Hey this "friend of mine" subscribes to Playboy and in this months issue there's a pretty decent article on the use of MDMA, LCD etc. for people who are dieing and need "end of life treatment"
MDMA was also (at its outset) used (in small doses) during relationship therapy and PTSD with great success. There's been little ongoing research since it was relegated to Schedule I, but there's been some at least.
I could be wrong, and I stopped using recreational drugs altogether after developing panic disorder in 2008-- I don't know if there's a connection between my past drug use and the disorder, but I thought the first attacks were bad salvia "flashbacks" or possibly God punishing me for being reckless-- but I think that everything beneficial that can be achieved with psychoactive drugs can be achieved, in time, with meditation. The difference is that meditation takes time and discipline before you start having experiences, while drugs provide experiences right away, but aren't always safe.
I've often made this analogy. Meditation is like riding your bike into the woods. When you start out, you're not in shape so you don't get very far, but you don't end up farther in than you can handle. Psychedelics are like hitchhiking: you get a lot farther, don't always know where the fuck you are, and can usually get back safely (but not always).
Your analogy of meditation being like riding into the woods is great. Its only flaw, however, is in the assertion that both meditation and psychedelic experience arrive at the same mental state. Minus that, likening meditation to progressive, incremental bicycle trips into the forest is accurate and sets a person up wonderfully to begin the discipline.
Psychedelic drugs provide an experience of absorption like a trance. When one is absorbed in such a state, it's the first direct experience of a sense of self that is immaterial (but finite). Buddhist meditation (samadhi or "right concentration" in the Noble Eightfold Path) goes very far beyond that and into very different states of consciousness.
Gil Fronsdal is a Stanford Ph.D who teaches clearly, logically, and in stepwise progression. You can learn here:
If you're interested in empirical studies of samadhi, Dr. James Austin published a book called "Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness" from MIT press.
I hope this helps alleviate your panic and brings you clarity and harmony of mind.
Psychoactive drugs shouldn't be illegal, but they can be dangerous. They provide a lot of spiritual and psychological benefits for a lot of people, but have also wrecked a lot of people. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (including Rx) and alcohol are probably the worst, as far as I've seen. Psychedelics don't seem to be as damaging in general-- I think it could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin-- but becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea. I find it astonishing that, although psychedelic experiences can be very interesting and illuminating, the vast majority of frequent drug users (e.g. 2-4x/month LSD users) are exhaustingly boring people.
Psychedelics are a completely different class of drug, of course, from coke and alcohol. Most people lump together utterly different behaviors (cocaine at a party vs. shrooms in the woods) into "doing drugs", and that isn't really fair. I think psychedelics have a lot of value to offer humanity, but they are dangerous and we, as a society, need to rediscover safe means of using them.
"could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin"
That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely misguided the public is about the subject.
"but have also wrecked a lot of people ... becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea ... are exhaustingly boring people."
It's also interesting that many people can't help but view this issue through the prism of their own cultural biases, stereotypes and anecdotes.
That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely miguided the public is about the subject.
I could be wrong, but as I understand it, they're different categories of danger altogether. Alcohol can kill you. Psilocybin can't, but it is at least possible that it can lead to mental illness. Although the probability of psilocybin leading to lifelong psychosis seems to be astronomically low, that's a fate I'd easily mark as 10 times worse than early death... so there's more downside to the psychedelics. At least with psychedelics, the risks are more subjective and much more poorly understood.
Ever have a terrifyingly bad trip? Or a panic attack? If the answer to both is no, and you haven't been to war (I haven't), you have no idea of the depths of negative human experience, nor of post-event fallout. Having suffered from panic attacks and endured bad trips, I'd be terrified to go anywhere near even a 1 in 1 million chance of lifelong mental illness, even though I take that risk of death every day just by being alive.
I don't know what the probability of having a psychotic break on shrooms is. I bet it's low, but it seems to happen. The open question is whether these psychological events were "waiting in the wings" so to speak. It has been argued that the people having these problems were doomed to have them anyway, and that the drugs merely sped them along, but the jury seems to still be out on that one.
With alcohol, we have an extremely dangerous drug but we know what the dangers are, and we're generally pretty good at dosage control (which we have to be, since the ratio between a fatal dose and the average recreational dose is so low). When I buy a beer, I know how much alcohol I'm getting and can control the dosage.
In cultures that use psychedelics for religious purposes, there's no increased risk of mental illness for users of the substances, which leads me to believe that the substances themselves are actually pretty safe, but we're talking about people who have been using the substances responsibly for decades. It's difficult to use them in our context so pristinely-- the supply comes from an illegal scumbag market that provides unreliable goods, dosage is erratic, users are generally uneducated about what they're doing and have psychological hangups (I believe that guilt/fear about using drugs is one of the causes of bad trips).
