i would like to try lsd, but i don't know of a safe, reliable, legal way of doing so. it just occurred to me that perhaps someone here might?
[deleted]
Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
151–160 of 278 posts
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post, while I'm sure it has many literary merits, does not bring much to the conversation. Factual accounts of your experiences might though.
What for? So some guy sitting at computer in his underwear can pass judgement with his mouse? No thanks.
Reply A:
What you describe will happen no matter what, so it would likely be more interesting for everyone involved if your posts were not just talking for talk's sake :)
Reply B:
Why are you posting at all then?
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
3. Red wine contains known carcinogens. So do potatoes. I picked this one point out to rebut with a potato, but I think my potato wields equally devastating attacks against the rest of your points, too. Olive oil, oily fish, grapes, you name it: lots of things that currently do seem very healthy in moderation have a downside if abused. One thing my potato is very unlikely to do: cause a psychically shattering experie…
I would assume you're referring to potato-based processed foods (like potato chips) that been have cooked at high temperature. If not, and you're seriously trying to argue that eating a small amount of potatoes exposes one to cancer risk, it would be more enlightening if you posted an actual comparison between the levels of carcinogens in a sack of lowly potatoes and a bottle of red wine. Hint: there's a reason the b…
I'm referring to acrylamide.
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, it's quite a stretch to equate powerful hallucinogens with coffee (alcohol is another matter). I mean, man, LSD is no joke, that will take you places that an ocean of coffee won't help you reach. Of course, ideally we don't reach for anything.
Equate? Sure, they aren't equal. For instance I'd much rather be a passenger in a car with a driver who's had a regular, cup of coffee-sized dose of caffeine than with someone that's even had a little bit of LSD. OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive but coffee will get you hooked and give you withdrawals. They're all mind altering drugs. Each thing is different. Some find value in them that others don't.
Drug altering minds have trouble with coherence.
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#155It is really annoying that drugs proponents ignore the obvious negative effects of drugs. Pretending that LSD is harmless is utter utter bulshit. There are so many cases of serious mental problems including permanent insanity caused by psychadelics. And of course there are also the thousands of people that are not exactly insane but have their brains pretty much fried and are just not very good for anything useful an…
> So I bet this disgusting essay will cause a bunch of kids to try LSD and a percentage of them will be completely fucked because of it.
Even assuming that's true - which it probably is even just based on the fact that some people already have fragile mental states - a certain percentage of people who go motorcycling get creamed by bad drivers. Life is risk. What the percentage is matters.
Without number it's just hand-waving - and the longer the hand-waving goes on the less dangerous it seems because scary correlates are being given adequate time to show up.
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#156i would like to try lsd, but i don't know of a safe, reliable, legal way of doing so. it just occurred to me that perhaps someone here might?
Legal? AL-LAD
Safe, reliable... no such thing.
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#157I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have, and never plan to (23 years old). In fact, there's plenty of people I know who don't even drink -- not because of any moral or legal reason, but simply because they aren't interested in it. To clarify, I don't care what things other people try (I encourage everyone to make their own decisions), b…
> it strikes me as odd that he just assumes she's going to go ahead and try all sorts of things.
Given how pragmatic Sam is about drug-taking, it would be fair to assume that his daughter will grow up with similar views and consider experimenting. My dad's experiences with/thoughts on psychedelic drugs were what paved the way for me to experiment. And because of my family's attitude towards mind-altering substances, I was able to experiment safely which was an encouraging factor.
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
So you can't decide you want to have a go because intellectuals that inspire you had good things to say about it? That's not a valid choice in your opinion?
If one person out of a every thousand who tries it becomes a super-genius and the others end up drooling morons, then it's probably not a good bet. Anecdotes of selected inspirational people shouldn't be a major basis of your decision to tinker with your nogin.
It is something in favour of it, I don't think it's productive to pretend otherwise. But good decisions don't result purely from paying attention to what's in favour of a decision. If you want to know whether something's going to potentially mess your life up, the best way I've heard of is to honestly set out to prove that it is going to mess your life up before you actually do it - and if you fail to prove it then you've exercised due diligence.
If you have someone saying they had a really good time and on the other hand you have a bunch of drug users who are completely messed up, then you might want to exercise a bit of caution - you know?
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, it's quite a stretch to equate powerful hallucinogens with coffee (alcohol is another matter). I mean, man, LSD is no joke, that will take you places that an ocean of coffee won't help you reach. Of course, ideally we don't reach for anything.
Equate? Sure, they aren't equal. For instance I'd much rather be a passenger in a car with a driver who's had a regular, cup of coffee-sized dose of caffeine than with someone that's even had a little bit of LSD. OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive but coffee will get you hooked and give you withdrawals. They're all mind altering drugs. Each thing is different. Some find value in them that others don't.
> OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive
LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.
Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's simply misleading to quote studies comparing the effects of acute LSD intoxication to the symptoms that can be seen in psychotic people as evidence that LSD in some way causes schizophrenia. Drunken people share symptoms with schizophrenics too, as well as people who have gone without sleep.
This is not just a matter of resembling psychosis. Haloperidol and olanzapine, two common prescriptions for schizophrenia, have been demonstrated to reduce the effects of LSD. There is a connection between the psychoactive properties of LSD and the neurological etiology of schizophrenia, though the connection needs to be studied further. Yes, research should not be taken as gospel, but it is foolish to think that the…
LSD is primarily a 5HT2 agonist which leads to a decrease in dopamine pathways. This decrease in dopamine leads to taking it mimicing the "negative" symptoms of schizophrenia. this effect has been used in animal models to support various dopamine theories for us to learn more about schizophrenia, such as one of the current theories advocating for an increase in dopamine in mesolimbic brain pathway and decrease of dopamine in mesocortical pathways.
So the drug is useful for inducing the symptoms, however once the drug is gone so are the symptoms. Schizophrenics have problems at some cellular level, be it receptor, transcription, translation, protein modification, etc that leads to their symptoms and the end effects that are similar to LSD. LSD causes the final step in the pathway, not the initial ones.
Likewise for your drugs, you named two dopamine blockers (one selective for D_2 and one not). these treat schizophrenia in the sense that they minimise symptoms since they are working at the final step in what is wrong with the patients. They are not "cures" because they don't address the initial issue, which we hopefully will discover.