|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
 I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics 
#17909818 - 03/05/13 07:37 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Been reading up on the scientific research in the psychedelics benefits and their objective perspective on this and I'm not convinced formalism has any place in directing the the path of the experience.
My first issue is with the study of the mind, the objective view on how the human brain works. I think the results of the research would lead to targeted drugs with no psychedelics effect, no experience and self-learning or introspection, but just another SSRI preventing the human from making further psychological breakthoughs. All this with still no understanding of how the brain works other than at the superficial level (cause and effect).
My second issue is with externalising the experience, having researchers direct it that are no more pioneers than the person having the direct experience.
Also, sorry english is not my first language.
I might be having the wrong view on this so I'm curious of hearing how others see it.
Edited by badactor (03/05/13 07:59 PM)
|
 sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17909866 - 03/05/13 07:47 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i like the fact that researchers are studying psychedelics. its an interesting field, and their findings will help scientists to understand how the sober mind works as well.
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17909884 - 03/05/13 07:50 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's great but the thing is psychadelics might end up suppressed and you won't get anything out of it personally other than maybe a cure for depression.
For example there's no research in happyness and how to live a happy lifestyle.
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17909901 - 03/05/13 07:54 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
im confused though, researching lsd or psilocyben isnt going to change the drug, its just going to mean scientists understand them better. which... who knows, could lead to legalizing
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
Connoisseur
Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17909917 - 03/05/13 07:57 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Considering you spelled the word psychedelics wrong in the title i dont know how I feel about your opinion.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17909925 - 03/05/13 07:58 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That's what I'm saying, it won't lead to legalization, it will lead to other drugs that target the brain to cause a certain effect, like LSD with no effect other than waking up not depressed the next morning and with nothing learned.
I was saying there's no research into happyness because that personal effect isn't a concern for science.
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam 
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Connoisseur]
#17909933 - 03/05/13 08:00 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Anybody that has read the art of dreaming has been open up to the possibility that not all facts can be proven, not all emotions can be analyzed, and not all experiences are what we consider "real" dreaming or not.
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17909945 - 03/05/13 08:03 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Who's to say the mystical experiences and entity contact are not real forms of telepathy and cosmic consciousness, who's to say that everything can be analyzed in a scientific manner. There's enough accounts of higher circuits of consciousness for it to be necessary to take seriously.
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
Content
Hi
Registered: 03/31/10
Posts: 1,241
Loc: Nuevo Mexico
Last seen: 2 months, 21 hours
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17909968 - 03/05/13 08:08 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The land of psychedelia 
There IS good in psychedelics.
--------------------
Improvements sha'll be made.
PESHawaiian ~ 4-HO-DMT
  
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17909972 - 03/05/13 08:08 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yes maybe it can't all be explained, so what we have now might be the most optimal state of self-healing and science duality. I just hope science doesn't hijack the personal experience with replacement therapy with no effects.
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17909981 - 03/05/13 08:09 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Illusogen, oneirogen, phanerothyme, phantasticant, entheogen. Choose what you want to call them, just not "drug"
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17909987 - 03/05/13 08:11 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
OP, read the inner paths of outer space by rick strassman. You will not be disappointed
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17910003 - 03/05/13 08:14 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I should add that science would lead to commercialism, so it would be science + commercialism which would trick people into going for the wrong therapy.
I'm not saying psychedelics work for everyone, or that accepted therapies work for everyone either, it's more about allowing for the seeking to take place un guided.
Agentchewy, thanks I'll read up on that, I'm really curious about well-thought out perspectives on this.
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17910012 - 03/05/13 08:15 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Illusogen, oneirogen, phanerothyme, phantasticant, entheogen. Choose what you want to call them, just not "drug"
theyre drugs... by definition.
and if it werent for science studying these drugs, we wouldnt have such wonders as 4-aco-dmt, DOC, or any of the 2c-x's
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17910037 - 03/05/13 08:19 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It can be argued they're not drugs in their natural state, the plants. It's not really chemical or pharmacological, but organic, sort of like how you wouldn't call exercise a drug when absorbing the organic matter in your stomach to produce energy.
Edited by badactor (03/05/13 08:20 PM)
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17910038 - 03/05/13 08:19 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sailing said:
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Illusogen, oneirogen, phanerothyme, phantasticant, entheogen. Choose what you want to call them, just not "drug"
theyre drugs... by definition.
and if it werent for science studying these drugs, we wouldnt have such wonders as 4-aco-dmt, DOC, or any of the 2c-x's
Yes by definition they are. But I offer a perspective that is devoid of reasoning and analysis which that rick strassman book explains so very well.... Drugs have noticeable toxicity and addiction potential as well.
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17910051 - 03/05/13 08:21 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
are you stoned?
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17910339 - 03/05/13 09:19 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I've read through about half of chapter 8 of the book Paths to Outer Space by Rick Strassman and I don't think I'd agree with the book. The message might be as simple as live and let live, and learning to build a synergy with nature where everyone can not only live, but thrive.
Science would suppress this by consolidating the existing artificial structure of society.
|
thud thud
:-)
Registered: 02/05/13
Posts: 481
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17910587 - 03/05/13 10:06 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Psychedelics are already suppressed. I can't imagine how anyone would go about suppressing them more.
Scientific research is good for them. Scientists are generally rational people and I doubt they'd publish subjective or misleading information like what has currently been taken as fact by the public.
