've given here. So for me to support my position well, we would have to talk about people's experiences and I'd have to share and explain what I've experienced in the same context. But we keep getting diverted in relation to our imagined views about side issues like legalization, so I don't see this happening.

When I talk to people about their transcendental experiences many of them don't read anything into those experiences, they don't suppose that they're "learning" anything or that it's changing them in a good way. Of those who do think that the experiences have some kind of 'spiritual growth' value, in my experience they seem to have a remarkable lack of objectivity about their experiences, they draw conclusions from them that just don't follow at all. For instance someone can meditate for hours and experience a "past life", but the "life" they describe is impossibly implausible to anyone else hearing it, it just seems plausible to them because they felt it so strongly. From my standpoint, those experiences do not have the value that those having them assume they do, because the experiences are not what they believe them to be. Now obviously, people have a very wide range of experiences and interpret them in a wide variety of ways, different from the anecdotes I've given here.

Anyone can contest anything at any point. What does this prove? Nothing.

Aren't personal experiences... by their very definition personal? Why do you expect someones particular message or vision to speak to others as much as yourself? Be it from drug illuminations or transcendental experience?

P.S. People don't fry their brains on acid. It's a lie. Even the language your using is colored in the language they(DEA, Nixon, Reagan, and the long drug war crowd) want you to use. Overusing a hallucinogenic can make you loopy, but it in no way fries any part of your brain, their is zero credible scientific evidence supporting that. Simple lesson, use responsibly; don't take acid every day.

People who take drugs and murder people, have other serious issues at work. What about all the sober people who've murdered, do we blame their sobriety? Or their mental instability?

And if you give someone money for fake or bad drugs, that's your problem. I've never gotten bad anything, hey it's not that hard to know if something is wrong. Do your homework and study up on what you're getting. Especially mushrooms, extremely easy, if you can't tell the difference between some grocery store mushrooms and real ones.. that's your own fault.

Sure theirs bad shit out their, although.. I've never met anyone whose gotten PCP laced Mushrooms.. be pretty dumb to willingly purchase something so obviously fake. And talking about how much their is possibly out their is pointless, none of us know for certain. In my personal experiences, I've never gotten fake anything, or drugs laced with other drugs.

purchasing any drug comes with the risk of getting something other than what you purchased. I have had this happen to me several times, despite buying from someone I knew and being extremely well informed.

Fixing for you ... Purchasing anything comes with the risk of getting something other than what you purchased. I have had this happen to me several times at stores, despite buying from a reputable company and being extremely well informed. The quality didn't live up to the claims, they packaged the wrong product in a box. This is the reality of any industry, legal or illegal.

And what someone told you one kind of bud and gave you another lol?? You've gotten PCP laced mushrooms? No? Did you buy MDMA and end up with MDA? lol

No way... companies, people lie about the content of their products in legal industries all the time you say?!!?

Generally if you are well connected and have friends, you aren't going to get something as ridiculous as PCP laced grocery store mushrooms; your more likely to be disappointed in someones claims on quality.

Nothing of what Shadowofwind, Sageous, or Sivason are saying is fear-mongering.

Not reading to well. The gateway theory, is fear-mongering. Sivason talking about his friends ruining their lives from smoking pot, is fear-mongering..

Try reading more closely next time.

^^ So DeathCell: maybe it's time to change your tag from DeathCell to Trollius Maximus? Seriously; this thread was recovering from the damage you (yes, you) wrought earlier, and you just want to do it all again? Why? You're only looking more the fool with each post... Especially to those of us who know they're not lying.

Sivason: Okay bro, take a deep breath, count to ten, and don't type a response; it's not worth the effort. DeathCell will learn the truth eventually, but it won't come from your words. a response to an earlier post might be best.

Does this sits even have moderators?

DeathCell:

I realize this stuff takes time to read and reply to, so probably you were getting to it, but....

Does it look like HermineHesse is lying in her last post also?

(Sorry Sageous, it seems like kind of an important point that could put a lot of the other stuff to rest.)

Oh but I do have a response...

