I think we've all been met with varying degrees of opposition to psychedelics, but I've never really considered that argument until recently. First of all, I understand that many people are incapable of thinking critically and cannot be bothered to substantiate his or her argument no matter what the topic, but let's consider someone who insists that it's either stupid and/or dangerous to take psychedelics. My question is simply this: for 95% of people who make this claim, do they have any scientific or anecdotal evidence at all? and if not, IS there any evidence? I guess I always assumed that there was data out there, but now it's gotten me thinking...

The proof is in the pudding.

But in actuality, it's mostly propaganda and the media which have portrayed this image of psychedelics as being bad onto many. And it works, just look at the "bath salts" incident. People eat it up and then over time, they forget that what they heard wasn't based on any scientific evidence and end up using it subconsciously as their "proof" of how bad psychedelics/drugs are.

Closed-mindedness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zgIzqgxFU

Sufficient proof. ;p

..i think it's also about understanding relative safety..

for example -
LSD - no scientifically documented human deaths, no evidence of addiction..or physiological harm*
DMT - no human deaths, no addiction or tolerance, evidence of positive psychological effects..
Cocaine - averaging 200-300 human deaths per year in the USA, addictive, wide evidence of long term harm..
Alcohol - 75,000 human deaths per year in the US..enough said
driving cars - lots of deaths and environmental harm
walking down the street - certainly statistically more dangerous than smoking DMT every day..

..yes, the lies and political propaganda regarding psychedelics have been outrageous and irresponsible..
.

Doesn't it seem so insanely laughable?! I mean seriously. Alcohol directly kills people. And yet no one will listen if someone stood up and said "hey retards! This DMT stuff is actually not bad for you and can help you in your life! Let's demand it's legalization!"

I drink On occasion, but I wouldn't mind if it were outlawed. Not saying that's what I think should happen. I think nothing should be against the law if there's no victim involved. If you hurt someone on alcohol your hurting someone. Doesn't matter what your on, you hurt someone and that's not allowed.

Next they will outlaw laughing. Don't drive and laugh its like being drunk!

I think there is proof they cause damage in some cases. Theres people who have really screwed up their lives & minds by not being responsible with psychedelics.

Now, in comparison to most other drugs out there they're harmless, and the restrictions put on them make no sense at all. Everyone agrees that the hype does not fit the reality of the situation with psychs.

Just don't think they're for everyone, or don't have a dark side like most every other drug. Sure, the vast majority of people can use them responsibly and get beneficial affects. But theres still that group of people that they are dangerous to.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it” -mark twain

You can replace censorship with prohibition and it still makes every bit of sense.

there's an unpredictability factor from person to person: you never know with 100% certainty how someone will react.

Ahh and of course Marijuana - 0 Deaths

Stanislav Grof's LSD Psychotherapy states that physically, LSD is a remarkably safe substance, with the following exceptions:

- people with serious heart problems should not take it as they may suffer a heart attack (not due to the physical effect of the drug, but the intensity of the experience),
- the drug may trigger an epileptic seizure in people who are prone to this condition,
- the drug should not be taken by pregnant women, as it may disturb the delicate balance of the mother-child relationship.

All other dangers are purely psychological in nature. Problems arise if people get to deeper - psychodynamic, perinatal or transpersonal - levels of their psyche but cannot handle the emerging material. If the emerging psychological gestalt(s) cannot be worked through until the effect of the drug wears off, then the subject may experience negative after-effects like hangover, fatigue, depression, suicidal tendencies or even full-fledged psychotic behaviour. Flashbacks are another variant of the same problem: when an insufficiently resolved gestalt is repressed into the unconscious at the end of the trip, it remains close enough to the surface so that an event in real life which has similar content can pull it out through the effect of resonance.

In Grof's practice, the solution of such problems was usually another psychedelic experience - this time under professional supervision -, aiming for a satisfactory completion of the problematic gestalt(s). In this context, the chance of success is primarily dependent on the knowledge and personality of the psychotherapist (who can be seen as a modern version of the shaman).

We could argue that the present opposition to psychedelics is largely a safety mechanism: as society doesn't yet have a widely available - and scientifically accepted - method to solve the psychological challenges resulting from the use of these drugs, it chooses the easier alternative and bans them altogether.

