I recommend David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air [1] on the subject. Nutt, a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist, headed up the U.K.'s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (a British DEA/FDA hybrid). He was canned when he suggested that alcohol may be more damaging than many controlled substances.
Amongst the goodies from the book are this chart [2], which plots dependence risk against toxicologists' ratings of physical harm for various psychoactive substances. Nutt memorably compared the "20 drugs considered in the ISCD’s 2010 report, ranked by overall harm" with their legal Class and "found a correlation of 0.04 – which means that there was effectively no relationship at all."
Also: "Francis Crick, who discovered the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson, and Kary Mullis, who invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), had both taken [LSD], and attributed some of their understanding and insights to it."
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), but it strikes me as odd that he just assumes she's going to go ahead and try all sorts of things.
I get the impression that people who have tried drugs before are incredulous that there exist people who are simply apathetic about the whole experience.
I might be one of those people who strikes you as "incredulous" and, to be fair, I'm sure there are people who are actually "apathetic about the whole experience".
I personally have met a fair number of people who claim to have the same or similar beliefs about this as you. But every single one who I've had a friendly conversation with about it has turned out to not be apathetic or even close. It has always been some combination of fear of loss of control, some desire to stay "pure" or an ideological commitment to the fact that these things are "bad" because they got told so as children.
I ask whenever I can, and I ask in the most friendly, non-judgmental way possible because in my experience the average reaction to someone saying what you said is much more aggressive and confrontational than merely "incredulous". But I ask because I'm honestly very curious about this. It seems so odd to categorically state that there are some perfectly safe experiences you are positive that you will never try. Are there other experiences you feel the same way about? ("I never have, and never plan to try eating Greek food, it's because of apathy" for example)
If in the future you are in an accident or require chemotherapy or something that involves you being exposed to drugs that have an effect that you enjoy and find fulfilling/useful/pleasurable and you could experience that again, with negligible risk of any adverse effects would you do so?
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 my children would be different than current norms.
Also, I've known quite a few people who have never had a drink, smoked pot, etc., and I respect their desires. Bit even they drank coffee or tea, or used other substances that alter mood or perception.
I don't find it odd. I'd assume it's the same attitude plenty of parents have towards sex/parties. Assuming their child will be doing that even though it's not a given doesn't seem outrageous to me and seems like a fair analogy.
> 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.
Did you also read the part where it said "If she doesn't, I'm afraid she'll miss out on one of the most important rites of passage."
Psychedelics are a tool to be used for self discovery, not some seedy thing only losers use. Maybe you are the one who is blinded by preconceptions here, not him.
You may think you've never used drugs but you have, you just don't understand the meaning of the word.
I'd try and think of "drugs" less like substances and more like vices. If you've ever used a vice to help yourself emotionally or physically you've taken drugs.
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 anymore. I get to meet a lot of those in LA.
To mention one of the more recent fruits of psychedelics -- the guy that shot that US congresswoman in the head fried his brain on mushrooms.
Yeah the drug war is horrible but people that promote dangerous drugs and lie about their safety are almost as bad. A convenient lie is a very dangerous thing. Because if people want to believe something they are much more likely to believe it. 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.
There are a few writers that have tried drugs and are completely honest about them, but they are very few. It is very hard for a drug user to be honest about drugs. I would recommend Philip K Dick. If anyone wants to try hard drugs, please read "A scanner darkly", and then read a Philip K Dick biography to see that he knew what he was talking about.
>> 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 anymore. I get to meet a lot of those in LA.
Do you have numbers and studies on this? Was it just LSD or have they been chronic multi-drug users for multiple years?
Because your statements directly conflict with the state of the art of current research.
>> There are a few writers that have tried drugs and are completely honest about them, but they are very few. It is very hard for a drug user to be honest about drugs. I would recommend Philip K Dick. If anyone wants to try hard drugs, please read "A scanner darkly", and then read a Philip K Dick biography to see that he knew what he was talking about.
PKD and his friends were indeed into all sorts of things, and got into all sorts of trouble.
His main complaint seems to have been that nobody told them what was safe and what was not, and that through innocent experimentation all sorts of bad things happened.
Hysterical disinformation, which is all we've had from government for around 30 years now, does nothing to help this. Nothing.
> "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 anymore."
> "To mention one of the more recent fruits of psychedelics -- the guy that shot that US congresswoman in the head fried his brain on mushrooms."
Don't make outlandish claims if you're not going to bother to cite your sources. Also, even if what your claiming regarding the Arizona shooter is true, I have a mustache, does that mean I'm going to commit genocide?
"Pretending that LSD is harmless is utter utter bulshit."