Very nice post Deathcell. I feel you addressed every issue and made it clear that you have thought carefully on phrasing your point of view in a manner that was easy to read an insightful.


Sageous has requested a moderator, kind of, so I must step in and clarify a forum rule for everyone. the idea of "on-topic" The moderators can intervene if someone feels the thread is being pulled off topic or trolled.

I am now going to intervene. No one has done anything wrong, the tones have been decent enough, but the question of legality or the harmfulness of hallucinogen has been thourghly covered.

Please read the OP before posting any replys and refocus your ideas on topics closely tied to the intent of the OP.

Further posts relating to any topic such as legality will be moved into a new thread in the lounge, I will also leave a redirect for anyone who wants to follow the new thread (if I end up having to make one).

Sivason: The "harmfulness" or harmlessness of hallucinogens is directly related to the OP. Furthermore, it is also inextricably relevant to my views on the nature and value of hallucinogen trips, even though we haven't gotten very far on talking about that. To use an extreme analogy, lets suppose you experience yourself having passionate sex, but actually you're hallucinating while someone is carving out one of your kidneys. To interpret the experience in any kind of sane manner, you need to have some kind of realistic view of what is going on. My view is that most of the statements made about the value of hallucinogens involve some kind of unexamined misconceptions about what is going on, and that those misconceptions are closely related to some of the harmful effects. So if you ban the issue of "harmfulness" that pretty much silences me. I'd regard that as more of a stifling-and-gratuitous-exercise-of-power kind of thing than an uplifting-the-thread kind of thing, particularly since you were overtly trying to humiliate Deathcell just yesterday. Its not at all hard to just ignore someone who's posts we don't want to read or respond to, and we don't all have to make that choice in lock-step. (Unless this is another skill possessed only by us drug virgins.....just kidding.)

[Duplicate post after edit, appears to be a bug in the interface.]

Since I keep suggesting that I have criticisms about 'transcendent' experiences that I haven't elucidated here, now I feel like I should say more rather than appearing to be all coy about it....

Its not possible for me to comprehensively explain and support my thoughts in even a sequence of very long posts. So to anyone who desires to raise an objection, please try to look past my limitations with language a little bit and understand what I'm saying first. Otherwise I probably won't bother replying: interested people can go back and read our argument about LSD from a few months back with WitheredMan who took an honest and intelligent pro-LSD stance.

The OP claims that "the [psychedelic] experience shows, very convincingly, that this is all a dream". I agree with that statement completely, and agree that this is a significant value of hallucinogens. Most people go through life without having a clue how limited their usual outlook is, and a lot of people benefit from having that shaken up.

There's a big flip side to this that many if not most repeated users don't appear to see though, or if they see it they only very vaguely recognize the implications. What does it mean for this to all be a dream? Immediately everyone makes huge assumptions about what it implies, whether they realize it or not, and those assumptions have large and often quite negative impacts in relation to "enlightenment" or other life values that the hallucinogen user may have. If its all just a dream, then moral values are all made up right? I can do whatever I want to other people, con them out of money or whatever, as long as I do it in a way that isn't uncomfortable to me, because its all just a dream? This appears to be an extremely common assumed corollary to the "life is just a dream" insight. So I say that insight is worse than useless unless you think about it more.

Yes life is a dream, but there are moral dynamics that are inherent to being a semi-autonomous member of a semi-collective dream. Some actions are in some sense "wrong", not because of a rule imposed by some external god or agreed upon collectively, but because they create patterns within the dream that all participants can't help but consider undesirable, when they understand them. Humanity has been moving towards some agreement on some of these: slavery of minorities and women, wars for loot, human sacrifice....there is still a lot of disagreement, but the trend isn't completely arbitrary either. If you put yourself in the shoes of a minority, and are honest with yourself about what that really is and what your role is in relation to it, you can't be pro-slavery. (I'm trying to illustrate the principle by picking examples that hallucinogen users will mostly see the same way I do. If you think these examples don't illustrate the point let me know and I can point to better ones.)

