Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
General: OT Study finds Psylocibin has psychotheraputic properties
Bottom of Page-
There seem to be a number of us here interested in mood and mind altering substances, and spirituality, so i thought I'd post this. As a child of the sixies - I turn 55 this month - I was in full rebellion against the status quo in favor of world friendlier to children and other living things.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/psilocybin-stud.html
Yesterday the Journal of Psychopharmacology published a clinical study where long term benefits were attributed to the active chemical in magic mushrooms. This is the first clinical study of a hallucinogen in 40 years. Why?
Psychodelic drugs threatened the status quo. Hence all the hysteria and the ban on research. Too much introspection in the populace could lead to critical thinking...and revolution. Once a mind is open to the fact that we are all manifestations of the same force - different fingers on the same hand - it makes it hard to objectify the "other" as an enemy or justify killing him. Dangerous world that would be? Haw Haw
Coincidentally, Dr. Albert Hoffmann, died this May, of a heart attach at age 102. May he rest in peace.
And thank you for coming down for a while. -
- CommentAuthorejacerooni
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2008
boomers and a walk in the woods. havnt had the chance to snuff on em yet, as i havnt done em in quite some time. end prohibition. get some tax money so the usa doesnt crumple any farther. inflation is getting pretty bad, at least in mi. i had a 4 doller pb&j samwitch, i almost threw the samwitch at them when i heard the price, but then again it did come with an apple. -
I'd not thought about those things in years til I read this just now, I admit some wacky times were had. I don't fancy them anymore though, they seem a part of someone else's history, not mine.
-
:)
-
Snuffster - exactly!! They belong to a certain period of youth, where you consider yourself indestructable. later you realize that you're not.
-
LSD has much better psychotherapeutic possibilities, because its much stronger
and opens (sometimes frightening) wide every door in the subconscious. It is currently
medical in use again in some countries for therapy of traumatised people.. -
mushrooms and lsd are in a pst life for me i feel like i got evrything they had to offer years ago but recently I've experimented with yage. its alot milder and far more spiritual than the more "recreational" psychoactives.
-
- CommentAuthorejacerooni
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
yes lsd had vast reaserch potenshal. just look up its use in jails and the effect it had on keeping people from becoming repeat offendors. -
-
CommentAuthorJuxtaposer
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008 edited
Simple meditation will go a long way in expanding your spiritual horizons. Recreational drugs including nicotine will just be a distraction to this end. However, there is a time and a place for everything and there is a symbiotic relationship between the body and the soul. The difference of you "on" something and you "off" that something is who you really are. -
-
Just to be clear, I haven't taken any hallucinogens at all for over twenty years. Like many have voiced, I believe I got whatever benefit there was...and moved on.
The account of the study is still worth reading. It was administered to a group of volunteers who claimed to have a spiritual interest. Sixty percent of them reported having a mystical experience and persistent positive and life changing effects 14 months after one episode with the drug. These effects included an abatement of depression and a generally more positive attitude. This finding is huge.
I imagine big pharmaceutical companies would rather doctors treat depression with their highly flawed SSRI variants - prozac, paxil, zoloft etc. A patient needs to take those every day and indefinitely. I expect that they will try to block therapies which use a plant that grows wild in cow pastures. No profit in that. -
-
CommentAuthorNelsonPipeClub
- CommentTimeJul 4th 2008
@Stitch, are you a fan of Bill Hicks? He had a few things to say about mushrooms. -
-
Don't know about stitch but I love bill hicks and have been told on several occasions he's the one I'am most similar to when I rant.
-
Fingers of the same hand... that's a great analogy. It would be impossible to point fingers :)
I'm an active psychonaut, and have had plenty of experiences with many different substances. However, I don't think this forum is the best place to discuss them, as some of our members could get offended and others could be shy to talk about it in front of people who don't share the same principles. -
I am not familiar with Bill Hicks. Have you heard of Terence McKenna? Here's a link to a very thoughtful place. http://www.lancerules.com/terence/
I am not suggesting members break the law and use illegal substances. Maybe we have to change the law, since it's flat out not working. But we have been so tractable and docile, accepting as facts whatever self-serving crap an "authority" serves us. I agree samorost, this is not the place to recount personal experiences with drugs. I do think it would be a good place to discuss drug policy, since tobacco is a ...drug.
Let me share with you an opinion published on 07/05/08 in the Los Angeles Times
"David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate
past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court."
Pubdate: Sat, 5 Jul 2008
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
Authors: David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
THIS IS THE U.S. ON DRUGS
Only Cops and Crooks Have Benefited From $2.5 Trillion Spent Fighting
Trafficking.
The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old
saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop
digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat
drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400
million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.
The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for
the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition
-- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from
this war? Six groups come to mind.