But no, they won't be legal... maybe in like 2100
--------------------
To Do List: Crack Cocaine ♥ Methamphetamine ♥ Atropine ♥ 1 min ECG flatline ♥ 5 min ECG flatline ♥ Diphenhydramine ♥ PCP ♥ PMA ♥ Krokodil ♥ Datura ♥ Xenon ♥ Cane Toad Skin ♥ Toluene ♥ MDVP ♥ Nitrogen Narcosis ♥ Butane ♥ Jenkem ♥ Heroin ♥ 10 day Sleep Deprovation ♥ Water Intoxication ♥ Carbogen
|
Psilosomniac
Registered: 09/14/10
Posts: 2,938
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: badactor]
#17911061 - 03/05/13 11:53 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
It can be argued they're not drugs in their natural state, the plants. It's not really chemical or pharmacological, but organic, sort of like how you wouldn't call exercise a drug when absorbing the organic matter in your stomach to produce energy.
You wouldn't call exercise a drug because it's not a drug. You would call a drug a drug because it's a drug. I don't really understand this analogy at all.
They're still drugs in their "natural state" (if by natural state you mean in the plant they're found in). Marijuana may not be a drug, but THC, CBD, and the several other cannabinoids present in Marijuana are drugs.
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Quote:
sailing said:
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Illusogen, oneirogen, phanerothyme, phantasticant, entheogen. Choose what you want to call them, just not "drug"
theyre drugs... by definition.
and if it werent for science studying these drugs, we wouldnt have such wonders as 4-aco-dmt, DOC, or any of the 2c-x's
Yes by definition they are. But I offer a perspective that is devoid of reasoning and analysis which that rick strassman book explains so very well.... Drugs have noticeable toxicity and addiction potential as well.
Quote:
sailing said:
are you stoned?
This.
---------------------------
Scientific research is the key to understanding these drugs, and I believe the general opposition to these drugs comes from a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm not necessarily talking about lawmakers or anything government related. I'm talking about your average Joe and what he knows about psychedelic drugs. The misunderstanding of the way flashbacks and psychosis work leads people to believe that LSD makes you insane. This coupled with the host of absurd myths about the drug generates the opposition that helps keep them illegal.
If we were to continue scientific research into these drugs to better understand their mechanisms, we could figure out how to use them properly (we've already made progress in this area), and demonstrate that the risk of adverse effects is minimal when the drug is used properly. Furthermore, research into the benefits of psychedelic drugs would provide the incentive to investigate their therapeutic potential, for example, which would help establish grounds for removal from Schedule I status (in the US). In other words, scientific research is necessary to establish a medical use for drugs like LSD, which would be grounds for removal from the most restrictive tier of the Controlled Substances Act. I think this is a worthy cause.
Quote:
badactor said:
I think the results of the research would lead to targeted drugs with no psychedelics effect, no experience and self-learning or introspection, but just another SSRI preventing the human from making further psychological breakthoughs.
Why do you think that research on psychedelics would lead to the development of drugs that have an effect that is essentially the opposite of what psychedelics do? This article does a good job of briefly explaining how SSRIs and psychedelic drugs are almost polar opposites:
"LSD is freedom, SSRIs are security. A former addict’s trip down memory lane."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/18/neuroscientist-mark-lewis-on-his-first-acid-trip.html
Look into MAPS and the research they're conducting. Their results don't suggest that drugs like SSRIs are the way to go. They suggest that there's more to psychedelic drugs than most are willing to admit, and that we should be allocating more resources into their research rather than continuing such a restrictive prohibition. I would argue that they've made significant progress in contradicting that assertion that psychedelic drugs have no medical value, and I think that's the first step that should be taken on the path to legalization, or at least a less restrictive scheduling.
|
crispy86
Stranger
Registered: 01/13/13
Posts: 853
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17911162 - 03/06/13 12:12 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
there is clearly a second wave of psychedelic research emerging, and this time the approach will be much more beneficial in my opinion. leary had some great things going in the beginning, but he ended up so spun that he spun himself (along with others) off this planet, and lost track of what would have been more appropriate and scientific (in my opinion).
today, psychologist, psychiatrists, scientists, and pioneers in other areas are approaching psychedelic studies in ways that will change the way people view these substances in this country forever. i would not be surprised, that in the next decade or two, psychiatrists will be able to be licensed to prescribe psychedelics to patients who qualify and guide them through sessions. it's already happening with psilocybin and MDMA, and LSD (in Europe)
|
Content
Hi
Registered: 03/31/10
Posts: 1,241
Loc: Nuevo Mexico
Last seen: 2 months, 21 hours
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: crispy86]
#17911176 - 03/06/13 12:17 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
And the show goes on... T_T
Doooon't stop. Beleiiiiiving.
Yeah.
--------------------
Improvements sha'll be made.
PESHawaiian ~ 4-HO-DMT
|
Enslyn
Registered: 01/14/13
Posts: 190
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17911179 - 03/06/13 12:18 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
For example there's no research in happyness and how to live a happy lifestyle.
That's because the only person that can teach you how to be happy is yourself. As far as researching psychedelics, I think it is a great idea as long as the researchers aren't specifically looking for negative evidence only. I get that it might "ruin the magic" for some people to learn why psychedelics affect people the way they do, but I personally love to understand why things work.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Enslyn]
#17911353 - 03/06/13 01:07 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
I don't really understand this analogy at all.
By definition, it's as much of a drug as eating chocolate cake to cure your need for chocolate cake, the effect is the same, acting on your senses, but shrooms and other plants act on other senses to satisfy more intrinsic needs to the human condition. I'm not taking into account direct cures for pain and such, but the psychological aspects of it.