It's also interesting that many people can't help but view this issue through the prism of their own cultural biases, stereotypes and anecdotes.
Look: I've actually used these drugs, and I know that for many people, they're provide wonderful experiences. I've had a few great experiences on them, even though I don't use them now and probably never will.
The people I'm talking about are the party types who are using these drugs all the time, to the point that drugs are the only things in their lives. That's what I mean by "acidhead", "e-tard", etc. and that's a terrible road to go down. I'm not talking about the person who uses acid a couple times per year or even a couple times per month. I'm talking about the people who use them so intensely and frequently that they start organizing their lives around drugs instead of the other way around. (I highly doubt that you're in this category, seeing as you post on HN.)
"I don't know what the probability of having a psychotic break on shrooms is. I bet it's low, but it seems to happen"
That's the point. Although the relationship between psilocybin and psychosis is unclear, it's already very well established that alcohol aggravates mental disorders and causes psychosis. On top of that, all available evidence suggests that psilocybin is very physically safe, while all available evidence suggests that alcohol is very physically unsafe.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe that psilocybin is anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol, and it's a gross disservice to even entertain the myth.
Furthermore, alcohol isn't the only legal substance that is connected with psychosis; a number of prescription drugs and even caffeine are linked to it.
"That's what I mean by "acidhead", "e-tard", etc. and that's a terrible road to go down"
But do these stereotypes really provide any value to this discussion? For just about any thing there is a subculture that indulges in that thing and people who hate that subculture. Should we ban plush animals because people find furries intolerable?
On top of that, all available evidence suggests that psilocybin is very physically safe, while all available evidence suggests that alcohol is very physically unsafe.
This is interesting. What about the danger of bad trips? For example, I know that if I drink 2 beers, I'll get a buzz and as long as I don't drive, I'm safe. I don't know that with regard to shrooms. I've never had a bad trip on those, but I've had terrifying salvia trips, and I have a problem with panic attacks, so I don't have that assurance and would tend to avoid using them.
Do you believe that psilocybin would be relatively safe if used under proper circumstances? I'd love for that to be true.
I'd feel pretty confident saying that a low dosage isn't going to cause a bad trip capable of long-term damage. At high-dosages, sure, there's some danger there, although even then, there is a huge difference between a bad trip and an unenjoyable trip. Sometimes the most important trips long-term are those that were uncomfortable at the time (facing unpleasant truths).
Also, going back to alcohol, with 2 beers, I'll give you that the risk is low. But as that goes up, not only does the potential damage from the alcohol go up, but also your behavior. Increased aggression, etc. I know a guy who broke his hand because he punched a wall while drunk, etc.
Also... do you know any true alcoholics? I mean the real dysfunctional kind? They are worse than any e-head I know. Waiting outside the liquor store at 11 am til it opens, drinking the entire bottle the moment they leave, etc... They are right up there with the worst of drug addicts. I've never even heard of that happening from mushrooms.
"Alcohol is also a common risk of causing psychotic disorders or episodes. Research has shown that alcohol abuse causes an 8-fold increase in psychotic disorders in men and a 3 fold increased risk of psychotic disorders in women. Alcoholic psychosis is sometimes misdiagnosed as a mental illness such as schizophrenia."
The people I'm talking about are the party types who are using these drugs all the time, to the point that drugs are the only things in their lives.
That doesn't seem a very strong argument. I would argue that everything is subject to psychological addiction. Gambling, World of Warcraft, the Internet, sex... it's physical addiction what should be controlled. I could see the point on banning, say, crack. Or alcohol. Or tobacco. But hallucinogens?
I believe his point was that the research is more conclusive that alcohol leads to psychosis than hallucinogens.
And people (in general) aren't all that great at controlling alcohol dosages. If it wasn't for the bodies natural reaction (becoming incapacitated), people would die all the time. How many times have you seen people vomiting (in the bathroom, if we're lucky) or passed out due to drinking too much?
If you mean dosage per drink, I'd again they say that falls out naturally based on the amount of alcohol people can handle to taste, rather than proof of rational control.
The experiences become a lot less profound for the frequent users, and they themselves also become a lot more messed up. The truth is that if you have a psychedelic experience every Friday night, it's not nearly as interesting.
With spiritual practice, you gain a sort of humility and perspective along the way. It's not only about experiences, but also community and morality. For people who use the drugs to get the experiences, but don't grow in the other dimensions, it just leads to nihilism once the novelty wears off. Acidheads' lives become empty and there's little benefit in exploring an empty mind.
Some people use LSD as a party drug, and I think this results in a lot of the bad trips. It's dangerous as well as idiotic, and indicates that a person is missing the point if you ask me, but the behavior exists.
