Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Drugs are for depressed people, period.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 02:31:13 AM
I doubt if drug-use can have any value beyond what the individual gets out of it, and if it makes him any smarter without being confused for a schizophrenic then that’s truly great. Any noble or pious society wouldn’t need this. If the individual could contribute to such a society then that's great.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 02:42:10 AM
Query: If a drug's positive effects of increasing one's awareness and insight are great, and its negative effects of causing slight blind spots or tiredness or extremely minor hangover effects are very few, what the fuck is wrong with being more intelligent? If you don't think drugs can do this, then that's a separate discussion. But I don't fucking 'trip' on drugs. I don't get disorientated. I don't get 'fucked up'. I don't have trouble speaking, I don't get nervous, I don't get thoughts running through my mind, I don't lose touch with reality, I don't experience illusions of grandeur, etc. I can simply think more effectively. Period. Depending on the drug, of course. But most people aren't ready for this advanced thinking, it would contradict all the scapegoat beliefs they cling to so dearly about their self-identity and the nature of reality. Most people get 'fucked up' on drugs.
Bull fucking shit, Transcix.

I used to participate in the "who's the savviest drug user" pissing contest too, but then I grew up.

Drugs do not make you more intelligent. They provide fleeting insights that seem more profound than they really are because you are in an altered state, and then leave a residual brain fog after the high is over. Perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to be sober.

The evidence is pretty damning. (Oh but this is just prohibitionist propaganda, right? Please.)

Phoenix

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 03:15:02 AM
The war on drugs is the war against consciousness. I'm not trying to say that I have a "tolerance" to drugs or some bullshit and that they don't affect me. Buddhist monks were given LSD and they experienced barely any affect. But I don't have the luxury to be a buddhist monk, I'm in the thick of society writing my book and being the volunteer and distribution coordinator at a food bank. I choose to remain in society, and I can benefit from certain aids. Usually I write for all, but in this thread I write only for those who can understand, because drugs are the most misunderstood of all (second after consciousness). Be fucking ruthless with yourself, don't give yourself any slack, see what you can See. I'm telling you that the human form isn't the ideal, there is more than this mortal coil; I am here transcendent and I don't expect you to believe me, but I do want to say that I don't fucking get all caught up in thoughts on drugs, I don't go homeless, I carry a great job, I write and I have a great life, and I'm in full fucking control of my entheogen use. I'm a shaman and I don't know anyone like me... maybe I'm the only one... I'm not spectacular, the rest of you are just stupid, that's all. I'm just fucking sane.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 04:26:44 AM
The war on drugs is the war against consciousness.
I disagree, I think it's a war against a destructive lifestyle. I like Conservationist's take on the matter: Legalize drugs in California, then check up on them in 50 years to see how things panned out. Most likely result: something like the Mad Max movies.

Quote
I'm not trying to say that I have a "tolerance" to drugs or some bullshit and that they don't affect me. Buddhist monks were given LSD and they experienced barely any affect. But I don't have the luxury to be a buddhist monk...
I'm gonna have to ask for a source. Though I suppose it is possible to discipline one's mind to such a degree that drugs would not affect one's thoughts. I would not, however, construe this to mean that LSD opens up a spiritual plain of existence otherwise only accessible to ascetics.

Quote
I choose to remain in society, and I can benefit from certain aids. Usually I write for all, but in this thread I write only for those who can understand, because drugs are the most misunderstood of all (second after consciousness). Be fucking ruthless with yourself, don't give yourself any slack, see what you can See. I'm telling you that the human form isn't the ideal, there is more than this mortal coil; I am here transcendent and I don't expect you to believe me, but I do want to say that I don't fucking get all caught up in thoughts on drugs, I don't go homeless, I carry a great job, I write and I have a great life, and I'm in full fucking control of my entheogen use. I'm a shaman and I don't know anyone like me... maybe I'm the only one... I'm not spectacular, the rest of you are just stupid, that's all. I'm just fucking sane.
Are you high? Your self-righteous rambling suggests so.

 It is rare to find a person who can responsibly use drugs, but I will not deny that they exist. Maybe you're one of them. I don't care if you use drugs or not. What I do care about is when people make asinine claims like "drugs make you smarter". First of all, that's very vague. What kind of drugs? Does jenkem make you smarter? Second, intelligence and wisdom, though there may be a correlation between the two, are not the same. Drugs may afford spiritual insight (LSD), increase abstraction of thought (Marijuana), or enhance one's focus (Amphetamines) but do they increase your IQ? Certainly not.


Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 05:28:15 AM
The war on drugs is the war against consciousness.
I disagree, I think it's a war against a destructive lifestyle. I like Conservationist's take on the matter: Legalize drugs in California, then check up on them in 50 years to see how things panned out. Most likely result: something like the Mad Max movies.