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Why do you think that research on psychedelics would lead to the development of drugs that have an effect that is essentially the opposite of what psychedelics do?
I believe this "mechanism" would be isolated and re-packaged by its-self without the entire experience, hoping for legalisation of trips is far-fetched at this stage. Once a mechanism is known and isolated from the plants, everything else will be suppressed, unless the actual trip experience is the mechanism.
Edited by badactor (03/06/13 01:10 AM)
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Enslyn]
#17911373 - 03/06/13 01:12 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enslyn said:
That's because the only person that can teach you how to be happy is yourself.
Exactly. It's very unlikely science would lead to helping people seek and find such things, it's outside of the scope of empiricism.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17911468 - 03/06/13 01:39 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
For example a chocolate cake with shrooms, as bizarre as that may be on so many levels, is still a cake and not a drug.
But on the hijacking of the experience by science. We can look at what's happening with legalisation of weed, there's a cultural push for it and the medical studies are there to assist cultural acceptence by studying the bad effects.
It's very different with psychedelics, at places where they've been legal they're getting banned, I'm not sure how science will be able to prove their safety or help with the legalisation process.
|
Sagescruffy
CH
Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 2,011
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 8 months, 28 days
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: badactor]
#17911975 - 03/06/13 05:37 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There was a nice source posted under a topic earlier yesterday, and it explained how Psilocin affects our brains. Basically what scientists have gathered from cat scans and all that good stuff is that the compound actually turns off parts of your brain that are logical. So the theory is that because of this, one is able to think freely without the logical blocks people generally set on themselves. Something like that, I'll go dig it up (if I can find it that is)
How psychedelics function in our brains!
--------------------
Love.   
Edited by Sagescruffy (03/06/13 05:46 AM)
|
thud thud
:-)
Registered: 02/05/13
Posts: 481
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Enslyn]
#17912001 - 03/06/13 05:54 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
For example there's no research in happyness and how to live a happy lifestyle.
Actually I'm positive there are countless studies on this subject
--------------------
To Do List: Crack Cocaine ♥ Methamphetamine ♥ Atropine ♥ 1 min ECG flatline ♥ 5 min ECG flatline ♥ Diphenhydramine ♥ PCP ♥ PMA ♥ Krokodil ♥ Datura ♥ Xenon ♥ Cane Toad Skin ♥ Toluene ♥ MDVP ♥ Nitrogen Narcosis ♥ Butane ♥ Jenkem ♥ Heroin ♥ 10 day Sleep Deprovation ♥ Water Intoxication ♥ Carbogen
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17912009 - 03/06/13 05:58 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
I'm not taking into account direct cures for pain and such, but the psychological aspects of it.
actually mushrooms are quite effective for providing relief to chronic headaches. this was the result of a study in 2012
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
emeraldlife88
Emerald
Registered: 08/01/09
Posts: 985
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: sailing]
#17912115 - 03/06/13 07:05 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
With the pharma industry as it is, you will not see actual psychedelics such as LSD or shrooms being used to aid in spiritual/mental healing, but rather certain parts of the drug put into a pill, or however you'd say it, to help isolated problems such as depression, anxiety, what have you. The problem is not science as much as the state of the pharma industry and its hold over where science goes, because it is all connected with moneymoneymoney.
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: emeraldlife88] 1
#17912499 - 03/06/13 09:54 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
.... its like im trying to talk to a bunch of tripping hippies.
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
Edited by sailing (03/06/13 09:54 AM)
|
FleshCap
FleshCap
Registered: 11/10/08
Posts: 685
Loc: Cali Underground
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: badactor]
#17912673 - 03/06/13 10:49 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So glad you bring up this point. I have also given much thought to the effect that formalized research has on the psychedelic experience.
I do not believe that the psychedelic experience should be limited to formal studies in formalized environments.
The latter is the only conclusion that I have been able to reach on the matter as there is so much that I don't know.
--------------------
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17912778 - 03/06/13 11:19 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Quote:
sailing said:
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Illusogen, oneirogen, phanerothyme, phantasticant, entheogen. Choose what you want to call them, just not "drug"
theyre drugs... by definition.
and if it werent for science studying these drugs, we wouldnt have such wonders as 4-aco-dmt, DOC, or any of the 2c-x's
Yes by definition they are. But I offer a perspective that is devoid of reasoning and analysis which that rick strassman book explains so very well.... Drugs have noticeable toxicity and addiction potential as well.
Drugs are substances that alter brain chemistry by interacting with receptors, so yes, no mattor what you try and say, psychedelics are drugs.
I understand what you are trying to say, drug is a derogatory term because it has such a bad stigma associated with it thanks to drugs like heroin and meth, but the technical, unbiased definition of drug is "A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular."
EDIT: Oh and i know what OP is attemting to say. He is saying that they will study the mechanism by which a psychedelic exhibits a positive effect (for example, how mushrooms help cure migraines and cluster headaches), study the parts of the brain it acts on to do so, then create a drug that only cures headaches and doesnt cause the "unwanted" side effects like hallucinations and whatnot. Although personally id rather take some shrooms than eat a pill of god-knows-what.
--------------------
Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant).
"LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it."