Proof is a requirement of the rational, scientific, reductionist, material paradigm. It calls for something external to provide the answers, but paradoxically Truth requires us to embrace the irrational, which is itself counter intuitive because we are not educated that way. Science does not have the answer to all our inquiry, Old School teaches there are other ways to connect with our true nature, the medicine path is one of them.

Ironically Albert Einstein's great friend Kurt Godel devoted his entire life to proving there is no absolute proof in any formal system.

The psychedelic experience is by definition irrational, that is why those who practice it are persecuted and ostracized by a society where Science is the new religion.

6

"Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong."


I think it can be put in simple terms: the serotonergic drugs, particularly the psychedelics that act as serotonin agonists, are harmless. Those that affect dopamine and the other neurotransmitters have much worse long-term profiles.

DMT has the best profile of any psychoactive drug:

1. Its effects last for the shortest period of time (10-40 min), which pharmacologically means that our body knows exactly what to do with it

2. It's already in our bloodstream, at all times, for reasons we don't yet understand, which pharmacologically suggests that it's as safe as melatonin, serotonin, and other related endogenous tryptamines

3. No tolerance is built up (a second trip 1 hour later is just as intense), which pharmacologically means that the body is perfectly capable of dealing with DMT overdoses as any other endogenous chemical overdoses (such as glucose and insulin)


It is a titanic paradox (call it the DMT paradox), that DMT is the most powerful yet physiologically safest psychoactive drug.

There was a time when i was happy to repeat the dose at short intervals, i don't do that now. I limit myself to one dose in any 24 hour period, this is because repeating the dose within one or two hours produced a negative response in the sense the experience was unpleasant in its visionary aspects.

Initially I thought this was a temporary effect but it seems to be more evident the older I become, and I wonder if it is age related and has something to do with the brains aging process.

I have observed this in other individuals as well, much younger than myself, the second dose very often is surprisingly dark in appearance and character compared with the first. Sometime it can be positively fearful. I've heard someone describe a similar experience with 5MeO.

It's no secret dmt has a dark side that thank fully for most people only rarely shows itself, but when it does it can come as a bit of a shock. I'm familiar enough with it now to spot the signs early on if something going critical and have developed my own techniques for dealing with it.

I have also noticed at the end of a long smoked harmine/dmt combination the tail end of the visionary sequences become rather tired and distorted, as if my brain chemistry has been depleted of its vital energy or chi, this is a very obvious sign its not a good idea to repeat the dose the same day, my brain is telling me it needs a rest.

As I said before this is more noticeable the older I become and I wonder what exactly is the mechanism and biochemistry behind it so I'm able to compensate with vitamins, supplements or whatever. So far I've not been able to figure it out. I have a hunch it may have something to do with the metabolic glucose/oxygen mechanism the brain uses to keep itself alive but this is just speculation on my part.

Strangely the effects of an oral dose produce an entirely different scenario, but I will leave that for another time.

6

This is clearly the state of things and it is a great tragedy. Just to clarify further...

If hypothetically you reveal to someone--like a parent or guardian or any acquaintance even--your use of psilocybin mushrooms, and he or she is adamant that you're either destroying your mind or putting yourself at risk for mental illness or something of the like...and then you ask that person to prove it. This might seem juvenile, like the words of a stubborn adolescent child, but my understanding of the rules of engagement is that regardless of what side of an argument you take, you have to back it up, and if you can't then you have to refine the argument. The infamous viral video in which Ms. Leonhart insists that "all illegal drugs are bad" illustrates my point very well. She had obvious reasons for handling the questioning the way she did, but am I correct in saying that in the case of synthetic psilocybin or DMT that there is literally NO scientific evidence of harm? That even the DEA administrator herself in a court of law could not provide evidence?

I would challenge you, actually, to produce anything other than your own intuition to validate any of the three conclusions you're drawing here.

Critical thinking. Psychedelic afficiandos aren't any more prone to it than those who blindly condemn them.

You do have a point Art, I can't "prove" it, but that's because no clinical studies have been made, since it's an illegal substance. But I do think that any unbiased pharmacologist would agree that those conclusions are valid.

Strictly speaking, can you prove that DMT causes intense hallucinations?



Tell me about it, the reason I joined this was due to having one of these dark experiences.