As you get deeper intuitions, the possible mistakes they invite become more difficult. You can completely understand that 'coercion' is wrong, for instance, even though you experience life is a dream. But you may remain mostly unaware that some subtle kinds of deception are as destructive. The more insights you get, the more capable you become of indulging in those kinds of deceptions, and sometimes falling prey to them, so it becomes important that you understand. As an example, long-time readers of my overly-ponderous posts know that I've been exploring some limited ability to directly share thoughts with other people. When this first started happening in an obvious way it was as confusing as hell to me, and it clearly opens up a lot of room for abusive manipulation. So if you're going to seriously explore this, which you probably can if you want to, you're going to need to be able to become clearer and stronger about the moral dynamics than you were when you were more insulated. Otherwise you will make yourself into a monster or food for one, figuratively speaking. Do drugs help with such clarity? So far as I have seen or heard any evidence, the only way that drugs help with the necessary emotional objectivity is through contrapositive proof. In other words, you learn if the importance of such objectivity by failing at something important to you because drug use depriving you of some of it. But most hallucinogen users, based on my not-unlimited experience, can't even really follow an argument of this nature, much less correctly identify and fix errors in the argument. And if they can't do that, then the drug experiences actually leads them away from what they think they value, whatever that may be. Simple example: do you value compassion? If so, then you want to understand what effects the practices you advocate are likely to have on people who trust what you say, otherwise you're harming them. And if you don't care that you're harming them, then your compassion is a complete charade. I've had this same argument more than once with religious proselytizers who think that they're not responsible for the effects their doctrines might have on other people. Of course an honest mistake is an honest mistake, but they're culpable if they don't even care to understand what's going on.

Of course this all seems overly intellectual and elitist to some people. My position is that if you're using hallocinogens, its a subject that an average, not deeply thought out approach to will fail you for, whether other people consider my approach to be too heady or not. And I maintain that prolonged or extreme drug use imbalances your ability to see whether this is so or not, and that's a big part of the problem. No doubt my manner of speaking would be way too slow and fancy for most people long before they did any drugs, so I can't say how much the drug use is responsible. But as a group current users appear to be by far the worst at this kind of analysis, so if the use helps at all it apparently doesn't help nearly enough to offset the perceptually distorting effects of that use. [Ammendment: such analysis doesn't have to be much in my apparently pseudo-intellectual style, its actually a lot more intuitive for me than how I write. But if I start writing all about inward impressions of other people and feelings in terms of metaphors, it gets even harder to follow what I'm saying unless you are relatively good at reading my mind.]

The possible contrapositive proof is of course an alternative that doesn't require as much thought, and I agree that's a worthwhile experiment for a lot of people. Its also more reliable than more fleeting felt impressions and thought experiments in many ways. But of course you pay a price for that: in any life results that you can't undo or things you lose that you can't get back. Fear mongering? Its a person's fucking mind we're talking about, a person's most cherished thing. Making a big deal about it is the only honest approach no matter which side of it you come down on.

One reason this discussion hasn't gotten off the ground very much for me is I haven't heard anything more profound than "life is a dream". Yes that's a great insight, one of the most important to me in my life. And? Its a dream AND?? It seems that as soon as anyone starts talking about some of the important ways in which life is NOT a dream, and the hallucinogen users either fade out or come back with bogus strawman points that show they haven't understood what other people are saying. Every outward indication, and some inward ones as well, seem to be that they discovered "life is a dream" and got lost in that one idea or something close to it.

So that's my synopsis of what I think hallucinogen use doesn't give you that tends to crucially undermine everything that it does give you. Again, I'm not suggesting that people who disagree with me should not use hallucinogens, or that there are no important unintentional skews in my argument. But its the most honest argument that I've got, and I've put a lot of time and meditative effort into this question, and have had a lot of remarkable hallucinations of my own. Some of you don't think that non-drug users can judge the experiences of drug users with complete reliability, and I agree that you certainly are right. So don't make the same mistake of making strong assumptions about what its possible for me to know, that I must just be blowing smoke, when my experience has been very much unlike yours also.