DEATH METAL \m/
Edited by jjjcmzzt (03/06/13 11:24 AM)
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17912845 - 03/06/13 11:36 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said:
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Quote:
sailing said:
Quote:
Agentchewy said:
Illusogen, oneirogen, phanerothyme, phantasticant, entheogen. Choose what you want to call them, just not "drug"
theyre drugs... by definition.
and if it werent for science studying these drugs, we wouldnt have such wonders as 4-aco-dmt, DOC, or any of the 2c-x's
Yes by definition they are. But I offer a perspective that is devoid of reasoning and analysis which that rick strassman book explains so very well.... Drugs have noticeable toxicity and addiction potential as well.
Drugs are substances that alter brain chemistry by interacting with receptors, so yes, no mattor what you try and say, psychedelics are drugs.
I understand what you are trying to say, drug is a derogatory term because it has such a bad stigma associated with it thanks to drugs like heroin and meth, but the technical, unbiased definition of drug is "A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular."
EDIT: Oh and i know what OP is attemting to say. He is saying that they will study the mechanism by which a psychedelic exhibits a positive effect (for example, how mushrooms help cure migraines and cluster headaches), study the parts of the brain it acts on to do so, then create a drug that only cures headaches and doesnt cause the "unwanted" side effects like hallucinations and whatnot. Although personally id rather take some shrooms than eat a pill of god-knows-what.
i see what he's trying to say, but it's not going to change the drug scene.
Im actually planning on doing an informal experiment with 4-aco-dmt tonight regarding dosage and effects. Just because I couldn't find much info on low doses of 4-aco-dmt
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17912902 - 03/06/13 11:50 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yea i agree with OP though that they probably wont be using psychedelics for medicinal purposes anytime soon, besides the possibility of mushroom sessions to cure depression and death anxiety, and LSD and MDMA (if you consider it a psychedelic, I don't) in various types of psychotherapy.
--------------------
Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant).
"LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it."
DEATH METAL \m/
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17913082 - 03/06/13 12:32 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
They do have a therapeutic effect other than curing too, such as helping with insight and other breakthroughs. Trying to picture what it would look like if they were legalised in controlled environments in therapy.
A scientist once said there are no infinites in science, if there's an infinite then the result is wrong, and that's a nice quote but the goal of the research in psychedelics is misaligned with an individual's goals, experiencing the infinite and the undescribable and exploring mind-expanding realms.
Quote:
sailing said:
Im actually planning on doing an informal experiment with 4-aco-dmt tonight regarding dosage and effects. Just because I couldn't find much info on low doses of 4-aco-dmt
We're curious of how that goes!
I got some shrooms on their way and some salvia, I've never tried salvia so it will be very interesting to see where it take me, though I must admit I'm pretty worried about doing it alone in nature in the dark, can't wait to find some DMT too later.
|
Psilosomniac
Registered: 09/14/10
Posts: 2,938
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17913193 - 03/06/13 12:54 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
I don't really understand this analogy at all.
By definition, it's as much of a drug as eating chocolate cake to cure your need for chocolate cake, the effect is the same, acting on your senses, but shrooms and other plants act on other senses to satisfy more intrinsic needs to the human condition. I'm not taking into account direct cures for pain and such, but the psychological aspects of it.
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Why do you think that research on psychedelics would lead to the development of drugs that have an effect that is essentially the opposite of what psychedelics do?
I believe this "mechanism" would be isolated and re-packaged by its-self without the entire experience, hoping for legalisation of trips is far-fetched at this stage. Once a mechanism is known and isolated from the plants, everything else will be suppressed, unless the actual trip experience is the mechanism.
Taking a drug is not as much of a drug as eating chocolate cake is. Eating cake triggers a reaction of endogenous chemicals in your brain to satisfy your craving for cake. Taking a drug introduces a drug into your brain, and it functions in its own way. Mushrooms and other plants (that contain drugs) don't just act on senses to satisfy intrinsic needs of the human condition. They introduce foreign chemicals into your brain that interact with the present systems in your brain and produce a reaction. This analogy does not make sense.
I'm not hoping for entirely legal trips right now. I'm hoping for research to crack the door open and allow therapeutic use of these drugs in appropriate settings. This could be accomplished by moving them from schedule I to schedule II under the US Controlled Substances Act. This would make it like methamphetamine; illegal without approval.
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17913276 - 03/06/13 01:13 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Chocolate does have caffeine in it. Technically making chocolate cake a drug too
The more you know
I know that's not the point though
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
Satanschild
goodbye
Registered: 01/16/13
Posts: 281
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: crispy86]
#17913306 - 03/06/13 01:18 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
crispy86 said:
there is clearly a second wave of psychedelic research emerging, and this time the approach will be much more beneficial in my opinion. leary had some great things going in the beginning, but he ended up so spun that he spun himself (along with others) off this planet, and lost track of what would have been more appropriate and scientific (in my opinion).
today, psychologist, psychiatrists, scientists, and pioneers in other areas are approaching psychedelic studies in ways that will change the way people view these substances in this country forever. i would not be surprised, that in the next decade or two, psychiatrists will be able to be licensed to prescribe psychedelics to patients who qualify and guide them through sessions. it's already happening with psilocybin and MDMA, and LSD (in Europe)
Exactly, here in the Netherlands they also use ibogaine to treat severe addictions.
I don't know if ibogaine is recommended, but personally I think psychedelics carry great therapeutic value.
Science could bring a lot more tolerance to psychedelic drugs, which I think shouldn't be legalized, but tolerated in some way or another.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17913313 - 03/06/13 01:19 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Taking a drug introduces a drug into your brain, and it functions in its own way.
The term "drug" indicates some pharmacological processing, everything at a pharmacy is processed in some way.