My memory of LSD was that the first 8 hours were mind-blowing and amazing (and not particularly scary) but the last 4 were a bit unpleasant, like I had an itch in my mind I couldn't scratch (but not as bad as a bad trip or a panic attack). I dropped at 3:40 pm, peaked at 6, and started getting tired of the whole endeavor by midnight. At 1:30 am I was trying desperately to get to sleep (impossible on LSD) and annoyed that my mind kept playing tricks on itself. Thankfully, my girlfriend (at the time) was there to reassure me that this was normal and would end.
I've often thought, though, that the intensity of LSD and mushrooms is related to the duration of time one is in a psychedelic/meditative state (when psychedelics are not used in a meditative state, they're wasted). I bet that if I had the focus to meditate for 6 hours, it'd be as powerful of an experience (or moreso) than a shrooms trip; same with 12 hours viz. LSD.
Among the tight knit group of friends that I had the majority of my psychedelic experiences with, we dubbed that 4 hour period after the peak as "Cranky Religion." It's when you've reached a point where you feel enlightened but too tired to give a damn. You mostly sit around and relate to one another how messed up society is.
Given how personal and intense my experiences were for both how I relate to myself and the world, but also with my relationship with my best friends, I can't imagine really doing LSD or Mushrooms in a rave/party like environment.
It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up?
And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.
This is (good) news for two reasons. 1) The evidence is now much better. The old studies weren't double blind and were otherwise flawed procedurally. 2) The government (many agencies) approved of the studies after decades of denials. EDIT: plus reason 3) demonstrating lack of negative side-effects.
The scientists who are behind them have made significant (to put it mildly) sacrifices to advance a cause that you will benefit from. "Irritation" is an ungracious reaction (to put it mildly).
Well: some people. And "known" from their own uncontrolled (in the scientific sense) trials.
Seems to me that the important thing in this report is the systematic research using controlled studies.
Perhaps most helpful was the evidence that side-effects or negative reactions were quite infrequent and were manageable by attendants (aka "guides" in the 60s). Those types of findings might eventually open the door for public funding of research (note that most studies were funded by psychedelic-sympathetic agencies).
"These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments."
Actually they are the first to do most of them. Back in the 60s they used to use LSD, which they no longer use because it's too long lasting and also because of its bad reputation. We also now have an empirically derived mysticism scale which wasn't available in the 60s, as well as a bunch of new methodologies that are much tighter than what they were using for the good friday experiments.
Not to mention that in the 60s the studies they were doing weren't on end-of-life anxiety, and it wasn't even known that ego death was the key mediating variable.
edit: And, most importantly, the reason they're doing these experiments is to get psilocybin approved as a drug by the FDA. And I somehow doubt the argument that because LSD had some similar benefits in minimally controlled trials 50 years ago, that psilocybin should now be moved to schedule 3 without safety or efficacy testing.
If you went and searched Google Scholar or JSTOR I'm sure you could find the rest of the papers based on that. I'm pretty sure that Roland Griffiths also mentions it here:
Well, what's irritating to me is the reason they've had to "rediscover" it: the prohibitions our government imposes on what private individuals do to their own bodies.
How do psychedelics get people thinking for themselves? I've been in and around that culture, and I still wanted to go work at some crappy job so I could be a consumer.
I've found that a having clear mind is a much more conducive to uncovering the matrix than being high is.
Could you expand on that? Perhaps, if you're comfortable with it, explain your experience with hallucinogens and the conclusions you came to in the end?
2. You lose your ability for self-deception, so when you come face to face with your problems you are forced to be completely honest about them. And once you're honest with yourself, it's very hard not to go through with changing your life for the better.
3. You get to diff your ordinary state of consciousness against your altered state of consciousness. This allows you to learn a ton about how your mind works, changes your theories about how lots of phenomena work, changes your assumptions about reality, etc.
4. If you take what Terence McKenna would call a 'heroic dosage', you might come up against 'the cosmic giggle'. That is, you come face to face with god or aliens or things that go completely against all of western science. And what's really interesting is that in double blind academic studies, multiple people have very similar encounters with alien entities even though they have no had no contact with each other. (C.f. Rick Strassman's book DMT: The Spirit Molecule.)
I have added an entry in my wordpress TODOLIST about my experience with hallucinogens. I'll email it to you when it's ready. BTW, you say "email me" in your profile, but you don't provide an email address!
I dont know why you're getting downvoted. Hallucinogens make many people question their environment. When someone starts asking questions they are harder to control.
For example, if everyone started asking themselves why they are chasing the American dream or what it really is then our economic landscape would look very different.
There are a lot of motivations behind the anti-drug movement, many of which are ignoble, but I think genuine concern is one of them. Most people don't want their children using them, and the drugs are dangerous, at least when used recklessly as they often are. Also, most people don't make the distinction between "hedonistic" drug use, such as using cocaine, and exploratory/psychedelic drug use, which is a different lifestyle altogether.
Most people who have a problem with LSD aren't worried about the "free thinking", because they don't associate these drugs with expanded consciousness. They're afraid that their kid will have a bad trip and develop long-lasting psychological problems (which is unlikely but not impossible).
People who are aware of the power and potential benefits of psychedelics are generally against criminalization, which decreases drug use but increases drug-related harm substantially.
And yet we daily send our children off into the world in, amongst and behind the wheel of automobiles, when cars have a far, far higher incidence of causing property damage, permanent debilitation and fatality.
The risks of drugs are certainly real and some concern is absolutely genuine. But the dangers of drugs are treated completely out-of-context with any number of other aspects of modern life.
Secondary objection: I don't think it's ever been convincingly shown that criminalization decreases drug use. Last I'd read, the opposite seems to have been occurring in areas that have legalized drugs.
"when cars have a far, far higher incidence of causing property damage, permanent debilitation and fatality."
But we are used to cars. Cars are "normal" (and therefore just fine). The more I observe human nature, the more I see that most people make decisions using "normal" as a reference point.
But the dangers of drugs are treated completely out-of-context with any number of other aspects of modern life.
I agree, especially in comparison to the overprescription of stimulants to children and students.
I don't think it's ever been convincingly shown that criminalization decreases drug use. Last I'd read, the opposite seems to have been occurring in areas that have legalized drugs.
That could be, but it's counterintuitive, so I've always believed the opposite. However, it's irrelevant because, even if drug use increases, if drug-related harm goes down, this is a good thing and should be encouraged. Whether people choose to use drugs is their own business; harm reduction should be the goal.
You need a piece of paper (degree) from an educational institution to make these claims. Otherwise you get arrested/have serious problems. Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery".
"Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery"."
So have completely insane people. If only we had some way to tell when people were full of shit...oh wait, thanks science!
In the case of most pharmaceuticals, the best science can tell us is that this chemical correlates with that effect. We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake -- just that it does it. The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials. (Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works, however anathema it may be to the traditional Western mindset.)
re: the MoA of aspirin, I stand corrected; thank you.
Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions...
I only have direct experience with ayahuasca shamanism, but for that case, they do have most of those things, as well as demonstrable, and reproducible, curative effects, and have reportedly had them for thousands of years. (Obviously, that last isn't a claim I can very well verify.)
...anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story.
Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't.
Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.
'1) Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't.
2) Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.'
1) You're talking about a very small number of people, relatively speaking, over a very long period of time, compounded with a lot of mostly second hand, passed down knowledge that has absolutely no recorded data, ie: at best a ton of correlation without causation (correct me if I'm wrong). Humans have been wrong many times before like this, and for just as long, under similar circumstances.
2) You're talking about something very specific, reproducible, and testable. I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, but there is a very real and demonstrably greater value to this kind of information.
Shamans also use things like ayahuasca, which is a MAOI and thus can have lethal interactions with other things. That might be somewhat related to the whole need for "legitimate" study.
The shamans who lead ayahuasca ceremonies are usually rather strict about who they'll let participate -- particularly if they're dealing with people from the first world, and the panoply of chemicals we put in our bodies. When I went to Peru to drink aya, we were specifically disallowed to take any Western medicines, except an anti-malarial, without consulting the shaman first (and had to discontinue use of them weeks before going down there), leaving completely aside the strict dietary and other restrictions during and for some time after the trip.
They've been doing this for thousands of years; I'm pretty sure they have far a better idea of the risks than your comment seems to me to intimate. (Assuming, of course, that they aren't just brujos, there primarily to take the gringo's money. That's not a problem with the medicine as much as it is with the practitioner, however. Even then, they likely know the risks very well; they simply ignore them. As with everything else, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies.)
Caveat emptor, indeed. If only there were some sort of rational method of inquiry involving painstaking scrutiny and freely published libraries of results were available to help consumers decide.
The slight change in political climate that justifies empirical observation is very hypocritical to be sure.
I think the motives behind prohibition of these substances is interesting, and is quite telling in regard to our society.
One under appreciated aspect is the overwhelming religiousness of psychedelic experiences, with history as long as society itself.
Such that it presents a problem to any religious philosophy that will not accept "drugs" as genuine supernatural tools, because psychedelic effects can therefore be understood through science or objective observation. And therefore all human spiritual phenomena is subject to that same scrutiny.
I think this creates an unconscious dichotomy in the mind of the average person. In my personal experience this was a profound disillusionment, and well worth the perceived risk 'recreational' use implies.
