.

[_Some Schmo]

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]

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]

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?

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.

[_Fortigurn]

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!"

I do not hold my opinion on this matter blindly, I hold it on the basis of the fact that no one has ever yet demonstrated any evidence for the case you have chosen to support - that hallucinogens provide the kind of insights under discussion - and that there is much evidence to the contrary. You're simply trying to avoid the burden of evidence using the Mormon apologist trick of saying 'Well even if I gave you the evidence, you wouldn't believe it!'.

No proof has been provided for the case yet. As I pointed out, so far we have only two guys whose scientific studies have received previously undiscovered insights which they derived from LSD experiences. If you can enlarge the list, please feel free to do so. If you can demonstrate that their experiences were repeatable, please feel free to do so. If you can in any way address my original question, please feel free to do so.

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.

This is a false analogy. I am not claiming to be 'so insightful about drugs'. You're changing the subject. I am talking about the demonstrable fact that hallucinogens (specifically), are not used by scientists as part of the normative process of scientific investigation in order to increase their cognitive abilities or gain insights under the influence which would otherwise be unavailable to them.

We still have absolutely no scientists who currently recommend taking LSD or any other hallucinogens as part of the normative process of scientific investigation. Not even ten. Nor do we have more than two who have obtained any significant insights into their field of study by taking hallucinogens.

But I find it extremely odd that you would even insinuate that people cannot be insightful about drugs without ever having taken them. I would like to introduce you to the scientific method of investigation, which involves hypothesis, experiment, and the accumulation of data which is then analyzed and from which conclusions are then drawn. Your average corner pharmacist knows a great deal about a great many drugs which he has never taken in his life. How could this be, do you think? Perhaps he learned it through some other process, do you think?

I have two friends in the pharmaceutical industry. Their company actually specialises in psychotropics, sedatives, SSRIs and related medication. They both have a great deal of knowledge about these drugs and their effects. And yet they have not taken them. How could this be? Could it be that there exists a body of knowledge regarding this medication, which people can actually access and learn from, without ingesting the medication itself?

Could it be that there are teams of people called something like 'scientists' who conduct research based on other people taking this medication, and draw accurate conclusions from the results? Do you think that's remotely possible?

[Rikiti]

.

[_harmony]

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.

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

The other BIG reason scientists do not reccomend them is because they are stigimitized and ILLEGAL.

Scientists study the stigmatized all the time. And if they follow the protocols, studying things that are illegal is also possible.

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.

Balderdash. I don't have to experience death to know I'm not going to like it. I don't have to experience having my leg shot off to know it would be excrutiatingly painful.

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.

Ya know, you sound very young. Ever heard of the drunk driving goggles? They're a tool that alters perception, used to let people experience what it's like to be drunk, without having to ever take a drink. And until you have rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, menopause, and Sjogren's Syndrome all at the same time, you have no idea what you're talking about. I can tell when I miss a dose, without ever testing my blood or taking my temperature.

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.

Again, balderdash. You assert, with no foundation and no evidence. Your opinion is worthless against the known negatives of ingesting illegals drugs. No drug started out illegal. They were blacklisted only after the bad effects were felt by the rest of society.

Open a history book. Read about the Opium Wars. Read about the opium houses. Educate yourself, then come back and try to tell those of us who lived through the 60's how we don't know the effects drugs have on society.

[Rikiti]

.

[_Fortigurn]

How many scientists do you need as proof?

A lot more than two. What I need is evidence of results which are predictably repeatable.

How many case studies of non scientists would you need as well?

I don't need any. I need case studies by scientists, in controlled scientific environments using standard scientific investigative methodology. I don't need rambling screeds by enthusiastic acidheads.

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.

I'm looking for evidence of the specific claims made for them, and evidence that the 'insightful and mind amplifying effects' specifically enhance the cognitive processes in the manner under discussion.

What is your definition of proof?

Repeatable evidence that the use of hallucinogens specifically enhance the cognitive processes in the manner under discussion.

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.

So in other words, the recognised risks far outweigh the chances of gaining those unique insights into the true 'reality' of the universe which are the privilege of the hallucinogen user. That sounds about right. When a proposed miracle drug has negative side effects which occur with repeatable reliability, whilst the alleged positive effects occur with considerably less frequency, we usually call 'quack science'.

The other BIG reason scientists do not reccomend them is because they are stigimitized and ILLEGAL.

And why would this be, do you think? Could it be for the reason that despite being investigated for years, in great detail, and at great expense, the net conclusion is that their potential for harm is far greater than their potential for good?

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.

I'm not talking about trying to measure subjective experiences under hallucinogens. I'm talking about measuring what is absolutely measurable - the likelihood of people having superior insights into problem solving and investigative tasks, as a result of ingesting hallucinogens.

[_harmony]

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?

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.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

Normally, I enjoy what you have to say, harmony, but I'm sorry... you clearly are over generalizing here and are demonstrating more emotionalism on this subject than a perspective of knowledge.

In some cases, what you've written is true, but it is by no means a given that everyone, or even the majority of people who take drugs will suffer the consequences you've outlined above. Not all drugs are the same. Not all drugs are addictive. Drugs are like anything else in life: with balance, they just aren't as big a deal as lawmakers would like to make them out to be. You can not look at the extreme cases and then paint everyone with that same brush.

And I'm willing to bet the people who do support the anti-drug laws are the people who have the same perspective as you: making sweeping generalizations based on a few more sensational stories they've heard without ever having really experienced this stuff for themselves. Living through the 60s means nothing unless you've actually participated in it yourself.