Shadowofwind, If the point of any post is in keeping with the OP it is fair game. That is, if you are staying true to the spirit of the OP go for it. It is just going to stay on topic. I will not move anything, unless it is interupting the intent of the thread.

Are we all done skewering me for questioning personal experiences of people you know being used as evidence for how drugs affect people, especially when science proves the falsity of such claims? And are we done expecting me to just buy your stories about people ruining their lives on pot?

Congratulations on not letting me down, and probably not actually reading what I wrote.. at least in Sageous case?

DeathCell will learn the truth eventually

Yes.. I will finally learn.. that Marijuana is a gateway drug that ruins lives!.....

What truth is it that I will learn? The ones I already know? That anything can be dangerous if misused? Cryptic language...

You're not going to get any profound answers shadow because of personal experience. This is true for those who have taken drug trips, or who meditate heavily.. you can't explain and verify what you feel to others, it's a journey one must take themselves. To the uninitiated, the ramblings of someone who meditates is just as foreign to those who've never experienced the feelings associated with drug trips.. This is is coming from someone whose done a fair amount of both. Expecting someone to see the "truth" and come back and be able to explain it to mere mortals.... You should be happy you glanced it for a second.

No hard feelings, but open your eyes; stop blaming the substance.. start blaming the people and the environment they were raised in.. theirs a reason addiction is more prevalent in poor communities.

^^ Well said, DeathCell, and all without ad homina, LOL's, ROFL's, or accusations of lying or propaganda...Thank you!

Also, for what it's worth, I read your posts in their entirety, usually more than once, before responding. My last post may have been over the top and, yes, openly hypocritical, but I promise I didn't pull it out of thin air... Should I ever misunderstand or misjudge a person, I do so out of honest error, not arrogant negligence. I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing in this case, but it is the case.

For what its worth I agree with most of your points DeathCell but your presentation was intentionally provocative which quickly ended the discussion which I was actually enjoying until it turned into Salem witch trial style bouts of rage and accusations. If you want to continue the discussion make a thread about drug legality and I would gladly discuss it with you, but maintain composure in your arguments. That goes to Sivason as well I was honestly unimpressed with how both of you handled the discussion.

Ok Deathcell, I feel we all understand eachother views on the topic and everyone has made at least one awesome post. The topic is roughly, what can a begginer expect from an exprience that seem intense and possibly blissful while on LSD/mushrooms. And what kind of sort of spiritual or blissfull or otherwordly/mental journey can anyone share.

If you want to help out the thread can you tell a story or two about you taking one of those drugs expecially if something weird or cool happened. Maybe describe the weird effects the drugs had in general.

Hermine Hesse, maybe you would share part of a trip in story form, that had intense experiences?

I guess that will give three examples of the intense things that can be. I will post one within 2 days.

Originally Posted by BossMan

For what its worth I agree with most of your points DeathCell but your presentation was intentionally provocative which quickly ended the discussion which I was actually enjoying until it turned into Salem witch trial style bouts of rage and accusations. If you want to continue the discussion make a thread about drug legality and I would gladly discuss it with you, but maintain composure in your arguments. That goes to Sivason as well I was honestly unimpressed with how both of you handled the discussion.

Don't confuse my passion for provocation. I've just heard the same shit so many times over the years, it grinds my consciousness. I assure you my composure was never lost, my sarcasm is generally lost through internet mediums.

As far as insane trips; that would be my first.. where I saw an event; this isn't exactly a figure out the meaning of life, the universe, and everything; (car accident, on a hill with an ambulance and rain; taking someones body away on a stretcher) Two days later; a friend of mine that I was supposed to hang out with that night; is killed in an accident at what's known as "Gravity" Hill... Isn't the first or last; experience of foresight that I've had... This one was during a shroom trip; I've had sober, experiences as well but this was the most intense...

I'm going to start a thread on premonitions, since I've had several experiences similar to the one deathCell related, and these tie into some other questions that I'm interested in, unrelated to drugs.