You obviously didn't read the full essay if that is what you came away with. The book you cite is about amphetamines. Throwing Amphetamines and Psychedelics into the general "drugs" category really betrays your complete lack of any knowledge on this subject.
Finally I agree that pro-drug advocates will certainly be biased but you are on the other end of the spectrum. You seem to claim author's aren't truthful about their experiences with drugs unless it's negative?
Dick's experiences were mostly with amphetamines, not psychedelics. Most don't include LSD and psilocybin as "hard drugs," either, and all of the credible drug advocates I've seen have always clearly stated that one should carefully research and consider before taking any drug into one's body, and advise against those with predispositions to mental illness or who feel that they are not ready for such experiences or capable of properly preparing for them ("set and setting").
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_t...)
There have been very, very few documented ill-effects of LSD use. Like, an astronomically small number given the range of use. Those people you describe in LA are most likely suffering from the effects of other drugs, namely alcohol.
What you think you know about psychedelic drugs is not true. If you judge what drug proponents say against what you think that you know, of course you'll find what they say dishonest. What many of them say is on a far firmer scientific footing than what you're saying.
LSD does not cause people to be schizophrenic; schizophrenia shows itself during the most likely years for people to be experimenting with drugs.
edit: and to add to what kinghajj mentioned about Philip K. Dick; Dick was on amphetamines, and amphetamines have a very established history of actually making you long-term crazy.
I think it's pretty inaccurate to say this article ignores the negative effects of drugs or pretends that LSD is harmless. Quoting verbatim:
This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.
and
Even if drugs like LSD are biologically safe, the potential for extremely unpleasant and destabilizing experiences presents its own risks. I believe I was positively affected for weeks and months by my good trips, and negatively affected by the bad ones. Given these roulette-like odds, one can only recommend these experiences with caution.
and
But as the peaks are high, the valleys are deep. My “bad trips” were, without question, the most harrowing hours I have ever suffered—and they make the notion of hell, as a metaphor if not a destination, seem perfectly apt.
> 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.
Those who are affected by LSD in that way will probably also be more susceptible to drug induced HPPD or Schizophernia from other controlled and non-controlled substances. It has to do with the structure of the brain.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/4/337.full
Basically they are born with less ability to distinguish reality from fiction. A good indication for this would be the well known ink spot test.
Responsible self-admission of controlled substances would always advocate starting at the dose that might cause an adverse allergic reaction of some sort, and move up from there.
I've seen a Scanner Darkly, and I've tried hard drugs.
In my experience and knowledge of stimulating drugs like amphetamines and esp. cocaine. The chance of psychosis from these line of drugs and the potential of abuse are of an order of magnitude worse, while we blindly prescribe our ADD and ADHD suffering kids to methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine salts (Adderall). I would advice you to look them up.
The abuse potential for these kind of drugs are huge with ADD/ADHD patients since their disorder pretty much means they require more dopamine stimulation to be able to complete tasks, and these drugs are very much addictive in nature because of their actions on the dopamine system.
Stimulating this area in the brain is way more "rewarding" than for example serotonergic drugs like LSD.
I understand that a lot of street drugs are adulterated or chemically inferior to the medical grade stuff, but it is still hypocritical and dangerous to make a Black/White area of what is supposedly not bad for you (i.e. prescriptions, OTC or legal substances ) and bad for you (controlled substances).
I understand that these drugs are prescribed under doctors supervision, but the reality learns that this is usually not a game stopper for abusers. Also they are being given to patients for a number of disorders without adequate research backing their perceived safety profile.
Long-term effects on kids and teenagers who have been on these medications are not known at all.
opponents & proponents are almost by definitions biased or dishonest.
Have you ever heard an anti-drug campaigner make the argument that LSD can have a valuable impact on creativity and perspective but overall the risks outweigh those benefits?
Oh and from this article:
"This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is born of a healthy respect for the risks involved"
You are literally spouting bullshit out of your ass. Insanity? Are you fucking kidding me?
Blow it out your ass pops, you're making shit up.
This kind of flatout lying is even worse than people who pretend drugs have no risks. Making risks up to scare people into agreeing with you is no better.
I'll second that. Having done my share of psychedelics, rest assured, you will meet the devil, and he will laugh while he plays you like the puppet that you are. Just ask Adam and Eve.
>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.
Reading other comments here: don't get hung up on his opening gambit: "Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness.". That's just an introductory point.
I recommend reading the whole article, which is a beautiful balance of science and spirit, while being totally upfront and honest about the risks involved, even to the spiritually 'serious'.