No, the "War on Drugs" is a misguided, resource wasting, corporate backed pissfuck of a policy. It is utterly idiotic to think that we can wage "war" on drugs. Fucking preposterous - you can only war in a literal sense vs living things, but even metaphorically it's stupid. Why doesn't it cover the abuse and illegal distribution of most prescription drugs? Why do some prescription drugs have side effect lists that are incredibly extensive? Why is a drug like Oxycontin legal, when it's little more than synthetic heroin? Oh right - financial backing by empty-headed bigwigs; pharmaceutical companies that make a ton of $$$ from the sale of those drugs. I'm not saying coke or heroin are good things, but neither is draining money, manpower, and time into a policy that is almost entirely ineffective (isn't it like >90% or so of illegal drugs still make it into the US? yeah, nice job DEA). Plus, this "war" was started by one of the most deplorable bastards to ever weasel into the Presidency - Richard Nixon. Just another reason to abhor it.

It's another one of our "THIS IS GOOD AND THIS IS EVIL" binary ways of thinking in the US. It will bring little else but failure.

I will agree that drug abusers and heavy users live a destructive lifestyle, and I think the whole California proposition is a good idea (but it would probably be mostly southern California - the north isn't as rife with druggies so I am told).

To address an earlier point made by you, Traf - I will probably never touch stuff like coke or meth, same with most psychedelics. I don't think that I'd enjoy them. However, certain other drugs, like caffeine, THC, and alcohol I find use for. I strive to maintain a realism about my usage - when they do not benefit me anymore, or when I do not find enjoyment in them anymore, I will stop. Enough will be enough, when it is enough.

PS - interesting thought - do you folks consider sugar to be a drug? I saw a documentary on drugs which treated it like one; a fascinating take on it, and it backed up the claim with some pretty compelling arguments.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 01:32:30 PM
To the folks who still use drugs: When will enough be enough? Surely you don't plan on using drugs for the rest of your life?

When the doors are fully opened, and are kept open (which is done through spiritual practice during/after the experiences).

Any noble or pious society wouldn’t need this. If the individual could contribute to such a society then that's great.

Perhaps they don't need it, but every noble and pious society, with very few exceptions, has used such things.  Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Egyptians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Aztecs, Mayans (all Native Amerinds, actually) - the list is indefinite, because as more cultures rise after this one's fall, they'll be turning to these sources of knowledge for guidance, just as our ancestors did.

Drugs may afford spiritual insight (LSD), increase abstraction of thought (Marijuana), or enhance one's focus (Amphetamines) but do they increase your IQ? Certainly not.

I'm aware that cannabis, for example, should not be taken by adolescents, due to its potentially negative effects on brain development.  However, there seems to be much less, if not no, damage done to a fully formed brain through consuming cannabis (though excessive amounts of CO from smoking can obviously cause problems, like the monkey suffocation they used to parade as "death by marijuana").  I wouldn't want my daughter or son taking any other similar substance until they are physically, mentally, and emotionally mature/healthy enough to make the most out of it.  However, after that point, I can find nothing to suggest that any of these substances might be harmful in any meaningful way, and very much to suggest that their consumption can generate huge benefits for humans.

Your assertion that drug-taking cannot enhance IQ is baseless.  You could provide no source for that claim, since we don't yet even know all of the psychedelic narcotics.  As things stand, there are synthetic drugs which increase (temporarily?) your IQ (e.g. nootropics); there may well be naturally occurring substances which do the same (and may even trip you out, maaaan).

Furthermore, the more I understand, the less important IQ is.  It is a measure of intelligence, but is not intelligence itself; at that, it cannot denote wisdom, and the wisest might appear to have no intelligence (which might be true!).


As a mild aside: there seems to be a hell of a lot of wimpish, modernistic thinking going on around here.  If you're concerned so much about your physical, mental, or social wellbeing that you don't want to push the boundaries, that's fine: you probably shouldn't.  That said, don't try to make yourselves out as being somehow "better" for allowing insecurities.  I could not live with myself if I left so grand an avenue unexplored; it is in my nature to accrue experience, in whatever way.  Life is for living, not for finding excuses not to live!

Here's a very small list of things which entheogens have helped me achieve (or, have suggested might be a good idea): regular (daily) meditation; no more alcohol; greater appreciation of my parents, as well as others around me; growing plants in my home; improved range of composition; spiritual insights along Sufi lines (the Way of the Heart seems to be mine); greater "connection" with my body, with others, with animals and plants, and even some objects; greater fluidity/ease of thinking; comfort in day-to-day life.  These are not temporal effects; rather, they have lasted, some of them for over two years.  It's more about the way in which one interacts with the world than about any one specific skill or set of skills; my relationship with the world has been made more whole/inclusive due to the use of these substances.

