I 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…
If you've had a beer, or a cup of coffee, you've tried mind altering drugs. That was part of the point of the article.
You're argument is like saying "you'll go over the speed limit some day, therefore you will be a criminal".
A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point?
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.
Try taking LSD and then tell me if some aspect of the experience could not be described as schizophrenic. Seriously comparing the state of being drunk with that of one tripping their (rational) mind off is liking comparing apples and moons.
A non-schizophrenic describing their subjective experience on LSD as schizophrenic can be nothing but projection.
So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? I'm not aware of any adult I personally know who hasn't partaken of some substance that alters perception in some way. Though no doubt such individuals exist, such a state of absolute abstinence is not something I'd think of imposing on my children. Take into account the actual effects and remove social stigma and legal ramifications, and the substances I'd be ok with for…
> So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? No, actually. Both smell gross to me; I don't plan on trying either. ... but I do like Monsters. I see what your point is, but the paragraph I am referring to in the article specifically mentions marijuana. He uses the more conventional use of the word "drug" in that paragraph, and so I am simply continuing that usage than the more general form he was using in the rest…
He's right. Your "I don't take drugs" is just arbitrary goalpost-moving. Knock that off.
"Not only do I think it is meaningful to compare the harm done by drugs as they are actually used, it is necessary. Nutt's research is from society's perspective - that's why it spends more time on how people actually use drugs than how much harm would be done if they used them appropriately." The problem is that how drugs are used is almost entirely dependent on the public policy surrounding them. E.g. when coffee w…
when coffee was an illegal drug, you had many people abusing it similar to what we think of as a stereotypical heroin addict today Highly questionable. Coffee was made illegal in the Ottoman empire because people in coffee shops were suspected of sedition, not because they were having caffeine ODs and dying. Comparing it to heroin is just silly, and I say that as a supporter of legalization.
"Coffee was made illegal in the Ottoman empire because people in coffee shops were suspected of sedition, not because they were having caffeine ODs and dying. Comparing it to heroin is just silly, and I say that as a supporter of legalization."
I think you're right about why coffee was illegal. Regardless, when coffee was illegal my understanding is that every Thursdays there was an event where they drank as much coffee as they could, to the point where there was actually a very real chance of ODing, in order to enter a mystical state. I can't find a real source right now, but here is an unsourced reference at least:
"Not only do I think it is meaningful to compare the harm done by drugs as they are actually used, it is necessary. Nutt's research is from society's perspective - that's why it spends more time on how people actually use drugs than how much harm would be done if they used them appropriately." The problem is that how drugs are used is almost entirely dependent on the public policy surrounding them. E.g. when coffee w…
...when coffee was an illegal drug, you had many people abusing it similar to what we think of as a stereotypical heroin addict today... Did you mean tobacco?
No I meant coffee. But tobacco was the similar. Back when it was banned by the pope people were using it for entheogenic purposes. Essentially they would be completely fucked up for 2-3 days, also to the point where they were very near death.
There's no evidence to that. From my personal experience (yes, anecdotal etc) with dozens of LSD taking friends over the course of many many years, they all end up attributing huge importance to their acid trips, and all the insights gained from them. The problem is this is the same with the brilliant friend, and with the do nothing, sit on my couch all day friend. For example: one of my friends, after taking acid, w…
So you are willing to discredit everyone's claim to the importance of their trips based on examples of people who falsely claim that their's was important? I don't think anyone here is arguing the position that LSD will have a profound impact on anyone who takes it, just that it can give people a different way of looking at the world and sometimes that leads to novel and important insights. Replace "LSD trip" with "u…
No, when I said "There's no evidence to that" I was referring to wether Van Gogh cutting his ear off was important to his life and work. I didn't discredit everyone's claim to the importance of nothing, just the claims of my closer friends, and I even acknowledged it as anecdotal evidence.
Now, when you want to replace 'LSD' with 'physics course', then I'll disagree with you. If someone completed a university physics course, then yeah, they probably actually gained some important insight/knowledge as to how things are. If I ask a physicist why the sun is shining he probably won't answer me that it is "just the effective energy of the whole cosmos"(true quote -- again, lots os my friends took acid).
Plus, saying that LSD sometimes leads to novel and important insights is just as anecdotal. Where are all the scientists and Nobel winners that attribute their discoveries to their acid trips? I've heard one or two, mostly just the DNA thing.
It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff.
Why are things illegal? In the most purely naive idea, it is because government is supposed to prevent us from damaging ourselves. Tobacco and liquor are damaging things, they are literally poisons. Caffeine is also damaging. I would be personally be much more inclined to believing the scientists whose entire career is the study of these illegal substances rather than the politicians who have to continue pushing the…
I never said it should or shouldn't be illegal. I'm saying that if you use the word "drugs" the way it was used in the parent, then 99% of everyone will understand it as being referred to illegal drugs.
Is there evidence to support the claim that Van Gogh believed cutting his ear off was important to his life and work? If not, then this is a very different example to that of Jobs' claim and is an equally poor way of refuting a position.
There's no evidence to that. From my personal experience (yes, anecdotal etc) with dozens of LSD taking friends over the course of many many years, they all end up attributing huge importance to their acid trips, and all the insights gained from them. The problem is this is the same with the brilliant friend, and with the do nothing, sit on my couch all day friend. For example: one of my friends, after taking acid, w…
Depends on every person, you cannot generalise, especially if you do not have such experience. LSD unlocked me a door in my head and I know I'll never be the same as before, I think my brain somehow changed physically. I lost lot of fears and could analyse myself as being part of nature. I was 19, now I'm 33 but I still enjoy remembering that moments; I took it 4 times. BTW I'm not a hippie but SW engineer :-)
It effects everybody differently.I highly suggest Rick Strassman's book 'DMT the spirit molecule'. It shows how different and similar they are
I'd highly recommend not reading such nonsense that has no scientific backing. That book is just the author making up explanations, with no evidence. It doesn't "show" anything, at least not more than any other user making up stuff about their favourite drug.
Unbelievable comment! Can't tell whether extreme trolling...or an extremely ignorant individual with a massive prejudice against the drug/author...
It 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…
>It is really annoying that drugs proponents ignore the obvious negative effects of drugs.
No they don't. Even if there are negative effects, which by the way are nowhere near as bad as the negative effects of overeating shit and sitting on your fatass ass all day which 90% of the Western generation does on a daily basis, who gives a fuck? They're fun and the benefits (especially the benefits of psychedelics and empathogen) outweigh the risks if you do them safely and in moderation.
Now anti-drug people cannot see this no matter what evidence you present them because they've been indoctrinated by a system that imprisons people for smoking weed.