As for me - psychedelics changed everything, but I stayed the same (or maybe everything stayed the same, but sad parts of me continue to be stripped away).
They continue to burn what is not real, as long as the heart is directed squarely at Truth and the mind is kept sharp and open. The trend is towards greater compassion, deeper love and surrender, coming more fully into the wholeness of being!
LSD remains a Schedule 1 drug, even though it's about as dangerous as caffeine.
>"...if I knew my daughter would eventually develop a fondness for methamphetamine or crack cocaine, I might never sleep again. But if she does not try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in her adult life, I will worry that she may have missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience."
I couldn't agree more; reading the statement above made me want to stand up and cheer.
"Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness. We form friendships so that we can feel certain emotions, like love, and avoid others, like loneliness. We eat specific foods to enjoy their fleeting presence on our tongues."
We study and work for the purpose of altering the bits representing our bank account balances. Is that equivalent to hacking the bank and altering the bits directly?
We make friendships "to feel emotions like love". To what degree is it sane to misrepresent yourself and otherwise deceive people to make them your "friends"?
There's a contest for the shortest program printing itself to the screen. Is opening the file with the source code and copying the code to the screen really as good an entry as any other?
Any sane person and even most varieties of the insane person realize that the signal you're receiving is a means to infer that something is happening out there, not an end in itself.
This is not to say that there should or should not be a War on Drugs (which, since I'm not an American citizen, is really none of my business.)
The same complaint he makes about "drugs" can also be applied to terms like "legalization" and "regulation" and "prohibition". People react to the terms without coming to a common understanding of what the terms mean, and the conversation doesn't evolve.
For instance, one person can be anti-legalization, and another pro-legalization, and have an argument without realizing that they are both against prison sentences for non-violent crimes against the self. Also, for one person legalization might mean that every substance is openly available, whereas for another it might mean openly available in a highly regulated form, whereas for another it might mean that you have to have a license to ingest, or even an approach like Portugal's where you can still be apprehended(!) and made to appear before a panel even though it's without risk of a prison sentence.
I also think there's a lack of respect for our own proven cognitive biases, and our interconnected societies. I know several medical social workers that have first-hand experience with the negative impact that drug users have on our communities even if the users are technically only ingesting products into their own bodies, aren't dealing, and aren't negatively impacting immediate family members. People might think they are making responsible independent choices when they put some of these substances into their bodies, but that doesn't mean they're always correct - and the burden of these choices can then be put on the shoulders of larger society.
Psychedelics are a tool like any other. There is no such thing as "safe" use, which is why organizations like MAPS, DanceSafe, Erowid, etc all encourage the phrase "drug harm reduction." I have personally witnessed LSD destroy someone's life, and yet I have witnessed the same with alcohol (and am happy we have AA) and tobacco (cancer). The key, as with anything, is moderation and education.
That said, there has been a long trend of disinformation in the US, that has permeated all over the world. As a starting point, if people want to learn more about the crusade against cannabis (marijuana), check out Hank Anslinger and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger). For a more recent example, take a look at Rep Jared Polis questioning DEA Administrator Leonhart about why some drugs are illegal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgrB2Wmh5s.
With regards to scientific inquiry into measuring the effects of these drugs, thanks to the efforts of Roland Griffith at Johns Hopkins (and others), we're beginning to overturn 40 years of prohibition with studies into the effects of psilocybin (shrooms) and MDMA (ecstacy) for end of life experience and PTSD therapy.
If this interests you and you ask "why hasn't this been done before?", I recommend searching for interviews with Rick Doblin, PhD (founder of MAPS) where he explains his long battle with the DEA, and how they eventually turned to the FDA, which focuses more on the science than the politics.
So yes, it is fair to say that there hasn't been much scientific research done into this, but to no fault of the scientists. I look forward to the next few years as the results of these studies come out and the US hopefully begins to permit these substances to be used in therapy.
"Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness."
I very much respect Sam Harris for taking the consciousness problem seriously. It poses a real problem to (his) atheism, and he, obviously, rejects the substance dualism, which would logically lead to a religious view on us.
However, without a conscious soul, meaning itself loses meaning. What's the ontological support for meaning to rise on?
One thing that is little known about Christianity (as an example) of the first millenium is its fierce fight with illusions, hallucinations and misleading spiritual experiences. Contrary to popular beliefs that religious spiritual experiences are quickly taken for granted for their emotional gratification, this was really not the case. Spiritual experiences were not looked after. They were not provoked. On the contrary. Great care was taken as to discern real experiences from illusory or, worse, misleading ones. The same goes with miracles.