For example, there's a difference between buying coffee at a store and buying caffeine pills at the pharmacy (Which would be considered a drug). Maybe we need better terms to differentiate and not miscategorise plants.
|
Sham87
mashAllah
Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 9,837
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Connoisseur] 1
#17913315 - 03/06/13 01:19 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Connoisseur said:
Considering you spelled the word psychedelics wrong in the title i dont know how I feel about your opinion.
--------------------
   
...once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest places if you look at it right...
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17913364 - 03/06/13 01:27 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I dont really want psychedelics to be legal, but rather decriminalized. I dont think psychedelics would mix well with out current society. I feel that decriminalization would make it so that those who become interested in the psychedelic experience can seek them out and experiment without fear of being arrested, but those who never catch on just keep living their regular lives. People like all the people of this forum! We could experiment and only have to worry about getting a fine or something. Either that or psychedelics should become legal but in order to use them, a person would have to prove that they are using them for reasonable purposes and that they will be mature in handling them, and if they prove this they can obtain a license to possess and manufacture (in most cases, grow) hallucinogenic substances for personal use. Although obviously that likely will not happen, but its a cool concept.
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Taking a drug introduces a drug into your brain, and it functions in its own way.
The term "drug" indicates some pharmacological processing, everything at a pharmacy is processed in some way.
For example, there's a difference between buying coffee at a store and buying caffeine pills at the pharmacy (Which would be considered a drug). Maybe we need better terms to differentiate and not miscategorise plants.
I would argue that coffee is a drug just as much as caffeine pills, if not even more powerful. Coffee nowadays has double shots of espresso in it an all the added crap, maybe more caffeine than a caffeine pill would have. I understand what you mean by the processed versus unprocessed and yes they are different when talking about legal/pharmaceutical drugs, but anything that interacts with your brain to produce some psychological effect is a drug. When it comes to illegal drugs, it doesnt matter if they are processed or not, they are all drugs.
You could look at a drug two ways (especially with caffeine); either the drug refers to the substance itself, or it may refer to anything that you consume that contains the drug in large enough amounts to produce psychological effects. In the second scenario, coffee would be considered a drug, but chocolate cake would not because although it may contain caffeine, it is in negligible quantities.
--------------------
Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant).
"LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it."
DEATH METAL \m/
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Sham87]
#17913378 - 03/06/13 01:30 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sham87 said:
Quote:
Connoisseur said:
Considering you spelled the word psychedelics wrong in the title i dont know how I feel about your opinion.
I'm not purporting to be a scientist and everyone's opinion is as valid as as anyone else's until refuted, with or without misspellings. Though I did fix it and add "English is not my native language" since I know it's an itch for people, including myself.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17913460 - 03/06/13 01:44 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said:
coffee would be considered a drug, but chocolate cake would not because although it may contain caffeine, it is in negligible quantities.
Thanks for the clarification but I'm not sure it's a fair categorisation to put the plants in the same cateogry as aspirin pills.
Looking at the etymology of "psychedelics": "The term was first coined as a noun in 1957 by psychiatrist Humphry Osmond as an alternative descriptor for hallucinogenic drugs in the context of psychedelic psychotherapy."
It may be all about context, that's why we don't call coffee a drug when buying it at a store, but you would call being high on weed as "being under the influence of drugs" when caught driving. But it may be too far out there to hijack the term "drug" depending on context.
|
Psilosomniac
Registered: 09/14/10
Posts: 2,938
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17913635 - 03/06/13 02:29 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Taking a drug introduces a drug into your brain, and it functions in its own way.
The term "drug" indicates some pharmacological processing, everything at a pharmacy is processed in some way.
For example, there's a difference between buying coffee at a store and buying caffeine pills at the pharmacy (Which would be considered a drug). Maybe we need better terms to differentiate and not miscategorise plants.
No, no it doesn't.
Quote:
drug
/drəg/
Noun
A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular.
There are such things as natural drugs. Caffeine is still a drug whether it's in coffee or extracted and put into a pill.
Quote:
sailing said:
Chocolate does have caffeine in it. Technically making chocolate cake a drug too
The more you know
I know that's not the point though
Well, it would make chocolate cake a substance that contains a drug, but yeah, you get the point 
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17913648 - 03/06/13 02:31 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
its not a drug until you've railed it, injected it, or shoved it up your ass
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17913754 - 03/06/13 02:50 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
No, no it doesn't.
drug
/drəg/
Noun
A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular.
Oxford dictionary is not an authority on the subject, please see dictionary.com for popular usage.
Quote:
noun
1.Pharmacology . a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.
2. a.any substance recognized in the official pharmacopoeia or formulary of the nation.
b.any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals.
c.any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.
d.any substance intended for use as a component of such a drug, but not a device or a part of a device.
3.a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.
4.drugs. a.chemical substances prepared and sold as pharmaceutical items, either by prescription or over the counter.
b.
personal hygienic items sold in a drugstore, as toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.
5.Obsolete . any ingredient used in chemistry, pharmacy, dyeing, or the like.
Specifically the "Obsolete" at the end.
|
Satanschild
goodbye
Registered: 01/16/13
Posts: 281
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17913757 - 03/06/13 02:51 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Maybe formally coffee isn't considered a drug, but coffee most definitely is a drug.
Whether it is socially accepted or not; a drug is drug.
Anything that alters the minds is a drug.
