Opium of the People?

July 6, 2011 4:17 AM

Drugs and the Meaning of Life - Sam Harris on why taking psilocybin or LSD is "one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience".
posted by joannemullen (456 comments total)

taking psilocybin or LSD is "one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience"

No. Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 4:25 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

I'd do it, if I could find it, and I knew it was the real thing, and I had somebody who knew what they were doing watching over me, and if I could be guaranteed a 'good' trip. I guess that means I'll never do it.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [20 favorites]

You only live once
posted by midnightbarber at 4:30 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

I love me some quality psychedelics... but two Sam Harris posts in 3 days? Is he dating Lady Gaga?
posted by hippybear at 4:30 AM on July 6, 2011 [28 favorites]

I've only ever taken LSD, and those evenings spent exploring the quiddity of modern culture with my best friends are among my fondest memories. Is the psilocybin experience qualitatively different? I didn't interpret my experience as a rite or ritual, but the disruption of my usual perceptual filters was definitely a useful learning experience.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 4:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

No. Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 4:25 AM on July 6 [+] [!]

Yeeeeeeah, but you could say that about rock climbing. Or going for a run.

I mean shit this dude sawed his dick off making a table.

His dick.

A table.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [41 favorites]

I mean this dude.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:33 AM on July 6, 2011

Woah, the word 'experience' thrice in that one short paragraph? Maybe acid does melt your brain.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 4:33 AM on July 6, 2011

so not clicking on that link, Sebmojo.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:34 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

Shine on you crazy diamonds.
posted by punkfloyd at 4:39 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

A TABLE.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:40 AM on July 6, 2011 [42 favorites]

No. Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.
posted by Old'n'Busted

Eponyxample?
posted by me & my monkey at 4:49 AM on July 6, 2011 [10 favorites]

I've only ever taken LSD, and those evenings spent exploring the quiddity of modern culture with my best friends are among my fondest memories. Is the psilocybin experience qualitatively different?

Oh, hells yes, it's different.
Imagine the LSD experience, but without the chemical rollercoaster effect of not being quite in-control. To me, the psilocybin experience is all about being self-directed and in-control. Tripping, and being your own tour-guide. Being able to come up from it long enough to have a conversation, and then heading back into full immersion. And, when it's all done, feeling clean and refreshed and happy. Psilocybin is the only way to go.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:50 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

I've done it, quite a lot in my teens and early twenties. I know what he's talking about - and it did enrich me, and I don't regret it. But as I got older psychedelics started to feel less like journeying and more like temporary brain damage, the insights became stale and repetitive, so I stopped. Further progress would not come in chemical form, clearly.

Still singing the praises of hallucinogens twenty years after someone's started doing them, smacks of arrested development to me.
posted by tempythethird at 4:53 AM on July 6, 2011 [15 favorites]

First line of the article: Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness.

That's like saying that everything we eat is for the purpose of pooping.
posted by dubold at 4:55 AM on July 6, 2011 [19 favorites]

I don't regret having maybe taking LSD once, but I do regret acting like a pompous ass towards my non-acided up friends while I was on it. That may or may not have been the best I ever did on a test in my college mythology class though.
posted by drezdn at 4:58 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

It always makes me laugh when some fool has a few good experiences with a drug - and then they begin to evangelize for the drug. It is life changing, everyone should do it.

What a load of ignorant, immature crap.

Wait a few years. Wait to get to see the end result. Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams. For those of us unfortunate enough to have been down that road - the ignorance of this post is astounding.
posted by Flood at 5:06 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

I miss Jerry.
posted by mikelieman at 5:09 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

Well, I've never seen a "Faces of Shrooms" campaign.
posted by adamdschneider at 5:09 AM on July 6, 2011 [41 favorites]

No. Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.

Hundreds of millions of people do it with alcohol every day. The only reason most other drugs are more dangerous is because they aren't legal, and thus aren't regulated. When used appropriately, pure drugs free of poisons are only as dangerous as the person that's using them.