Discernment, the ability to discern over what's real or not, was the most important virtue. Something that modern Christianity, in many areas, has lost. And with it, its credibility.
Personally, I feel more gratified after working hard and increasing my ability/achievements than doing drugs.. Perhaps I haven't done the right drugs (though I've done my fair share)? I've never had something happens where the world suddenly made sense, nor have I felt some spiritual connection with the cosmos or my soul. I feel that the one true way to understand myself and the world is to live in it unaltered.
I don't think people are fully reading this article looking at the top comment...
>There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some level, an expression of the brain’s potential. Hence, whatever one has experienced after ingesting a drug like LSD is likely to have been experienced, by someone, somewhere, without it.
>I cannot account for why my adventures with psychedelics were uniformly pleasant until they weren’t—but when the doors to hell finally opened, they appear to have been left permanently ajar.
It is quite obvious this guy is someone who has well experimented with psychedelics and is actually urging people to avoid them if their approach is based on falsifiable reasoning e.g. 'opening their eyes to true reality/life' or some unscientific bullshit like that.
And WTF is all this commenting about how alcohol should be considered SO bad for a healthy society. Wine and beer in moderation is actually perfectly healthy. It is the lack of control for moderate consumption that creates a weakened human/society. However, this lack of self-control can appear in numerous other areas (food, internet, TV, work, etc.).
On my first trip to Nepal, I took a
rowboat out on Phewa Lake in Pokhara,
which offers a stunning view of the
Annapurna range. It was early morning,
and I was alone. As the sun rose over
the water, I ingested 400 micrograms
of LSD
I can't imagine what it must be like to be someone who would do something like that. I just... can't. Is that a sign of good judgment, or of cowardice?
LSD makes very smart people get hung up on trying to pull logic out of strange old metaphors. I always felt it was a stimulant for the mechanism in our brain that makes new connections. Metaphors represent connections that are kept around because our culture gives value to vague non-conclusions.
I think the problem with drugs in society today can definitely be largely attributed to governments setting the bar to "dangerous, addictive and illegal" and smart people have to move down from there and educate themselves.
Alexander Shulgin who synthesized and researched around 150 phenethylamines and tryptamines said it pretty well:
"had been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained within the white solid ... I understood that our entire universe is contained in the mind and the spirit. We may choose not to find access to it, we may even deny its existence, but it is indeed there inside us, and there are chemicals that can catalyze its availability."
He is also responsible for introducing MDMA and later 2CB to psychiatrists. Even recreational drug users are now using "Shulgin trials" and overall I feel a lot of my peers try to educate themselves, but unfortunately are often misinformed.
You can actually only a good idea on how to use certain drugs responsible if you are aware of at least the most important biochemical functions such as P450 liver enzyme, MAOis and especially the monoamine transport system. You need to be aware of for example drug interactions with SSRI's and serotonin releasing agents.
For example:
grapefruit juice is a weak MAOI inhibitor and can potentate the effect of certain drugs. Stronger MAOIs could pose lethal danger.
St Johns Wort also has a lot of interactions as it works as a SSRI, and sold over the counter as a supplement here.
It is found in trials to be as effective as benzo's in cases of anxiety.
Mostly, psychedelics are looked down upon by society, while we feed our kids methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, l-amphetamine, lithium, a whole scala of benzodiazepene's, tryptans, and antipsychotics.
Hey people, they work on exactly the same neurons... dummies.
Maybe we should start banning essential and non essential amino acids, and antioxidants.
OR maybe we should start educating about proper their benefit of preventing drug induced neurotoxicity as a neuroprotective agent and as replenishment of used up GABA, serotonin, dopamine etc.
I'm 26, live in the Netherlands, using mushrooms a dozen times from my 15th-18th, never touching anything else except for smoking weed and alcohol, I found it mind-opening, I really felt reborn after I experienced an ego-death and my mind melted into nothingness. It was like this feeling of bliss and comfort and letting-go, there is nothing that ever compared to it.
I would say the occasional binge drinking we did at parties en masse would be considered a lot more harmful by doctors, but guess which one got the ban?
I would consider my drug using peers often cautious, seemingly educated but often ill-informed, which I perceive to be due to the 'evil' bias that is often noted.
They now know about the good and bad effects of certain drugs, but not HOW they work. If they would have this information more readily educated they could be made aware of responsible use and harm reduction, and then make their own choices.
Parents could also be able to make their own choices of putting their kids on synthetic cocaine or amphetamines. Hey weed worked for me, and it is frowned down upon.
Also L-Theanine+caffeïne (i.e. tea, but it doesn't contain a lot of theanine per cup) is proven to be really effective in focus, and relaxation. It lowers blood pressure, ups dopamine, and therefor it works great in treating anxiety.
