1. As burned said, it was biased. I would also add that it was also an uncontrolled experiment, therefore of not much value (at least to people who are unfamiliar to dmt, also known as the vast majority of people)

2. Not trying drugs is not a stupid decision. Many people live and die not less happy than people who take drugs. Even though one can say that everybody does drugs, especially endogenous drugs like endorphines and dopamine rushes.

3. A common problem with mainstream people is that they often believe they know what is better for others, they think they can judge others and try to enforce what they think to others. It is sad to see people with this ill notion here

4. The "my drugs is better than yours" is also a childish argument. Drugs are drugs, without moral. People have morality and can be "good" or "bad"

5. So you propose stop selling alcohol + tobacco in bars/clubs? these are great drugs, enjoyed by many. Ban them and you're a step closer to a dictator. Why not allow everything and let people decide what they should take instead of you deciding instead?

^^very true..I have seen with my own eyes too many times what alcohol has the ability to do to my freinds and family..I hate it..it is killing one of my best friends right now..completely legal and served almost everywhere..they even applied a new tax here, a liquer tax, but it is going to be added to restuarant food bills, even if you dont order any alcohol..so now I have to pay a tax for other people to use such a destructive drug that I dont even use...but of course..god forbid we smok cannabis

OK, these are fine responses but I disagree with all of them:

1. SWIM is actually a scientist with a Phd, I never claimed it was a controlled experiment.. I dont really understand where there notion is coming from, it was not a proper experiment and I will point out yet again, if it was an experiment it would not have been biased because the experiment was to test the effect of DMT on drug users... if I was trying to establish the effect on the general population then it would've been biased.

2. Well you answered your own point here, everyone does drugs it's natural, mother nature is not perfect (that's the great misconception), we have bad drugs running through our blood stream... people are born with "bad" chemicals... thats why a lot of people to take medication to repair various conditions. SWIM would argue that you cant know what something is like if you've never tried it, new experiences are the spice of life. You're probably missing out because nothing in my life has taught me more than drugs and when I found out at 22, I was a little annoyed that I bought the hype that they rot your brain and stuff... I will explain more on this in the next points.

3. Once again, I think this is completely wrong, another global misconception... democracy has created this idea that every man has an equal and valid voice, and somehow there is no right or wrong answer... as a scientist I know this is bullshit... if you are an experienced chemist you WILL know whats better for a person if they know nothing about it... I mean, would you call an electrician to fix your plumbing? If you are a moron, you dont know whats best for you, if you are smart you know whats better for you and whats better for others. Surely you've met people with wisdom that you respect and you know better than you do? for example, if you've ever done a class, your trusting someone to teach you something because they know more about it than you do. Personally I hate the fact that the world doesnt let the professionals get on with their job... look at things like the aspartme conspiracy, completely unfounded, chemists dont think there is anything wrong with it, yet you'll meet people in bars who are convinced it's toxic when they know literally nothing about it.

4. Well to say it's a childish argument is not cool for a start, maybe it's just childish to write that. Let me explain what I mean by good drugs versus bad drugs, bad drugs are drugs where the payoff is not worth the sideeffects... bad drugs are ones with serious side effects... bad drugs are drugs that cause social harm, bad drugs are drugs that are highly addictive, if you think alcohol is a good drug, I think you're mad, it's a depressive and there is no wisdom in it, that like a lot of drugs is just for getting fucked up and forgetting about the world... pills these days arent even MDMA most of the time, they're filled with ket, speed and even smack + a tonne of RC's (which are very dodgy without clinical testing)... they're bad drugs because you dont know what you're getting. If the government legalised these substances you could get good clean drugs and with proper research they could probaby eliminate side effects all together. Not to mention cut down crime and poverty and misery.

5. I didnt mean banning them, I meant it like how coffee and cakes arent sold in clubs.. because they're not appropriate... in my experience people that smoke tobacco do so because they are addicted and become hooked on the mood stablising effect, most smokers hate smoking, I mean c'mon, you know this. Plus I would think if people had access to better smoking materials (good weed, herbs) + good vaporizing technology then you're not gonna get addicted and you're gonna get better effects making it worth it... bare in mind most people have not tried the alternative because cigarettes are sold in shops, weed is not. Alcohol + Tobacco are great drugs? I'm sorry I respect your views but that just sounds absolutely crazy... of course I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want... I'm merely saying there are much better substances for social lubrication and mood stablisation... and these ones dont cause depression, liver damage, cancer, I mean 1 in 3 smokers die from smoking related illnesses... I mean this is so obvious.