The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia,
Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They
are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.
The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities
and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.
Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the
first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger
with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been
proved not to work.
Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking
tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the
tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we
get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited
resources to fund the criminal justice system.
The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They
include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison
guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California
today, and its ranks continue to grow.
And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally
financed by the sale of illegal drugs.
Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially
our children.
Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than
ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in
the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage.
Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain
illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of
illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a
substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the
marketing of that substance.
After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition,
homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II.
Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.
So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for
marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this,
according to state budget figures, California alone would save more
than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to
eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any
wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?
We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we
do with tobacco and alcohol.
We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the
federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including
marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a
prescription), with the government regulating their production,
overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing
licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists,
etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that
medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the
supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.
The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to
protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that
drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while
under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held
criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But
that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.
Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax
dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that
many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those
approaches are ones that work.
Comments? -
Ive had, possibly, an unusual view of the entire drugs subject. Between 16 and 25 I was a full time musician and for the last 19 years Ive been a cop in inner london. I had extensive personal experience - across the spectrum - through being in that general environment - and now nearly two decades of seeing things through the other side of the looking glass. I have no answers or great words of wisdom apart from this; the entire subject is far more complex than most of the people on either side of the fence ever realise.The paradox is that drug dealers kill people and drugs prohibiton helps them do it.
But it's not as simple as that, its easy to see drugs users (and I use the term loosely) as we see ourselves. So, if you are a well balanced and educated individual, who is in no danger of destroying yourself, its easy to feel outraged that you can't get on with your thing without hindrance and that the alternative to our present system is obvious. There are, however, millions of kids for whom drugs are just an escape from a dire existence - they are not going through some Timothy Leary/Aldois Huxley voyage, they are escaping and they often die very young - I've spent a lot of time with them. Prohibitionists, legislators and theorisers alike tend to be from the same socio-economic backgrounds; put simply they are middle class, which means advantaged, which tends towards the same kinds of thought processes if not ideas.
The point I am making here is that crminalising legislation and revisionist theory BOTH work when applied to that group: middle class people tend to be law abiding in certain ways they also tend to be more receptive to health education etc. In London there are vast tracts of social housing where poverty, crime and low social expectations rule. Without an immense change in the social fabric to back it up de-criminlising and taxing would lead to more, not less addiction and the dealers would simply become the smugglers. And that immense social change can not, will not happen - it's far, far beyond the will or capacity of any government.
It is worth remembering that prohibitive legislation is event led - an early but valid example being the legislation that taxed Gin in 18th century England, brought in because large sections of the population was drunk for most of the time. The imposition of heavy taxation just brought in bootlegging and ways of loopholing the law.
I know enough to know the answers are not simple and encompass not just drugs and the way we legislate but how we run our business in society. This is society's problem and we can only solve it through a debate and experimentation and monitoring that includes everyone. Sadly, we are not too efficient in this respect. -
but how can you prevent people from destroying themselves anyway? and is smuggling not the smaller offense compared to drug dealing under most legal systems?
of course in the end the only way to rescue people is to abolish poverty and to introduce a good education system open to anyone. but that is not going to happen under capitalism. -
The smuggling I'm describing leads to the same net result as drugs dealing.
It's not that poverty won't dissapear under capitalism, it won't dissapear under any human system. Do you seriously think 'capitalism' is to blame for anything? Humanity is the fundamental cause of human misery, not political systems, and there is no precedent at any point in history to suggest Humanity can do any better than it does at the moment. And no, you can't stop people destroying themselves; that really is my point.
Anyway, Ive just broken a rule I set for myself: getting involved in worthless philosophical arguments on a site devoted to snuff! I'm bowing out of this one. -
I love this site. The fact that people can behave here when talking about hot topics is great. It pretty cool too that even the people I disagree with (which is everyone at some point or another) never fail to make at the least think about what ever subject in a new light even if my mind isn't changed.
I do want to dip my toe into this water for one point. My biggest problems with drug laws is that unlike licit drug laws no distinction is made between diffrent types of useage or distribution (not in a meaningfull way) for example legaly there is no diffrence between selling at cost and makeing a huge profit, which is very drastic.
I've noticed too that most police officers I know have very diffrent additudes about the laws then the law makers (usaly I like the police officers opinions a lot more and find them increasingly better informed then the politicians opinions.)