St Johns Wort is also proven to be as effective as benzo's in treating depression.
L-Tyrosine is a precursor to dopa as well, and replenishes the neurons.
5-HTP is a precursor to serotonin/melatonin.
I'm often upset with people taking melatonin and ruining their chemical balance. Let your brain synthesize it for you please.. or it will stop doing it altogether!
I don't find that taking a drug is any different than eating food or drinking water. You get hungry, so you eat and gain energy and feel fullness on your stomach, which leads you to drowsiness. Of course, conventionally, taking drugs(like smoking weed or taking MDMA) is done for different reasons than just survival.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|12 years ago|reply
Amongst the goodies from the book are this chart [2], which plots dependence risk against toxicologists' ratings of physical harm for various psychoactive substances. Nutt memorably compared the "20 drugs considered in the ISCD’s 2010 report, ranked by overall harm" with their legal Class and "found a correlation of 0.04 – which means that there was effectively no relationship at all."
Also: "Francis Crick, who discovered the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson, and Kary Mullis, who invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), had both taken [LSD], and attributed some of their understanding and insights to it."
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/190686... Drugs Without the Hot Air: Minimising the Harms of Legal and Illegal Drugs by David Nutt
[2] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_...
[+] [-] Alex3917|12 years ago|reply
This is in large part because Nutt's research is entirely fraudulent. C.f. my previous analysis here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4044431
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] corr0|12 years ago|reply
This is scary:
Independence => 0 correlation
but
~(0 correlation => independence)
Please get your basic statistic straight.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Xcelerate|12 years ago|reply
I get the impression that people who have tried drugs before are incredulous that there exist people who are simply apathetic about the whole experience.
[+] [-] freshhawk|12 years ago|reply
I personally have met a fair number of people who claim to have the same or similar beliefs about this as you. But every single one who I've had a friendly conversation with about it has turned out to not be apathetic or even close. It has always been some combination of fear of loss of control, some desire to stay "pure" or an ideological commitment to the fact that these things are "bad" because they got told so as children.
I ask whenever I can, and I ask in the most friendly, non-judgmental way possible because in my experience the average reaction to someone saying what you said is much more aggressive and confrontational than merely "incredulous". But I ask because I'm honestly very curious about this. It seems so odd to categorically state that there are some perfectly safe experiences you are positive that you will never try. Are there other experiences you feel the same way about? ("I never have, and never plan to try eating Greek food, it's because of apathy" for example)
If in the future you are in an accident or require chemotherapy or something that involves you being exposed to drugs that have an effect that you enjoy and find fulfilling/useful/pleasurable and you could experience that again, with negligible risk of any adverse effects would you do so?
[+] [-] dwc|12 years ago|reply
Take into account the actual effects and remove social stigma and legal ramifications, and the substances I'd be ok with for my children would be different than current norms.
Also, I've known quite a few people who have never had a drink, smoked pot, etc., and I respect their desires. Bit even they drank coffee or tea, or used other substances that alter mood or perception.
[+] [-] Nursie|12 years ago|reply
That was part of the point of the article.
[+] [-] arg01|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alwaysinshade|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] herbig|12 years ago|reply
He doesn't assume she's going to try all sorts of things at all. At least I didn't read that into anything he said.
I'm 29, and I've never tried alcohol or drugs aside from caffeine, and I have not had the same feelings of incredulity from anyone.
Also, I'd bet that our apathy comes from our never having experienced drugs, rather than some innate apathy to the idea.
[+] [-] Oxxide|12 years ago|reply
Psychedelics are a tool to be used for self discovery, not some seedy thing only losers use. Maybe you are the one who is blinded by preconceptions here, not him.
[+] [-] JacksonGariety|12 years ago|reply
You may think you've never used drugs but you have, you just don't understand the meaning of the word.
I'd try and think of "drugs" less like substances and more like vices. If you've ever used a vice to help yourself emotionally or physically you've taken drugs.
[+] [-] philthesong|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hristov|12 years ago|reply
To mention one of the more recent fruits of psychedelics -- the guy that shot that US congresswoman in the head fried his brain on mushrooms.
Yeah the drug war is horrible but people that promote dangerous drugs and lie about their safety are almost as bad. A convenient lie is a very dangerous thing. Because if people want to believe something they are much more likely to believe it. 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.
There are a few writers that have tried drugs and are completely honest about them, but they are very few. It is very hard for a drug user to be honest about drugs. I would recommend Philip K Dick. If anyone wants to try hard drugs, please read "A scanner darkly", and then read a Philip K Dick biography to see that he knew what he was talking about.