People need to try things to find out what works for them... DMT may not be for everyone, but I still think it's worth trying for everyone... some drugs are bad to get into in the first place like meth, smack, coke, maybe even weed, but I would also put alcohol and tobacco into that category...

Fine, so what was the point of the distributing the dmt to 50 people again? Was it just to see whether others can have similar experiences? what was the conclusion?


I agree with what you say yet I consider it irrelevant to my initial point. In your original post you said: "..but if you've made the stupid decision not to even try drugs.." this is what I argued with, it is not a stupid decision to decide not to try drugs. People outside the "drug" community are not so stupid as we'd like to think, they have their own fair values, amazing experiences from life and the sort...


My point was more about enforcement of what people think its better/worse to the others. That said, I agree with most of your post. A scientist knows more about aspartame than laymen, yet he doesn't enforce compulsory aspartame consumption to the population.


Apologies for the ad hominem; Your response is however your opinion and I will not discuss your topics much. My opinion is that drugs are amoral. It is the user who makes a bad drug or a good drug. In addition, side effects are irrelevant when it comes to the correct use of a drug. I do not even know what are side effects - take alcohol for instance. It tends to make some people violent, but is it a side effect of alcohol consumption? Or does it precipitate violent tendencies that have been building on individuals because of oppressive social conditions?


I didn't say banning them either. What is better for social lubrication is up to the users to decide. I like alcohol and cigarettes so I like to see them sold in clubs. For me they are better social lubricants compared to mdma.

Nice points guys. Yes and I see the point made by Ibeing that the idea was to see the effect on willing users. Interesting that so many had positive results for sure. But yes this is well known the positive effects of dmt. I guess my point is that often you see people who take dmt and then want to spread it to the world and go really far with that desire. I think that can easily get dangerous thats really my only concern. I think people who want to try dmt can find it. There is no reason to go around encouraging people too when it can easily backfire on them and make them go wacky. By go wacky I mean start believing in UFO's magic energy forces and a host of other delusions dmt users are prone too. Seriously. I see the positive effects and the negative effects just by browsing this forum for a while. And thats not meant as an offense to anyone but its how the rest of the world will look at it regardless of who is more or less sane.

lbeing789, with all due respect, you've stated a number of times that you are a scientist with a PhD, but your statements & opinions are kind of saying something else.

Most of the actual scientists I've know are usually a bit more Objctive in their expressed opinions.
You don't seem to be thinking around the situation very much, or looking past your personal feelings, to the bigger picture...Objectively.
Like a scientist is trained to do.
Instead I'm reading the opinions of a young mind, wanting everyone to have the same ideas & values as you, because of certain experiences that were positive for you. The scientific mind does not think this way.

I'm not wanting to bag on you, I'm just saying that it's very easy to claim to be a scientist...but if you are one, why doesn't your opinions, writing style, or grammar seem to reflect it?

That does not mean...why don't you agree with us...it just means, that the thought process you've explained to us in the above posts does not reflect that of an scientifically educated person with a PhD.
I hesitate to say it, but it reminds me more of the thought processes of me & my pals when we were teenagers & just started learning about these things.

For example:




Those just don't seem like the objective, thought out processes of an educated scientist to me. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm sorry if that is a bit harsh, but I'm not down with people claiming things like that, if it's not true.
I'm not down with lieing.
I truly apologize if I'm off on this one.


Cheers
WS

warrensaged, if you're asking for some kind of proof.. I'm not gonna give it to you, because I dont have to explain myself... I think it's really bad manners and not objective at all to call someone a liar when you have absolutely no idea... so you're obviously not objective or scientific at all, you're just working from instinct... plus I dont know why but you failed to actually point out any flaws in my science... if you manage to do that, then I may actually listen to you... but yeah, your post is unhelpful, doesnt say anything, has no wisdom in it.. you're just ragging.

In my experience only teenagers and childish folks question peoples careers, it's usually just a sign of insecurity, do you feel bad that you dont have a phd? cuz I can tell you it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be... I'm merely pointing out that I understand the scientific method completely, and if you want to challenge me on it, I'm happy to argue with you about anything... but if you're gonna say stuff like that, please back it up with some evidence.

Also, some people need to read more carefully... if I use the terms "I think" or "I believe" that means I'm either not sure or it's just my opinion not a statement of scientific fact.

oh and saying "with all due respect" and "I'm sorry if that is a bit harsh" and then calling someone a liar is just a lame thing to do... you dont have any respect, dont pretend you do.

and one more thing... scientists are supposed to be objective not subjective, maybe that's where you're getting mixed up, you dont know what science actually is.