Edited by Satanschild (03/06/13 02:54 PM)
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: sailing]
#17913773 - 03/06/13 02:53 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Tobacco is an ACH agonist, classic deliriant's are ACH antagonists. This partially explains chain smoking. Tobacco is a drug, yet society does not label it as one. I was trying to point out that society's interpretation of what a drug is will always rival the scientific world.. And before modern culture, psychedelics were "spiritual sacraments" not intoxicants. I agree with just about everything y'all have said, I'm just pointing out some peculiar societal loopholes
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
JoieDeVivre
Hippie Babysitter
Registered: 10/13/11
Posts: 5,751
Loc: Gamehenge
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17913784 - 03/06/13 02:54 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
ITT: People are afraid of scientific research that will likely show that there's nothing "mystical" about psychedelics.
--------------------
Sapere aude
"We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results."
UBUNTU- I am because we are.
|
Psilosomniac
Registered: 09/14/10
Posts: 2,938
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: badactor]
#17913806 - 03/06/13 02:57 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
No, no it doesn't.
drug
/drəg/
Noun
A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular.
Oxford dictionary is not an authority on the subject, please see dictionary.com for popular usage.
Quote:
noun
1.Pharmacology . a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.
2. a.any substance recognized in the official pharmacopoeia or formulary of the nation.
b.any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals.
c.any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.
d.any substance intended for use as a component of such a drug, but not a device or a part of a device.
3.a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.
4.drugs. a.chemical substances prepared and sold as pharmaceutical items, either by prescription or over the counter.
b.
personal hygienic items sold in a drugstore, as toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.
5.Obsolete . any ingredient used in chemistry, pharmacy, dyeing, or the like.
Specifically the "Obsolete" at the end.
Do you know what obsolete means?
|
The_Aviator
High Flyer
Registered: 03/08/10
Posts: 2,277
Loc: Gamehendge
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor] 1
#17913812 - 03/06/13 02:57 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ignorance is bliss. Some people do not want to advance discovery, usually because it rivals their beliefs or philosophy.
--------------------
Sartre on conciousness: "a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself."
Being and Nothingness
Easy no-nausea hbwr tek
Phish videos and discussion!
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17913848 - 03/06/13 03:02 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JoieDeVivre said:
Do you know what obsolete means?
A section title, I presume?
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: JoieDeVivre]
#17913871 - 03/06/13 03:08 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JoieDeVivre said:
ITT: People are afraid of scientific research that will likely show that there's nothing "mystical" about psychedelics.
Quote:
The_Aviator said:
Ignorance is bliss. Some people do not want to advance discovery, usually because it rivals their beliefs or philosophy.
It's quite possible. I don't care about the mystical part, though it would have been cool, I code and started experimenting recently to see if it would help one create epic shit after a burn out. I'm very familiar with how unmystical the technological singularity and all that is :]
I'm worried that if it really is a mind-enhancer, then research would hijack it and suppress it (Through nullification of the effects, by administration in therapeutic environments, and all that).
Edited by badactor (03/06/13 03:08 PM)
|
The_Aviator
High Flyer
Registered: 03/08/10
Posts: 2,277
Loc: Gamehendge
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17913904 - 03/06/13 03:18 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Research just allows us to know more about how psychedelics work. In what way could increasing our knowledge suppress the positive effects associated with the experience? If anything I think it would allow us to benefit more from them because we can understand the most effective and positive ways to use them.
--------------------
Sartre on conciousness: "a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself."
Being and Nothingness
Easy no-nausea hbwr tek
Phish videos and discussion!
|
s240779
Registered: 12/07/10
Posts: 12,935
Last seen: 16 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17914053 - 03/06/13 03:47 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Why do you think that research on psychedelics would lead to the development of drugs that have an effect that is essentially the opposite of what psychedelics do? This article does a good job of briefly explaining how SSRIs and psychedelic drugs are almost polar opposites:
"LSD is freedom, SSRIs are security. A former addict’s trip down memory lane."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/18/neuroscientist-mark-lewis-on-his-first-acid-trip.html
He's not far off.
Psychedelics lead to the discovery of serotonin and henceforth selective serotonin reuptake inhibtors. In Dirty Pictures, the scientist being interviewed who's studying some of Shulgin's compounds states that the development of improved antidepressants is one of possible directions for the research.
|
zzripz
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: The_Aviator]
#17914093 - 03/06/13 03:55 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I really recommend this article: Quote:
Psychiatric Power and Taboo in Modern Psychedelia
Even as the terms of the public discourse on psychedelics move further in this clinicalized, regulatory direction, cultures of independent psychedelic exploration continue to grow in both influence and complexity. Indeed, without trivializing the efforts of MAPS and other scientific researchers to actualize the healing powers of psychedelic medicine, it must be acknowledged that the vast majority of successful psychedelic experimentation throughout human history has been carried out independent of scientific, medical, and state oversight. The inability of the new legitimizing discourse to take this body of research into account is symptomatic of a deeply rooted taboo in modern civilization on the matter of psychedelic experience. This taboo is not reducible to the legal prohibition of psychedelic substances, as instituted by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, though criminalization is one of its functions. Rather, it is a taboo that conceals, distorts, and excludes specific channels of information made available in the course of psychedelic experience—information that implies a fundamental break with the metaphysical order upon which industrial mass society is based. By seeking to incorporate the powers of psychedelic experience into the institutional and philosophical matrix of modern science, the new paradigm of psychedelic research participates in the enforcement of this taboo, even as it tries to ameliorate some of its inhumane effects. ff
I saw listened to this amazingly revealing comparison between the State Medical Model of 'psychedelic research' and the more natural way. This guy was talking on stage, and behind him showed this picture of fields and hills on which grew lots of magic mushrooms, free for anyone to pick or animals to chew on. Great. And then he compared this telling us that in NYC in a building there's an 800 pound safe of solid steel within which are psilocybin capsules intended for the psychedelic researchers and their 'studies' AND this safe is weighed everyday!