[+] [-] Nursie|12 years ago|reply
Do you have numbers and studies on this? Was it just LSD or have they been chronic multi-drug users for multiple years?
Because your statements directly conflict with the state of the art of current research.
>> There are a few writers that have tried drugs and are completely honest about them, but they are very few. It is very hard for a drug user to be honest about drugs. I would recommend Philip K Dick. If anyone wants to try hard drugs, please read "A scanner darkly", and then read a Philip K Dick biography to see that he knew what he was talking about.
PKD and his friends were indeed into all sorts of things, and got into all sorts of trouble.
His main complaint seems to have been that nobody told them what was safe and what was not, and that through innocent experimentation all sorts of bad things happened.
Hysterical disinformation, which is all we've had from government for around 30 years now, does nothing to help this. Nothing.
[+] [-] eightyone|12 years ago|reply
> "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 anymore."
> "To mention one of the more recent fruits of psychedelics -- the guy that shot that US congresswoman in the head fried his brain on mushrooms."
Don't make outlandish claims if you're not going to bother to cite your sources. Also, even if what your claiming regarding the Arizona shooter is true, I have a mustache, does that mean I'm going to commit genocide?
[+] [-] ramblerman|12 years ago|reply
You obviously didn't read the full essay if that is what you came away with. The book you cite is about amphetamines. Throwing Amphetamines and Psychedelics into the general "drugs" category really betrays your complete lack of any knowledge on this subject.
Finally I agree that pro-drug advocates will certainly be biased but you are on the other end of the spectrum. You seem to claim author's aren't truthful about their experiences with drugs unless it's negative?
[+] [-] kinghajj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
LSD does not cause people to be schizophrenic; schizophrenia shows itself during the most likely years for people to be experimenting with drugs.
edit: and to add to what kinghajj mentioned about Philip K. Dick; Dick was on amphetamines, and amphetamines have a very established history of actually making you long-term crazy.
[+] [-] alexhill|12 years ago|reply
This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.
and
Even if drugs like LSD are biologically safe, the potential for extremely unpleasant and destabilizing experiences presents its own risks. I believe I was positively affected for weeks and months by my good trips, and negatively affected by the bad ones. Given these roulette-like odds, one can only recommend these experiences with caution.
and
But as the peaks are high, the valleys are deep. My “bad trips” were, without question, the most harrowing hours I have ever suffered—and they make the notion of hell, as a metaphor if not a destination, seem perfectly apt.
It's pretty even-handed, overall.
[+] [-] 6d0debc071|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] easy_rider|12 years ago|reply
Responsible self-admission of controlled substances would always advocate starting at the dose that might cause an adverse allergic reaction of some sort, and move up from there.
I've seen a Scanner Darkly, and I've tried hard drugs. In my experience and knowledge of stimulating drugs like amphetamines and esp. cocaine. The chance of psychosis from these line of drugs and the potential of abuse are of an order of magnitude worse, while we blindly prescribe our ADD and ADHD suffering kids to methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine salts (Adderall). I would advice you to look them up.
The abuse potential for these kind of drugs are huge with ADD/ADHD patients since their disorder pretty much means they require more dopamine stimulation to be able to complete tasks, and these drugs are very much addictive in nature because of their actions on the dopamine system. Stimulating this area in the brain is way more "rewarding" than for example serotonergic drugs like LSD.
I understand that a lot of street drugs are adulterated or chemically inferior to the medical grade stuff, but it is still hypocritical and dangerous to make a Black/White area of what is supposedly not bad for you (i.e. prescriptions, OTC or legal substances ) and bad for you (controlled substances).
I understand that these drugs are prescribed under doctors supervision, but the reality learns that this is usually not a game stopper for abusers. Also they are being given to patients for a number of disorders without adequate research backing their perceived safety profile. Long-term effects on kids and teenagers who have been on these medications are not known at all.
[+] [-] netcan|12 years ago|reply
Have you ever heard an anti-drug campaigner make the argument that LSD can have a valuable impact on creativity and perspective but overall the risks outweigh those benefits?
Oh and from this article:
"This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is born of a healthy respect for the risks involved"
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Oxxide|12 years ago|reply
Blow it out your ass pops, you're making shit up.
This kind of flatout lying is even worse than people who pretend drugs have no risks. Making risks up to scare people into agreeing with you is no better.
[+] [-] ohwp|12 years ago|reply
LSD is indeed harmful but not as harmful as you might think.
