horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Yes in Amsterdam (visited a few years ago). Highly tolerated there, but still not quite legalNot in Amsterdam...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
DMT the soul molecule
- Thread starter Leonardo
- Start date
Yes in Amsterdam (visited a few years ago). Highly tolerated there, but still not quite legal
Ah...Nope, its legal for the Dutch to go to the pot bars but foriegners are not allowed anymore.
Those were fMRI scans, not MRI scans. Also, the study ("Seeing with the Eyes Shut" published in Human Brain Mapping in 2011) doesn't demonstrate much. They got 10 "frequent Ayahuasca users" to look at images during scanning and then "close their eyes and mentally generate the same image", followed by a final scrambled image for a baseline. Then all subjects did the same tasks after drinking Ayahuasca tea. According to the researchers, their analysis showed that while difference between pre- and post-intake was insignificant during the viewing of images, their Regions of Interest (ROIs) showed significantly greater activity after intake.
Now, apart from potential design problems and their method for determining whether the activity changes were significant (extracted means for high dimensional data? really?), I don't really get what the point was. Processing verbs increases activitation in the motor regions. We've known for a long time that memory is distributed across numerous regions. So the research found that taking a drug which causes hallucinogenic reactions activates areas involved in memory and vision. How could it not?
Here's an article that cites from John Hopkins research that 94 percent of those that volunteered for the research of hallucinogens experienced a postive effect.
Self-induced Spiritualism: Can Some Psychedelics Change our Outlook for the Better? | Mysterious Universe
Self-induced Spiritualism: Can Some Psychedelics Change our Outlook for the Better? | Mysterious Universe
It doesn't cite an article or indicate where this research was published.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
The first thing I noticed re this article is that the mushroom pictured is not a psilocybe mushroom, it is amanita muscaria.
If anyone was foolish enough to eat one of these without knowing how to prepare it, they would be very sick and possibly die, and certainly have a horrendous experience. The chemical in amanita is a very toxic poison unless it is oxidised, and changed into a different chemical. Even that chemical is a very rough and difficult experience.
This makes this article extremely ignorant and dangerous.
There is a saying - "There are old mushroom hunters, and bold mushroom hunters, but there are no old, bold mushroom hunters."
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Apropos to that - there is a mushroom which looks almost identical to psilocybe cubensis (the 'gold top'), which is amanita phalloides. If you consume just one a. phalloides, all your liver cells will rupture sometime between 12 -24 hours after ingestion, and you will die an excuciating death.
Be careful people.
Be careful people.
Well subtly the experiment indicates that imagining an object doesn't activate the visual cortex. So the hallucinogenic is causing a phenomena that is very different than conscious imagining.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
All of those people were screened for potential psychological problems.
I have seen dozens of examples of people having psychotic breakdowns.
Enthusiasts always ignore that.
I suggest you stop encouraging unknown naive teenagers with no guidance to expect a trouble-free time of fun, spiritual awakening and pretty pictures. It is awesomely irresponsible.
Ah. Griffiths' work. My faith in peer-review and the scientific endeavor is always restored when coming across refereed papers obtaining measurements (psychometrics) from a questionnaire "based on the classic descriptive work on mystical experiences and the psychology of religion by Stace (1960), [which] provides scale scores for each of seven domains of mystical experiences: internal unity (pure awareness; a merging with ultimate reality); external unity (unity of all things; all things are alive; all is one); transcendence of time and space; ineffability and paradoxicality (claim of difficulty in describing the experience in words); sense of sacredness (awe); noetic quality (claim of intuitive knowledge of ultimate reality); and deeply felt positive mood (joy, peace, and love)."
from Griffith, Richards, McCann, & Jesse (2006). Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology 187:268283.
But hey, their "mysticism scale" is "well-regarded in the field of the psychology of religion." Additionally, it's hard to claim anything about "persisting effects" when you only measure participants responses after the experiments. They compared the responses relative to participants given the other drug, but not to participants responses before the study.
Actually, though, the methodology was probably as sound as most studies on psychopharmaceuticals, at least in terms of the validity of the metrics and analyses. And given the side-effects of commonly prescribed psychotropics, who knows? Perhaps some currently illegal drugs would be superior in treating a variety of mood disorders.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt that some of the illegal drugs are vastly superior for treating various conditions, with one caveat - the experience should be mediated by a trained and experienced (in terms of the drug) guide or therapist.
A good example is the use of MDMA for treating PTSD. Serious cases have been effectively treated in one session. I would cite the article from Scientific American, but I don't have that information at hand.
This does not mean however that anyone suffering from post-traumatic stress can be effectively treated by just dropping an ecky pill and hoping for the best. In fact, that may even make their condition worse, especially when the 'Tuesday crash' happens.
One psychiatrist I talked with made the remark that the 4 most important advances in psychiatry are now illegal drugs. I have known 2 other psychiatrists who were involved in LSD research programs who would agree. And there is plenty of evidence that shamanic use of psilocybe mushrooms and other substances (such as Iboga in particular) has been very beneficial in the cultures where they were/are used.