Side note love psychadelics and will probably never touch them again. Why I find yoga and meditation to be a much gentler more holistic easier to navigate and actualy a lot deeper, my hardest trip just involved some breathing techniques. -
- CommentAuthorejacerooni
- CommentTimeJul 8th 2008
In my opion the gov't has no duty to proteck our selves from our selves. Meaning, all people have the right to make their own choices on what they do to themselves as long as they do not harm others. Also, without having to leaglize, a simple first step would be to make offences with out anykind of weapons, simply a cititaion. With higher amounts or having a scale with baggies, a heavyer fine. A simple first step that would save many lives. -
Bob, I'm with you on that - I love this site too. Clearly there is a huge problem with drug addiction in modern society. include alcoholism in that category. Current strategies prove ineffective in curbing supply or demand. They finance entrenched government bureaucracies and prisons that further sap resources away from improving public health. A holistic and compassionate approach is worth trying. If I could paraphrase Dr. Albert Einstein, " You can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it."
Here in the USA we love to ban things, to declare war on things and to get tough on criminals. Once incarcerated, little is done to rehabilitate offenders. If they survive the prison experience at all, it's because they have become as brutal and hardened as the gangs that run the prisons. Consider for a moment the anger and resentment they must feel towards a society that locked them in a hell hole just for something people have done since prehistory.. This does not help them integrate into normal society when they emerge. If our goal is to reduce a reliance on drugs, perhaps we can achieve better results by not subjecting "offenders" to dehumanizing conditions. If their reality was less bleak, they would be less likely to seek the self-destructive relief that drugs afford. -
snuffster: making your point and than bowing out is not exactly the fair way to end a discussion. anyway, be it so.
my point: the smuggling would NOT be in the same category and would not lead to the same problems as it is another quality of crime. still crime though.
and of course capitalism is responsible for poverty. it is not responsible for "anything" though. a system that has very rich people necaessary also has poor people. where else do you think there wealth comes from?
and there are loys of examples in history for that humns can do better, if left to try. i can understand your pessimism but you are in the wrong there.
as far as humanity goes, the united states, as the model capitalist state, are a brilliant example of globally spreding inhumanity.
and lastly:if you can not prevent humanity from destroying itself, why do you even care? why do you even comment on that then? why speak out for protecting people against themselves, if there is no point in that?
if you want, we can end this now, as i had my say on that too.
i hope i did not sound harsher than intended. no need to spoil blood here over this and it would be better to discuss this over a pint or two (or tea, would suit me just as well) and a nice big pinch of snuff. -
Hi Betonente
When I said I was bowing out I just meant I was making a personal point rather than engaging in a long OT discussion, I didn't mean to be unfair or impolite, but for the record:
My point on smuggling versus dealing was about net results, not the crime definition; by which I meant drugs getting to vulnerable people - a smuggler supplying bad heroin to a kid is the same as a dealer doing it. By way of example; the price of tobacco in the UK is very high through taxation and there is a lot of smuggling, I meant if drugs were legalsied but an attempt was made to control their use through taxation, the dealers would be put out of business but would simply start up again as smugglers evading the excise duty.
People are responsible for poverty; both capitalist and Marxist systems have led to immense poverty and suffering. I personally find it a bit 'last century' to pin the world's troubles on capitalism - I think our global, collective political experience is simply too complex for simple labels to mean much anymore. As soon as a political theory becomes practical fact the inherent weaknesses in human nature become evident through the simple, corrupting influence of power. The usual, accepted opposite to capitalism would be communism; Stalin cynically said 'men need their Tzars' referring to the Soviet elite and the immensely polarised soviet society. I don't suggest Stalin was the 'ideal' communist but the point is clear; even a system as diametrically opposed to capitalism as the USSR had the very rich and the very poor - and I defy anyone to prove that this would not be case in any other society or system on a national basis - meaning the experiences of small groups of anarchists, Kibbutz or others are not significant because they lack the dynamics of major populations.
I base my views purely on precedent: the history of humankind is the history of suffering, want and war. I would call it objective pessimism. This doesn't mean that I don't care - why should that be the case? It just means I don't have much faith in the human race.
Rest assured my friend I meant no offence or discourtesy when I said I was bowing out and I would be delighted to share a pint and a pinch of snuff with you
Best wishes
Nigel -
i would analyse stalin's USSR as state capitalism. another theory is of a "deformed workers state".
but i fear this is hardly the right place to get into a lengthy discussion on socialist theory.
capitalism is by no means a simple label, but takes into account various forms of burgeois rule through private posession of production facilities and the possibility for the accumulation of capital. it is, so to speak, an economical term.
the history of humankind surely has no lack of suffering of any kind. there is, on the other hand, progress theoretically and technically (and, thereby, economically). you will hardly argue that there is no progress from feudal society to a industrialized burgeois "democratic" society. you would not want to live in a world without penicillin and blood transfusions. or electricity and watertabs. or the (theoretical) right to free speech. and so forth.
i do not really beliee in "inheritent" weakness in mankind. that seems to be some kind of christian "philosophical" relict. i would hold that we (and what makes us "we" here are our belief and values) are mostly formed by our socioeconomic environment.
there is no reason to believe that progress should stop right now. the "end of history" is fiction.
if you do care you need a perspective. i cannot see anything "last century" in that.
best wishes,
felix -
Hi Felix
You make a very good point about the Christian relict, as you know western thought has long been shaped by the Judao-Christian world view - which I admit to a fairly orthodox take on.
No, I would not like to be a feaudal serf without access to penicillin and the like but those examples in themselves lead onto further arguments - at least some of them being the result of the despised capitalism or at least something like it. I would say the labels are last century because they isolate concepts; I think progress - if one can simplify it so - should be in the terms of socio-economic unification. To say something is capitalist - therefore wrong - seems to me to sit more readily in the pages of 'Homage to Catalonia' amongst the warring workers and intelligentsia.
Have you tried the Toque vanilla yet? It's my current love and a really outstanding snuff, if you enjoy flavoured snuff you won't be dissapointed
Regards
Nigel -
yes capitalist production is a progress from the feudal system, and from other "pre-modern systems" if you find the "feudalism label overly simplicistic. so capitalism is surely not to be despised or "wrong", it is just a phase in economic development.
my point was, that under capitalism few are rich and many are poor. and that is obviously a quite powerful factor leading to social problems of which unhealthy addiction is one. i do not say that it is the only factor. i would argue, though, that it is by far the most important factor.
and its being a phase means that better things should come after it. and "better" here means a system that is more fit to contribute to the well-being of more people.
i agree with your point that many "critiques" of "capitalism" are overly simplicistic. especially those made by a certain breed of vegetarian, grunge loving, animal-right activist, pseudo-rasta, pot smoker, wanne-be-philosophers hippies (just to bring a few of the stereotypes, the point is: lifestyle leftists who use images to pimp their personality). that does not mean that a critique of capitalism is antiquated.
"Hommage to Catalonia" is a great book. i do not think though that "capitalism = bad" is its main point.
yes, the vanilla is great. i find it very similar to the toffee, and that is a very good thing to say. i would prefer a coarser grind, but i am in the minority there i guess. my liking for it is the mor remarkable as i hate vanilla normally. -
lurking on this discussion as i a currently snuffing toque vanilla it occured to me to interject a simple idea of my own, that it is under acapitalist system that greed could be a very powerful motive to drive an individual to research the benefits of producing penicillin for human production.
even more simply stated, guys who invent stuff that benfits everybody tend to end up being rich. -
that idea is obviously wrong. historically only few inventors got rich from their invention. it is its marketing, the trade with it that makes people rich.
in fact the copyright system and market monopolys are a reason for sceientifical stagnation in not a few cases.
to restate your line: guys who market stuff and make people buy it end up getting rich. -
well that still supports my point. The inventor wanted to get rich and the marketer wanted to get rich.
if there was no one to market then the populace wouldn't benefit. And in the end the populace benefits because of greed.
technology is still marketed to us in a competitive fashion. (pc vs. mac)
private individuals can still get rich off of their inventions (youtube)
capitalism got me a handheld device I can use to communicate with anyone anywhere, including 475 other snuff users in various parts of the world
capitalism got me a satellite radio that I can travel anywhere and listen to any kind of music I want from springsteen to slayer
capitalism got me a wacom tablet that I can paint in a digital format on a computer which is far superior to ink or paint
etc....
I'm pretty poor too and I consider myself very lucky to be able to get this stuff and make the rich guys who brought it to me richer.
My only point is that greed is a pretty powerful motive for progress -
i doubt that in most cases of inventions the inventor wanting to get rich was the main motive.
the populance would benefit much more from a well-planned development, production and distribution of goods than from anarchic market structures.
the example given by you can be used the oter way round to illustrate my point: microsoft is so powerful economcally, that they can force users to use their products exclusively in some areas, even though better products are arguably available. thus technological progress is hindered. this is a pretty harmless example still compared to what harm "free" market structure in medical science and esp. pharmacy do.
not capitalism got you that device, but a technological development. it is impossible to say if the technology making it possible and the actual devices would have been invented under different economic circumstances. it is futile to speculate on this.
i do not think that greed is the most important motive, it is better to formulate this as "the wish to do something great" which is more inclusive. the reason this could translate into greed mostly lies in the fact, that, especially under capitalism, wealth translates into being great. or at least some people think it does. other, better and more effective motives are plentiful. -
-
CommentAuthorJuxtaposer
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2008
What the...are you guys snuffing mushrooms? Hahahahahahahahahh...wow what is that a spider? Whoah! Uh...hey We're going up to the lavender farms tomorrow you guys want some more? I don't know man. I don't think I can get them to dry. You want to snuff some pot? -