[+] [-] ygmelnikova|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burgerz|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] josscrowcroft|12 years ago|reply
I recommend reading the whole article, which is a beautiful balance of science and spirit, while being totally upfront and honest about the risks involved, even to the spiritually 'serious'.
As for me - psychedelics changed everything, but I stayed the same (or maybe everything stayed the same, but sad parts of me continue to be stripped away).
They continue to burn what is not real, as long as the heart is directed squarely at Truth and the mind is kept sharp and open. The trend is towards greater compassion, deeper love and surrender, coming more fully into the wholeness of being!
[+] [-] ignostic|12 years ago|reply
I'd say stigmatization and legalization tend to correlate well, but sadly neither law nor cultural attitude have much to do with actual danger.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...
LSD remains a Schedule 1 drug, even though it's about as dangerous as caffeine.
>"...if I knew my daughter would eventually develop a fondness for methamphetamine or crack cocaine, I might never sleep again. But if she does not try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in her adult life, I will worry that she may have missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience."
I couldn't agree more; reading the statement above made me want to stand up and cheer.
[+] [-] drugthrowaway|12 years ago|reply
The only thing that bothers me about stigmatization and legalization is the 40+ year old crowd that feel marijuana should not be legal.
[+] [-] tptacek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _yosefk|12 years ago|reply
We study and work for the purpose of altering the bits representing our bank account balances. Is that equivalent to hacking the bank and altering the bits directly?
We make friendships "to feel emotions like love". To what degree is it sane to misrepresent yourself and otherwise deceive people to make them your "friends"?
There's a contest for the shortest program printing itself to the screen. Is opening the file with the source code and copying the code to the screen really as good an entry as any other?
Any sane person and even most varieties of the insane person realize that the signal you're receiving is a means to infer that something is happening out there, not an end in itself.
This is not to say that there should or should not be a War on Drugs (which, since I'm not an American citizen, is really none of my business.)
[+] [-] tunesmith|12 years ago|reply
For instance, one person can be anti-legalization, and another pro-legalization, and have an argument without realizing that they are both against prison sentences for non-violent crimes against the self. Also, for one person legalization might mean that every substance is openly available, whereas for another it might mean openly available in a highly regulated form, whereas for another it might mean that you have to have a license to ingest, or even an approach like Portugal's where you can still be apprehended(!) and made to appear before a panel even though it's without risk of a prison sentence.
I also think there's a lack of respect for our own proven cognitive biases, and our interconnected societies. I know several medical social workers that have first-hand experience with the negative impact that drug users have on our communities even if the users are technically only ingesting products into their own bodies, aren't dealing, and aren't negatively impacting immediate family members. People might think they are making responsible independent choices when they put some of these substances into their bodies, but that doesn't mean they're always correct - and the burden of these choices can then be put on the shoulders of larger society.
[+] [-] aestetix|12 years ago|reply
Psychedelics are a tool like any other. There is no such thing as "safe" use, which is why organizations like MAPS, DanceSafe, Erowid, etc all encourage the phrase "drug harm reduction." I have personally witnessed LSD destroy someone's life, and yet I have witnessed the same with alcohol (and am happy we have AA) and tobacco (cancer). The key, as with anything, is moderation and education.
That said, there has been a long trend of disinformation in the US, that has permeated all over the world. As a starting point, if people want to learn more about the crusade against cannabis (marijuana), check out Hank Anslinger and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger). For a more recent example, take a look at Rep Jared Polis questioning DEA Administrator Leonhart about why some drugs are illegal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgrB2Wmh5s.
With regards to scientific inquiry into measuring the effects of these drugs, thanks to the efforts of Roland Griffith at Johns Hopkins (and others), we're beginning to overturn 40 years of prohibition with studies into the effects of psilocybin (shrooms) and MDMA (ecstacy) for end of life experience and PTSD therapy.
Some links to that research: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/ http://www.maps.org/research/psilo-lsd/
If this interests you and you ask "why hasn't this been done before?", I recommend searching for interviews with Rick Doblin, PhD (founder of MAPS) where he explains his long battle with the DEA, and how they eventually turned to the FDA, which focuses more on the science than the politics.
So yes, it is fair to say that there hasn't been much scientific research done into this, but to no fault of the scientists. I look forward to the next few years as the results of these studies come out and the US hopefully begins to permit these substances to be used in therapy.
[+] [-] cristianpascu|12 years ago|reply
I very much respect Sam Harris for taking the consciousness problem seriously. It poses a real problem to (his) atheism, and he, obviously, rejects the substance dualism, which would logically lead to a religious view on us.
However, without a conscious soul, meaning itself loses meaning. What's the ontological support for meaning to rise on?
One thing that is little known about Christianity (as an example) of the first millenium is its fierce fight with illusions, hallucinations and misleading spiritual experiences. Contrary to popular beliefs that religious spiritual experiences are quickly taken for granted for their emotional gratification, this was really not the case. Spiritual experiences were not looked after. They were not provoked. On the contrary. Great care was taken as to discern real experiences from illusory or, worse, misleading ones. The same goes with miracles.
Discernment, the ability to discern over what's real or not, was the most important virtue. Something that modern Christianity, in many areas, has lost. And with it, its credibility.
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StandardFuture|12 years ago|reply
>There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some level, an expression of the brain’s potential. Hence, whatever one has experienced after ingesting a drug like LSD is likely to have been experienced, by someone, somewhere, without it.
>I cannot account for why my adventures with psychedelics were uniformly pleasant until they weren’t—but when the doors to hell finally opened, they appear to have been left permanently ajar.
It is quite obvious this guy is someone who has well experimented with psychedelics and is actually urging people to avoid them if their approach is based on falsifiable reasoning e.g. 'opening their eyes to true reality/life' or some unscientific bullshit like that.
And WTF is all this commenting about how alcohol should be considered SO bad for a healthy society. Wine and beer in moderation is actually perfectly healthy. It is the lack of control for moderate consumption that creates a weakened human/society. However, this lack of self-control can appear in numerous other areas (food, internet, TV, work, etc.).
[+] [-] makeset|12 years ago|reply
EDIT: Guys, relax. It was a joke. You think anyone goes and calls their own mind a Ferrari seriously? Jeez.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkhanna|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] casual_slacker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] easy_rider|12 years ago|reply
"had been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained within the white solid ... I understood that our entire universe is contained in the mind and the spirit. We may choose not to find access to it, we may even deny its existence, but it is indeed there inside us, and there are chemicals that can catalyze its availability."
He is also responsible for introducing MDMA and later 2CB to psychiatrists. Even recreational drug users are now using "Shulgin trials" and overall I feel a lot of my peers try to educate themselves, but unfortunately are often misinformed.
You can actually only a good idea on how to use certain drugs responsible if you are aware of at least the most important biochemical functions such as P450 liver enzyme, MAOis and especially the monoamine transport system. You need to be aware of for example drug interactions with SSRI's and serotonin releasing agents. For example: grapefruit juice is a weak MAOI inhibitor and can potentate the effect of certain drugs. Stronger MAOIs could pose lethal danger. St Johns Wort also has a lot of interactions as it works as a SSRI, and sold over the counter as a supplement here. It is found in trials to be as effective as benzo's in cases of anxiety.
Mostly, psychedelics are looked down upon by society, while we feed our kids methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, l-amphetamine, lithium, a whole scala of benzodiazepene's, tryptans, and antipsychotics. Hey people, they work on exactly the same neurons... dummies. Maybe we should start banning essential and non essential amino acids, and antioxidants. OR maybe we should start educating about proper their benefit of preventing drug induced neurotoxicity as a neuroprotective agent and as replenishment of used up GABA, serotonin, dopamine etc.
I'm 26, live in the Netherlands, using mushrooms a dozen times from my 15th-18th, never touching anything else except for smoking weed and alcohol, I found it mind-opening, I really felt reborn after I experienced an ego-death and my mind melted into nothingness. It was like this feeling of bliss and comfort and letting-go, there is nothing that ever compared to it. I would say the occasional binge drinking we did at parties en masse would be considered a lot more harmful by doctors, but guess which one got the ban? I would consider my drug using peers often cautious, seemingly educated but often ill-informed, which I perceive to be due to the 'evil' bias that is often noted. They now know about the good and bad effects of certain drugs, but not HOW they work. If they would have this information more readily educated they could be made aware of responsible use and harm reduction, and then make their own choices.
Parents could also be able to make their own choices of putting their kids on synthetic cocaine or amphetamines. Hey weed worked for me, and it is frowned down upon. Also L-Theanine+caffeïne (i.e. tea, but it doesn't contain a lot of theanine per cup) is proven to be really effective in focus, and relaxation. It lowers blood pressure, ups dopamine, and therefor it works great in treating anxiety. St Johns Wort is also proven to be as effective as benzo's in treating depression. L-Tyrosine is a precursor to dopa as well, and replenishes the neurons. 5-HTP is a precursor to serotonin/melatonin. I'm often upset with people taking melatonin and ruining their chemical balance. Let your brain synthesize it for you please.. or it will stop doing it altogether!
[+] [-] philthesong|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajackrabbit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|12 years ago|reply