All of that notwithstanding, when I was honest with myself about the overall effects of psychedelia on those who regularly used them recreationally, I had to admit that for most people the good effects were ephemeral, and for a significantly large minority, detrimental.
The Ecstacy dance culture for example certainly does not routinely produce yogis and visionaries. Nor does the ayahuasca subculture. I have seen examples recently of ayahuasca enthusiasts who were starry-eyed and out of touch with concensus reality (i.e. not coping with it). I have also seen plenty of examples of MDMA users who 'love you man' on Saturday and treat people like **** the rest of the time.
It is lamentable that psychedelic research has been inhibited by international laws for so long. But it is simply youthful enthusiasm lacking a wider perspective which assumes that the general population would become more 'spiritual' and psychologically enhanced simply by taking substances.
The outcome of psychedelic experiences is largely determined by set and setting.The ritual use of peyote by native Americans, the use of psilocybe mushrooms in Central America, or the use of Iboga by the Bopomo people (where the whole village focus healing ritual on one tripper) are good examples of this. Sanity is so closely tied to 'connectedness'.
Ah...What? Did you read my post regarding how society should treat such substances? Your accusations are completely baseless and suspicious. I often wonder if many of the members here are simply the same person using multiple names. :beach:
The Santo Daime give ayahuasca to their children and its legal for them to do so in the U.S.! Psychiatrists have testified that the Santo Daime practices of using ayahuasca cause no harmful effects to children.
:camp:
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Yes I get that. I deleted a few of my posts on this thread, but one of them included this -
In another (deleted) post you probably missedn I mentioned various cultures where whole communities are involved, such as in Central America where the village shaman would conduct shroom sessions which involved whole families ( actually I may not have mentioned that last detail, but have in other posts) - Michael Harner's book 'Hallucinogens and Shamanism' has a wonderful essay 'Mushrooms of Language' which goes into this.
I admit I missed that post. My concerns are - lots of people reading these threads are young teenagers who will not think things through, or be aware of some vital information regarding preparation and appropriate circumstances, and who really have no idea what psychedelics can do to your psyche; and also, as you will eventually discover, this forum has a fairly high percentage of members with depression and other psychological difficulties. In other words, people who would generally be screened out of the kinds of studies you linked to, for the precise reason that using psychedelics could be a very wrong move for them.
As for your other remark about multiple personalities, that is your paranoia/bad judgement or whatever. It would probably give me a good laugh to know who else you think I am, since I can't think of anyone else here whose writing style and ideas are similar to mine. PM it to me if you like, I could use the entertainment right now because I am feeling a bit low. Or if you want to really put it out there, post it ! Then everyone can share the humor of it.
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Being legal to purchase and sell does not mean legal in every other aspect; growing large quantities for instance
I wonder if the tourism industries will be effected?I seen in Wikipedia, it was stated that it is now illegal to sell to foreigners, but do not fully trust this (anyone can edit articles from this knowledge base), but according to a much more trust worthy source; http://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/ It was updated today by someone who has reason to assure they know all the local drug laws and there was not mentioning of not selling to foreigners. (by the way when studying CJ, international law was one of my strong points; I had 1 B and all As the entire time I was going for my Bachelor's degree; 4.0 GPA, finished 4 credits shy, when it comes to law, I know fairly well what I am talking about.)
Last edited:
The same can be said of Alchohol where manufacturing it requires permits and licenses to distill it in the U.S.
The same can be said of Sky Diving. Many people think that sky divers are risking their lives unneccessarily for a thrill. Now sky diving can be very dangerous for the wrong kind of person but we as a society don't make it illegal or warn everyone to think twice before attempting it. No instead our society actually believes that sky diving should be an experience that should be tried at least once in your life. The sport has an organization that regulates the licensing of sky divers and it is a private organization, so not even the government regulates sky diving, other than where a drop zone can be located.
LOL, Perhaps I'm a little paranoid but your comment that lead to my suspicion was extremely incendiary...
Last edited:
I get a little concerned about this thread as well. There have been many historical situations of thinking substances were good, but long term effects showed otherwise. Tobacco is an obvious example but another is here: 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Usually (but perhaps not always) when governments makes some drug controlled or illegal, there is very good reason for it. Just last weekend I encountered an old book (late 60s) citing scientific benefits for psychiatric treatment using the drug mentioned in the link.
So tread with extreme caution. Better not at all.
Usually (but perhaps not always) when governments makes some drug controlled or illegal, there is very good reason for it. Just last weekend I encountered an old book (late 60s) citing scientific benefits for psychiatric treatment using the drug mentioned in the link.
So tread with extreme caution. Better not at all.
Giving government the benefit of the doubt is hardly rational thinking. Remember prohibition? Now alcohol is truly harmful to the body but it is legal now because of public demand.
Also I'm not stating that people should try these drugs since that is breaking the law. But what is being address is the fallacy of the argument that big brother is protecting the public when in fact big brother has no problem living with 10s of thousands of fatal car accidents each year. Is driving dangerous? Yes it is and requires responsible judgment to be safe but that is no guarantee that a person won't end up in a fatal car accident.
So why can't the same enpowerment of personal transportation be applied to controlled substances? Instead it is suspicously demonized and is an obvious hypocrisy.
Last edited: