Fortigurn wrote: Well you would expect that. Fortunately I'm not one of the 'least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs'. Have you spent any time at erowid?
Yep.
Have you spent any time on LSD?
Some Schmo wrote:Fortigurn wrote: Well you would expect that. Fortunately I'm not one of the 'least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs'. Have you spent any time at erowid?
Yep.
Have you spent any time on LSD?
Fortigurn wrote:Some Schmo wrote:Fortigurn wrote: Well you would expect that. Fortunately I'm not one of the 'least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs'. Have you spent any time at erowid?
Yep.
Great, then you'll know that there's an absolute dearth of examples there of scientists (anonymous or otherwise), taking drugs to achieve greater success in their chosen fields of study. But feel free to prove me wrong any time by showing me all the evidence for the case which has been proposed.
I find it incredible that those who apparently feel themselves among the most enlightened on the subject of drugs (specifically hallucinogens), can continue to advance this argument without there being any credible data to support it whatsoever. They might as well be Mormons.Have you spent any time on LSD?
No. Relevance?
Some Schmo wrote:Well, two things: you are clearly set in your opinion about these matters, so even if proof were provided, you would see it the way you want to in order to support whatever beliefs you have, as you've already demonstrated in this thread. Talk about "might as well be Mormon!"
And the fact that you have not taken drugs is relevant because researching something does not give you the same view as experiencing something. You can do all the research you want on China, for instance, but it's not going to give you near the same insight as going to China would. But of course, I'll be looking forward to your explanation as to how you can be so insightful about drugs without ever having taken them. It should be fascinating.
How many scientists do you need as proof? How many case studies of non scientists would you need as well? There are many case studies for the insightful and mind amplifying effects of psychedelics. Read the book Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, by Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar. What is your definition of proof?
Scientists and many others do not reccomend psychedelics as part of the normal process of scientific investigation probably due to the side effects they can produce, like HPPD (which I am suprised nobody has commented on). The scientists that have taken them are perhaps a little more adventureative and willing to risk the side effects for the experience, but to reccomend them to others would be immoral if that reccomendation resulted in negative side effects for people.
The other BIG reason scientists do not reccomend them is because they are stigimitized and ILLEGAL.
I see what you are saying with your analogy about pharmacists, and I do agree to a certain extent. However, psychedelics are so powerful and so unique that it is impossible to comprehend their effects unless you have experienced them yourself.
It is not the same as a pain reliever, a blood pressure regulator, or a diabeties medication. Even a user of these may not experience any noticeable effect, the only way the effect is determined is with tools and tests. Psychedelics alter perception, which is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure with any tests or tools.
To be fully understood it must be experienced. Believe me, I know, becauase I have experienced it, and it is beyond anythng you can imagine or read about in a book.
Ezias wrote:How many scientists do you need as proof?
How many case studies of non scientists would you need as well?
There are many case studies for the insightful and mind amplifying effects of psychedelics. Read the book Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, by Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar.
What is your definition of proof?
Scientists and many others do not reccomend psychedelics as part of the normal process of scientific investigation probably due to the side effects they can produce, like HPPD (which I am suprised nobody has commented on). The scientists that have taken them are perhaps a little more adventureative and willing to risk the side effects for the experience, but to reccomend them to others would be immoral if that reccomendation resulted in negative side effects for people.
The other BIG reason scientists do not reccomend them is because they are stigimitized and ILLEGAL.
I see what you are saying with your analogy about pharmacists, and I do agree to a certain extent. However, psychedelics are so powerful and so unique that it is impossible to comprehend their effects unless you have experienced them yourself. It is not the same as a pain reliever, a blood pressure regulator, or a diabeties medication. Even a user of these may not experience any noticeable effect, the only way the effect is determined is with tools and tests. Psychedelics alter perception, which is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure with any tests or tools. To be fully understood it must be experienced. Believe me, I know, becauase I have experienced it, and it is beyond anythng you can imagine or read about in a book.
Ezias wrote:Side effects like: bankruptcy, unemployment, unplanned pregnancy, death. I know very few scientists who really are scientists who are willing to risk those side effect.s
Why would entheogens cause bankruptcy?
harmony wrote: Because illegal drug use, no matter what the drug is, can and often does result in loss of employment, which results in a radical shortage of cash, which results in being unable to pay one's debts, which results in bankruptcy. A similiar process can be followed for each side effect I mentioned, and I'm sure there are others I didn't mention.
Psychedelics result in a loss of self control, which results in loss of societal control, which results in increased crime, increased socially irresponsible behavior, increasingly messed up lives.
We have enough problems, controlling alcohol. We don't need any more uncontrollable vices.
Did you think no one but you has ever used this argument? Did you think the people who made those laws that you despise didn't have the same experiences you have, and that's why we have those laws? Society experienced the psychedelic experience once. Once was more than enough.
Come back after you've lived through something like the 60's. Then we can compare war stories.