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: zzripz]
#17914104 - 03/06/13 03:58 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh i cant believe i forgot to put this in, they will most likely NEVER use psychedelics for depression because the pharmaceutical industry doesnt try to make cures, cause a cure wont make them any money. So a single dose of mushrooms every 6 months is FAR less profitable than a monthly refill of SSRIs.
--------------------
Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant).
"LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it."
DEATH METAL \m/
|
Satanschild
goodbye
Registered: 01/16/13
Posts: 281
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: jjjcmzzt] 1
#17914126 - 03/06/13 04:04 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said:
Oh i cant believe i forgot to put this in, they will most likely NEVER use psychedelics for depression because the pharmaceutical industry doesnt try to make cures, cause a cure wont make them any money. So a single dose of mushrooms every 6 months is FAR less profitable than a monthly refill of SSRIs.
Post in conspiracies and cover-ups please.
Doesn't depend on the industry, but on the lawmakers.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics *DELETED* [Re: zzripz]
#17914155 - 03/06/13 04:14 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by badactorReason for deletion: ..
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17914156 - 03/06/13 04:14 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
zzripz said:
It's as if the plants are showing us another way to help everyone live together in peace, but formalism is taking it and integrating it into the current non-functional and non-sustainable society. This is the cover-up.
Thanks, it was a good read!
|
The_Aviator
High Flyer
Registered: 03/08/10
Posts: 2,277
Loc: Gamehendge
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17914167 - 03/06/13 04:16 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Actually they won't use psychedelics for depression because it makes a lot of depressed people commit suicide. I know people that have been affected by this, the affects of psychedelics are far too volatile, diverse, and powerful for widespread use in treatment for depression.
Also, the pharmaceutical industry is comprised of humans. I know pharmaceutical researchers and to say that they do not want to find cures is incredibly insulting. Undermining the millions of lives that have been saved by pharmaceuticals to substantiate some conspiracy theory is pathetic.
--------------------
Sartre on conciousness: "a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself."
Being and Nothingness
Easy no-nausea hbwr tek
Phish videos and discussion!
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: The_Aviator]
#17914187 - 03/06/13 04:22 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The_Aviator said:
Actually they won't use psychedelics for depression because it makes a lot of depressed people commit suicide. I know people that have been affected by this, the affects of psychedelics are far too volatile, diverse, and powerful for widespread use in treatment for depression.
Also, the pharmaceutical industry is comprised of humans. I know pharmaceutical researchers and to say that they do not want to find cures is incredibly insulting. Undermining the millions of lives that have been saved by pharmaceuticals to substantiate some conspiracy theory is pathetic.
So you're saying anti depressants haven't been linked to suicide?
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
The_Aviator
High Flyer
Registered: 03/08/10
Posts: 2,277
Loc: Gamehendge
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17914233 - 03/06/13 04:31 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No, I'm saying that psychedelics would likely cause much more suicide in a control group of depressed people. Psychedelics amplify thoughts and feelings and the trip can send someone over the edge, or into deep existential despair. Just because they help some people doesn't mean they are effective as a widespread treatment plan. Especially since giving psychedelics to those with mental disorders can uncover latent problems. Studying them, however, can allow us to discover more about the function of the brain and mind so that we can develop alternative treatments that are much more effective.
--------------------
Sartre on conciousness: "a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself."
Being and Nothingness
Easy no-nausea hbwr tek
Phish videos and discussion!
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17914238 - 03/06/13 04:32 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17914242 - 03/06/13 04:32 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I see what you're saying, check this study out.
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
The_Aviator
High Flyer
Registered: 03/08/10
Posts: 2,277
Loc: Gamehendge
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17914292 - 03/06/13 04:43 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm aware of the connection. But to any scientist it is obvious that the study does not establish a causal link between SSRI's and suicide since many of those that are prescribed SSRI's are depressed to begin with.
The (in)effectiveness of SSRI's reflect the incredible complexity of the brain. Researchers are discovering things every day and before long there will be much more effective drugs that take advantage of the new findings. SSRI's have been around for a long time, and for many they are a godsend. But for some they do nothing, and for others they make the symptoms worse. But those that do not benefit from them can easily report this to the doctor to alter their treatment plan.
--------------------
Sartre on conciousness: "a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself."
Being and Nothingness
Easy no-nausea hbwr tek
Phish videos and discussion!
|
Agentchewy
Pantheism.
Registered: 12/12/12
Posts: 3,960
Loc: vietnam
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: The_Aviator]
#17914331 - 03/06/13 04:48 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The placebo effect has shown in other studies that they're approximately 33% effective.
--------------------
If I knew the way, I would take you home.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Agentchewy]
#17914368 - 03/06/13 04:54 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You have to take into consideration the cause of depression, an inherent unhappyness which society doesn't want to deal with, or it would be extremely costly with customised personal therapy and trips and whatnot for every depressed individual.
SSRIs are quick and cheap, and treat many, probably by suppressing the causes of unhappyness, I'd rather let people experiment on their own with dealing with their depression, and see what works and what doesn't.