Edit: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.long

Evidently, smoking cannabis is a bad idea, in the long run.  Evidently, taking cannabis is a great idea!

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 07:59:28 PM
There were 15 "heavy users" and »the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8)



So using cannabis in a young age does NOT mean your IQ will drop, as there is no statistical grond to assert otherwise.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
No, the "War on Drugs" is a misguided, resource wasting, corporate backed pissfuck of a policy. It is utterly idiotic to think that we can wage "war" on drugs. Fucking preposterous - you can only war in a literal sense vs living things, but even metaphorically it's stupid. Why doesn't it cover the abuse and illegal distribution of most prescription drugs? Why do some prescription drugs have side effect lists that are incredibly extensive? Why is a drug like Oxycontin legal, when it's little more than synthetic heroin? Oh right - financial backing by empty-headed bigwigs; pharmaceutical companies that make a ton of $$$ from the sale of those drugs. I'm not saying coke or heroin are good things, but neither is draining money, manpower, and time into a policy that is almost entirely ineffective (isn't it like >90% or so of illegal drugs still make it into the US? yeah, nice job DEA). Plus, this "war" was started by one of the most deplorable bastards to ever weasel into the Presidency - Richard Nixon. Just another reason to abhor it.
I never said the war on drugs was effective, just pointing out the (good) intentions behind it.

The war on drugs is largely futile, but what other choice do we have? It's a catch-22: Either we legalize drugs only to witness large swathes of society tear themselves apart as addiction rates soar, or we continue this pointless war and keep wasting untold amounts of money, countless man hours, and hundreds if not thousands of human lives fighting a beast that seemingly grows a new head every time we cut one off.

If the countries drugs come from weren't corruption-laden shit holes, then perhaps we could make some real progress. But until they clean up their act, the war on drugs is indeed a Sisyphean endeavor.   

Oxycontin isn't exactly legal. It's a schedule-II substance, meaning its use as a prescription medication is (supposed to be) very tightly controlled. Opiates/opioids have legitimate uses -- I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted my wisdom teeth out without them.

Why doesn't the DEA crack down on prescription drug abuse? I'm sure they already do, but it's lower on the priority list because terrorist cells and other entities that threaten national security are often funded with drug money from schedule-I substances. That's not to say big pharma is innocent, but in this case, I'd say they are mostly guilty of negligence; it is doubtful there is a big evil pharmaceutical conspiracy to farm cash from junkies.



Quote
It's another one of our "THIS IS GOOD AND THIS IS EVIL" binary ways of thinking in the US. It will bring little else but failure.
If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.


Quote
To address an earlier point made by you, Traf - I will probably never touch stuff like coke or meth, same with most psychedelics. I don't think that I'd enjoy them. However, certain other drugs, like caffeine, THC, and alcohol I find use for. I strive to maintain a realism about my usage - when they do not benefit me anymore, or when I do not find enjoyment in them anymore, I will stop. Enough will be enough, when it is enough.
Fair enough. Like I said before, I do not care if you use drugs or not. A person cannot be judged through a binary right/wrong filter, as you say.

However, Dinaric Leather is on to something -- drug use is often a symptom of depression and/or other maladaptations to reality. My personal experience seems to confirm this: To most, drugs are, at best, a mindless distraction, and at worst, a crippling emotional crutch.

(Caffeine? I assumed that we were all talking about recreational drugs =P )

Quote
PS - interesting thought - do you folks consider sugar to be a drug? I saw a documentary on drugs which treated it like one; a fascinating take on it, and it backed up the claim with some pretty compelling arguments.
A common definition of drug is any substance that affects the body or mind that is not a food. However, the argument could certainly be made. Ingesting sugar does cause a small spike in dopamine levels.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 08:34:10 PM
We can separate drug use into two categories: (1) entertaining/distracting/escaping/addictive experience and (2) learning/transformative experience. In the context of the comparatively rare second category then, drugs are simply passive meditation.

Active meditation comes in the form of meditation proper, as well as in the form of serious engagement in truly inspired and well-crafted art, music, novels, etc. All of the above are at best gateways to alternate dimensions of reality or alternate states of consciousness.

These experiences can be highly pleasurable, intriguing, mind-opening, and life-changing. However, they aren't to be valued too highly. They are merely some of the initial steps on the stair way to heaven.