"You're probably missing out because nothing in my life has taught me more than drugs."

Totally valid statement, considering everything you learn is from chemicals flowing through your brain. Notice the word "probably".

"if you are smart you know whats better for you and whats better for others"

again, this is totally valid as well, what does it mean to be smart? the word implies being more knowledgable about something... maybe that insecurity thing is making you read this wrong.

Yes, I believe that Warrensaged meant OBJECTIVE, as subjective is filled with opinion.

However in his defense, we have had quite a few people playing make believe on the forum in the past few months, and so there are some of us that are a bit sceptical of other members. Please don't take it personally. I think it was warrensaged past experiences and not you personally that makes him suspect..but I guess I really shouldn't speak for him, he can respond how he sees fit.


Personally I welcome scientists to our forum.

Welcome!


This is one hell of a debate...please let's keep it civil everyone!

Infundibulum, thanks for your response.. I totally get it... the "experiment" was like I said in the original post, SWIM wanted to see the myriad of effects and SWIM also wanted his good friends to have the same level of experience, and sure enough there was a very high rate of success.

The decision to not even try drugs is stupid in SWIM's opinion (NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT) simply because these people dont know what they're missing... a lot of drug users report no longer caring about stupid shit, and I believe (believe) it enhances life because mother nature is imperfect.. there is a big difference between our work and consume reality to the reality shown to you through entheogens. SWIM is fundamentally concerned about the consequences of substances, meth ruins cities, coke ruins citys, alcohol ruins lives, cigarattes kill people.... I believe the smart legalisation and control of substances would lead to a much more peaceful world... could be wrong of course... it's just an opinion.

In regards enforcement, of course I dont think anything should be enforced, but I do believe people should have access to substances and try them to find what works best for them... SWIM doesnt like any of the legal drugs, but when I was younger thats what I would do because thats all I could get.... fundamentally I do believe in better living through chemistry.

I dont know about side effects being irrelevant, perhaps a better way to explain it is that if a drug does something to you that overwhelms the positive effects, IE makes your life worse, then you shouldnt take it. It sounds simple but most people cant observe that because of addiction.

To be honest, I think we funadamentally agree on most things.

yeah acolon_5, it's cool, I just felt a little bit under attack for nothing there... I wouldn't have mentioned the science phd unless someone questioned my scientific credentials.

yup. things need to be cool down a bit.

lbeing789, I would suggest you not to fire back if in any case you have felt insulted. Yes, Warren's post was "peppered" but he and I can justify him because the nexus has been through strange situations lately.

By "firing back" I mean posts like that:
and that
...which really not help the discussion, it's like throwing a naphtha pull in the fire! It makes a mess and burns away the fun!

also to be really honest acolon, I came here to learn not preach, and I'm learning loads, but I would like to contribute with whatever wisdom I can give... hopefully over time I will become more respected and consistent

yeah Infundibulum, you're right, 2 wrongs dont make a right, I just felt a little bit threatened and I didnt realise there was history on this forum for that... I've only just joined... but that being said, I think if you're objective you cant call strangers liars because it's just rude, and even I dont believe someone I dont call them out on it because it's usually war then ya know?

I hear what you are saying..I would say it's more naive than stupid though..most people aren't stupid, just products of certain envirmonments. People are held back.

Yeah, naive that's more accurate... I pulled an obama by saying stupid apparently.

Ibeing... one sentence of advice: Dont take anything personally!! Seriously.

I'm not trying to attack here either, but I do find your entire attitude and approach to be one that can do much harm, and it IS difficult to buy your credentials - Cuz PhD's just don't usually express themselves like high school dudes, and you most definitely do.

To characterize anyone's personal decision to not take or try drugs as "stupid" is... well, hmmm... let me hunt for the word... STUPID. It's just not an argument that carries any weight (unless of course you're a high school dude - and then you really shouldn't be here). To suggest SPIKING unwilling participants for their own good is STUPID, CALLOUS AND CRIMINAL. I can't imagine anyone with an advanced education (or any education for that matter) thinking that this would be an even remotely acceptable thing to do - or even arguing its theoretical merits. It's just a DUMB point of view.

You'll find that if you choose to take on the role of Pied Piper and dose up people en masse, that you're probably not going to elicit a lot of support here. It's bad for the community in so many ways, and it's not what this place is about.