dblaney said:

Ultimately only you can decide if it's a help or a hindrance. If you go out of your way to find weed because you're averse to not being high, then it could be an issue. If you take things as they come and are just as content whether you're stoned or not, then it might not be an issue.

---

palmersc said:

Not a long time toker, but I smoked daily for about 2 years. That was until 4 months ago. Now I have to stay clean and piss twice a week for the next year. This is good in a way though.

Weed is what got me interested in spirituality. You say it helps in "shelving away bad habits conditioned by society." I agree. A little bud could probably help most people break the ice. I think that's all it did for me though. It acted as a catalyst, but I think it left me in a rut. I used it as a crutch, and it became an attachment. I don't know about you, but if I wasn't smoking, I was thinking about how a jay would make things better. The more I meditate throughout the day, the more I see weed as being unnecessary towards my spiritual development. I'm still not sure where I'm going with meditation, but my curiosity is what keeps me diligent in practicing. That and the fact weed is no longer an option right now.

---

Fospher said:

The peacepipe, if that's what you are referring to, was tobacco, saying that they smoked pot out of it is a common rumour and misconception.

---

It may have been tobacco, but it was most certainly psychoactive tobacco. I've always wondered what smoking that would be like.

I've once read instructions on how to grow psychoactive tobacco... should have followed up!


Peace.

Fospher said:

And I'm sure that most tribes used standard tobacco - it was more of a gesture of social communion than the physical act of intaking a drug.

---

The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Substances said:

Whilst tobacco (Nicotiana spp.) is certainly a stimulant, in sufficient quantities (such as those used traditionally by American Indians, for which see below) it can have what, for all intents and purposes, may be called hallucinogenic properties. Certainly the South American Indian shamans see it as such, but this appears not just to be due to cultural conditioning (apprentice shamans are instructed beforehand of the nature of the visions they are going to see) but also to the actual chemistry of tobacco. Tobacco contains the harmala alkaloids harman and norharman, and the closely related harmine and harmaline are known hallucinogens. The levels of harman and horharman in cigarette smoke are between forty and 100 times greater than in tobacco leaf, showing that the burning of the plant generates this dramatic increase. The effects of nicotine on the central nervous system are still far from being understood. The hallucinogenic effects of tobacco become far more explicable when it is borne in mind that the strains of tobacco smokes by the American Indians were far more potent than our commercially produced varieties. Furthermore, the amounts consumed by them were often considerably greater than even the most ardent chain-smoker is able to manage.

---

This Site  said:

TOBACCO
Nicotiana tabacum L.;
Nightshade family (Solanaceae)......

.... Harvesting: The curing of tobacco is an expert business, and will not be covered here. Furthermore, this process greatly reduces its alkaloid content. For hallucinogenic purposes, the leaves should be dried quickly, preferably in the shade or indoors, and without the application of heat. Uncured tobacco is very potent -- the Indians who used it would often pass out after as little as one cigarette, and "communicate with the gods." This type of tobacco should be smoked with caution. The danger here is death from overdose rather than addiction. When used as a ritual narcotic it is not smoked often enough to result in addiction.

---

"Standard tobacco" is hallucinogenic.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

"Standard tobacco" is hallucinogenic.

---

Quote:

What grounds to you have to base such statements as "oh, I'm sure it was this that..."?

---

Fospher said:

Which makes me right nontheless. More or less potent, it was still tobacco.

---

Quote:

What grounds does anyone have to say anything?

---

Quote:

I post what I know.

---

In this case, you posted what you didn't actually know.


Peace.

Quote:

Something such as "Oh, I'm sure it was this" when there is evidence to the contrary has no real ground upon which to be placed.

---

Quote:

In this case, you posted what you didn't actually know.

---

Fospher said:

Provide evidence to the contrary and I will change my opinion with the fact.

---

I have already done so.

Quote:

Isn't that what the internet's intent was from the beginning? To exchange information freely?

---

Certainly, but that doesn't mean that such information has to be in the form of a brazen assertion of aspects of reality. I don't know anything about archaeology, and so I don't say "Oh, I'm sure these bones were actually this...". Eh?

Quote:

I posted that it wasn't marijuana but tobacco that was smoked out of the pipe, which is what I knew.

---

Quote:

By all means, try to prove me wrong. 

---

I have already provided exercepts from sources that demonstrate that tobacco is psychoactive, and that Native American tribes used tobacco as a hallucinogen. If smoking tobacco was merely for the social benefits of sitting around, partaking, then it would have been just as plausible that they would have passed around a rock and took turns rubbing it. It was utilized for its subsequent effects.

Is it really necessary to filibuster on the nature of the internet, trusting sources, how it is that we learn, etc., when someone states that an expressed view, as an observation of reality, has no basis, and then demonstrates contradictory information that underscores that it has no basis?


Peace.

Quote:

Certainly, but that doesn't mean that such information has to be in the form of a brazen assertion of aspects of reality. I don't know anything about archaeology, and so I don't say "Oh, I'm sure these bones were actually this...". Eh?

---

Quote:

...I have already provided exercepts from sources that demonstrate that tobacco is psychoactive, and that Native American tribes used tobacco as a hallucinogen.

---

Quote:

and then demonstrates contradictory information that underscores that it has no basis?

---

Fospher said:

That's because you don't know anything about archeology, while on the other hand, I have read up quite a feasable amount on Shamanism.

---

Quote:

I didn't realize I had to pass a bar test on a religion in order to make a post in a public forum.

---

It was never implied that such would be necessary; however, it usually helps when one doesn't propose that one is sure of this or that when, in actuality, one doesn't have anything to provide as a basis for that assumption.

Quote:

Once again, it was stating the kind of the drug used, ie marijuana vs tobacco.

---

Quote:

I have contradicted myself? Where?

---

Quote:

Is it really necessary..... when someone (me) states that an expressed view (your view), as an observation of reality, has no basis, and then demonstrates contradictory information that underscores that it has no basis?

---

Reading comprehension is fundamental.


Peace.