Don't stop short. Just keep climbing. :)

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 15, 2012, 10:48:41 PM
I've learned that while drugs improve a vast amount of the modern life, they dull the few truly good things. Heroin could make my regular working day 100% better. But it makes music lose the tip of its impact, the most penetrating part is lost. You appreciate it in a very detached way. Similarly you can't enjoy family, simple love of kinship. Everything else though, boy it would be awesome.

I don't have anything against someone who smokes a little weed now and then to enhance certain experiences. It can focus your attention in certain desirable directions sometimes. Still, not to be overdone or else it saps the will out of you. Don't do drugs boys.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 16, 2012, 08:29:58 PM
(but it would probably be mostly southern California - the north isn't as rife with druggies so I am told).
You have officially lost the right to say anything about California until you visit, the north isn't as rife with druggies!? Thats by far the most ignorant thing I've heard you say. Does the name "San Francisco" sound familiar to you? Not to mention the two big conservative cities, Orange County and San Diego, are in the south. Who the fuck are your friends that keep telling you this stupid bullshit like Socal is more drug infested than Norcal and that AZ is a "neocon" shithole?

Phoenix

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 17, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
What I do care about is when people make asinine claims like "drugs make you smarter". First of all, that's very vague. What kind of drugs? Does jenkem make you smarter? Second, intelligence and wisdom, though there may be a correlation between the two, are not the same. Drugs may afford spiritual insight (LSD), increase abstraction of thought (Marijuana), or enhance one's focus (Amphetamines) but do they increase your IQ? Certainly not.

I'm not sure what you mean by IQ. Ultimately I would define intelligence as one's ability and capacity to learn, with the caveat that it's not a symptom of mental health to be able to easily ingest the informational substance of an insane system - although the individual items of knowledge of modern society aren't threatening by themselves, taken in as a whole they form a pattern, a way of looking at the world, with incredible blind spots and perverse twists. It's not a conspiracy, it's just that the extent of the obfuscation and perversity is such that the grand illusion can indeed remain intact in the mainstream, that people can remain marginally content and stable without looking behind the curtains. The increasing of one's intelligence, then, doesn't proceed in a straight line but requires an initial deconstructive phase, and I believe certain entheogens are useful in this context. Secondly, and to some extent in parallel, a constructive phase arises from the ashes, and for this I also think the entheogenic experience can be useful. Ultimately intelligence comes down to proper vision of your own vision, the elimination of stereotypes and misconceptions--the functional, logical and harmonious integration of your self-concept and all your emotions, desires, thoughts intentions, beliefs, actions and attitudes into the true and present reality of things that is how you truly are feeling, desiring, thinking, intending, believing, acting and behaving at that time. When there is no contradiction between your paradigm and the reality to which it refers, then no biases, preconceptions, habits or complexes are there to prevent new information from being considered.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 17, 2012, 01:43:31 AM
(but it would probably be mostly southern California - the north isn't as rife with druggies so I am told).
You have officially lost the right to say anything about California until you visit, the north isn't as rife with druggies!? Thats by far the most ignorant thing I've heard you say. Does the name "San Francisco" sound familiar to you? Not to mention the two big conservative cities, Orange County and San Diego, are in the south. Who the fuck are your friends that keep telling you this stupid bullshit like Socal is more drug infested than Norcal and that AZ is a "neocon" shithole?

Someone who was from California. Evidently they didn't provide a very good perspective on the matter. I just assumed that since LA and Oakland are in SoCal, and they're both rife with drug activity, that the southern half had more drug abuse/use. But, even if it isn't California, I still think the idea has merit. It would put to rest everyone who thinks that all drugs being legalized would be a good thing (because it wont). Not only would they be gone, but the idea would be spoiled by the failed experiment. No one would take it seriously anymore. We should still enact it, the question now would be where?

AZ is pretty neo-con. Why else would they tend towards going red during election years? Of course there are people in AZ who aren't neo-con, just like there are people in NY who aren't liberals (which is another generalization I've seen around here). I thought it was implied that there are exceptions.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 17, 2012, 03:01:08 AM
You're prone to the same failings as me.
You assume reason works.
It don't.

Re: Drugs are for depressed people, period.
November 17, 2012, 07:14:00 PM
I just assumed that since LA and Oakland are in SoCal
Jesus fucking Christ dude, Oakland is in the San Francisco bay area. You really got shit ass backwards.

AZ is pretty neo-con.
I didn't have a problem with the neocon part, I had a problem with the shithole part. Arizona is one of the most beautiful states in the union, and there is Cactus Cooler and some great skate spots in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tuscon.

And about it being "neocon", neocons may not be ideal, but I sure as hell prefer to live in a neocon red state than a straight up liberal blue state. And besides, the mainstream only recognizes liberal and neoconservative, there is no state made up of a majority true conservatives.