Research into hallucinogenic drugs begins to shake off decades of taboo

To call such experiences mere "hallucinations" or "perceptual disturbances" is both reductionist and dismissive.

"Recreational drugs" can be used in respectful ways. To many they are holy and sacred.

They can enhance your creativity, open your eyes to the wonder of the universe around you, and gift you with empathy for all living creatures.

With them you can experience death and rebirth and profoundly transform the way you understand and relate to the world. They can be intensely therapeutic.

There is certainly a stigma against all that, and against certain drugs and experiences which buck against the need for many people to reduce life to a little tiny and orderly box under their command where they can channel your world view and your understanding of yourself and others in a manner of their liking.

Yet despite all of their efforts they can not fully resist the deep need of humanity to transcend their ordinary state of consciousness. Each society has sanctioned ways of doing this, whether it's through certain approved substances (like alcohol), rituals, or ordeals.

Curiously, societies tend to differ as to which mind altering substances are prohibited and which are allowed. Usually it's the substances with a long tradition of use in the given society that are allowed, and the newer substances which are prohibited. The very same substances which are allowed and even praised in one society might be despised and prohibited in others (alcohol, mushrooms, and marijuana are some great examples).

Mind altering substances which a particular society is encountering for the first time and the use of which can not be easily fit in to the dominant culture's traditions are usually seen as a threat.

But this can change over time as the members of that society get more familiar with the substances and learn to use them in socially sanctioned ways.

However I think it's appropriate vocabulary when attempting objective analysis of neurological/psychological phenomena. Reductionism is an inevitable and valid criticism of any such analysis.

(When I said "real" in this instance I was referring to the physical existence of objects perceived, your ability to reach out and touch them. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement about the validity or authenticity of anyones subjective experiences.)

Without getting in to a deep conversation on objectivity, neurology, and psychology, I'll just say that I don't think these issues are so clear cut as to allow anyone to definitively say that he's on the side of truth and the phenomena he describes are "nothing but X", whatever that "X" may be.

"When I said "real" in this instance I was referring to the physical existence of objects perceived, your ability to reach out and touch them."

There are plenty of things that, even according to the "scientific" world view, purportedly exist and yet can't be touched or directly percieved, such as x-rays and atoms.