Edit: had happyness but meant "unhappyness"
Edited by badactor (03/06/13 05:15 PM)
|
The_Aviator
High Flyer
Registered: 03/08/10
Posts: 2,277
Loc: Gamehendge
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17914435 - 03/06/13 05:03 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I was once on SSRI's for anxiety. They weren't effective for me, but they definitely did not suppress my happiness (or any thoughts/feelings/functions). There are many types of SSRI's; it is currently impossible to know which one will be most effective for any person. Also, SSRI's are most effective at treating people with severe depression. The effectiveness statistics probably have a lot to do with misdiagnoses.
My girlfriend is training to become a psychiatrist. It is a very young field and there is a lot that they are still working out. Once they are done mapping the brain the drugs will be much more effective. But it requires public support, not dissent, because the positive things they have done have completely saved lives. It is impossible to know what mental illness is without experiencing it. For those that have it, it can ruin their lives. Psychiatry offers hope. Many of the most important advances in psychiatry and pharmacology have come from studying psychedelics.
--------------------
Sartre on conciousness: "a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself."
Being and Nothingness
Easy no-nausea hbwr tek
Phish videos and discussion!
|
Psilosomniac
Registered: 09/14/10
Posts: 2,938
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: badactor]
#17914504 - 03/06/13 05:17 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
JoieDeVivre said:
Do you know what obsolete means?
A section title, I presume?
Not quite.
Quote:
ob·so·lete
/ˌäbsəˈlēt/
Adjective
No longer produced or used; out of date.
The definition is labeled obsolete because it's, well, an obsolete definition.
|
badactor
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 96
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: The_Aviator]
#17914519 - 03/06/13 05:19 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I've also been on SSRIs when I was young, they had no effect on me either as the problem didn't go away when taking them, thankfully they didn't have any other effect on me either (or who knows, maybe it has :].
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: The_Aviator]
#17914569 - 03/06/13 05:26 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Im not saying that the medicines they pump out are bad and havent saved lives, im just saying that for a lot of things that arent deadly they dont typically search for cures as much as they do for more serious conditions that take lives. For diseases and such, yes they look for cures, but for things like depression and similar problems they typically search for treatments because the cure is very elusive. Its like the car industry. We could make tires that could last longer than the car if we set our mind to it, but then you would never have to replace your tires, so the companies would make a lot of money at first, but then nobody would need more tires.
And its not exactly a conspiracy, i dont intend it to be that way, its just how business works in our society. You need a constant stream of money to operate, and to do this you need to either keep making new products or have products that need to be replaced.
Im not really a conspiracy theorist and i didnt intend to sound offensive or pro-conspiracy, just pointing out something that is probably true. Either way i just dont support the pharmaceutical indistry because a lot of medicines nowadays have incredibly ridiculous and dangerous possible adverse effects. Not all pharmaceuticals do, but it just cracks me up to think that people arent worried by the long list of possible side effects of Cialis and whatnot, but then incredibly safe drugs like mushrooms terrify people simply because they are illegal.
--------------------
Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant).
"LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it."
DEATH METAL \m/
|
sailing
China Cat Sunflower
Registered: 09/21/11
Posts: 3,534
Loc: United States
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychedelics [Re: Psilosomniac]
#17915244 - 03/06/13 07:26 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilosomniac said:
Quote:
badactor said:
Quote:
JoieDeVivre said:
Do you know what obsolete means?
A section title, I presume?
Not quite.
Quote:
ob·so·lete
/ˌäbsəˈlēt/
Adjective
No longer produced or used; out of date.
The definition is labeled obsolete because it's, well, an obsolete definition.
holy shit, I can't even believe im reading this right now. I can't even begin to wrap my tripping brain around the massive levels of retarded going on here
--------------------
Love is the deep spiritual connection between the self and all things. We are all a part of the same universe.
Crazy cat peekin through a lace bandanna,like a one eyed cheshire, like a diamond eyed jack.
|
zzripz
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: Satanschild]
#17917041 - 03/07/13 02:10 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Satanschild said:
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said:
Oh i cant believe i forgot to put this in, they will most likely NEVER use psychedelics for depression because the pharmaceutical industry doesnt try to make cures, cause a cure wont make them any money. So a single dose of mushrooms every 6 months is FAR less profitable than a monthly refill of SSRIs.
Post in conspiracies and cover-ups please.
Doesn't depend on the industry, but on the lawmakers.
OH for fk's sake, why is it that whenever a person here rightfully criticizes what is going on people scream 'conspiracy theory'? Don't you see what they have made you do...? Don't you see how this is propaganda that has made you say this? Am I being clear?
It is NOT a 'conspiracy theory'--which in your mindset means 'false' to talk about the MASSIVE power of the pharmaceutical industry. Do you not dig that these corporates are controlling the government? That it is one big corrupt fuck up? No you won't I bet, because their propaganda machione is working---the cover their act by having people like yourselves try and shut up others by calling them 'conspiracy theorists'.
|
Rewindicus
Silly Goose
Registered: 06/05/11
Posts: 5,491
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: I don't think scientific research is good for psychadelics [Re: badactor]
#17917290 - 03/07/13 05:10 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badactor said:
It's great but the thing is psychadelics might end up suppressed and you won't get anything out of it personally other than maybe a cure for depression.
Id say a legitimate real working CURE for depression would be worth ALL the research out there. Theres a great deal of sad people in this world and pharmaceuticals in my experience are not the answer. Using pharms for depression is like trying to stop up a broken dam with bandaids. 
--------------------
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.”- Dr. Seuss
"Too much of a good thing, can be wonderful!" - Mae West
"If you have nothing nice to say about anyone, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
sancho
Learyfan
Kid
Anno