It's mystifying to me why there is such desperation in corning all human experience into petty routines that carry insane amounts of risk while decrying any recreational drug use that carries far less chance of long term damage. There's more risk driving your car to work than dropping acid. If the risk of dying on the way to unrewarding routine twice a day is acceptable in our society, why not take minuscule chances in comparison on the way to life changing experiences? Those revelations have been sought after by countless generations through dancing, meditation, fasting, and also lots of other drugs. It's what Joseph Campbell was talking about when he discussed the value of experiencing the rapture of being alive.

I'm not saying that everyone's path is through drugs, but I am saying that everyone's path is theirs to choose -- or as too often as is the case in our increasingly simplistic materialist world, to not choose. I don't think calling it stupid has much value, especially when you don't provide honest risk comparisons to other human activities.
posted by notion at 5:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [94 favorites]

Countryside just out of Birmingham, Alabama. Summer of the year 1974. After a rainy night, a hot sunny morning. In cow pastures, growing on the cow dung, psilocybin mushrooms. Bags of 'em, just there for the picking.

Good times.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

I spent a day reading about people's experiences with Datura, LSD, Belladonna and DMT on Erowid recently. What a head wreck, I felt like I needed a sitter after that. Compelling reading, but strange and scary too.
posted by Elmore at 5:15 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

I've taken LSD once, and the experience was highly, highly overrated.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:18 AM on July 6, 2011

>Wait a few years. Wait to get to see the end result. Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams. For those of us unfortunate enough to have been down that road - the ignorance of this post is astounding.

Behold the lowly LSD addict!

Seriously, whatever your take on the LSD experience is, it's about the least addictive drug one can do. Take it from someone unfortunate enough to have been down that - and many other - roads.
posted by item at 5:22 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

tempythethird has it right: temporary brain damage. There's nothing exalted or refined about it. Speaking as someone whose done his share of LSD, my advice is to love reality, get into your own naked senses, protect, preserve and cherish your unmediated consciousness and seek the mind's own clarity and transparency. Life's most sublime experience is to wake on a bright morning, with a clear head and a clean conscience.
posted by Faze at 5:23 AM on July 6, 2011 [22 favorites]

oops. my 'addict' link above was meant to go somewhere else, some magical anti-LSD film that I have somehow lost. I lame it on the drugs.
posted by item at 5:24 AM on July 6, 2011

Is the psilocybin experience qualitatively different?

Yeah, when I did it, it had a lot more emotional content than LSD. It felt like getting a hug from the universe for about 3 hours. LSD was usually a bit more 'fun' or 'funny' -- it made me feel happy, but it didn't make me feel 'love'. Mushrooms are also over in about half the time, so you don't have that eternity of feeling completely out of control.

Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams.

What drugs are you talking about? They're not all the same.
posted by empath at 5:26 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

... remembering the debauchery of last night.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:27 AM on July 6, 2011

I spent a day reading about people's experiences with Datura, LSD, Belladonna and DMT on Erowid recently. What a head wreck, I felt like I needed a sitter after that. Compelling reading, but strange and scary too.

There is no amount of reading that will make you understand what it is like.
posted by empath at 5:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

Considering that even taking a single valium to stop my fidgeting in an MRI was one of the worst experiences of my life, I think I'll have to pass on this one. Weaksauce people, unite!
posted by phunniemee at 5:30 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

Faze, to be fair, I'm not saying that temporary brain damage is completely devoid of its uses and pleasures. A lot of medicines are also poisons. Hallucinogens have their value as well as their danger, they have a certain "revealing" aspect and can also be the shock that makes someone look beyond their current horizons.

Of course, that shock can also be a sublime work of art, nature, love - all of those much less dangerous and much richer.

Also, to be fair, I've sadly known plenty of addicts and not a single one had a hallucinogen problem. The last thing LSD makes you want to do is more LSD.
posted by tempythethird at 5:30 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Faze: get into your own naked senses, protect, preserve and cherish your unmediated consciousness

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
posted by daksya at 5:31 AM on July 6, 2011 [7 favorites]

I would urge anyone curious about psilocybe cubensis to investigate the writings of R. Gordon Wasson, possibly the first European to experience the effects of The Mushroom.
posted by kinnakeet at 5:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

recreational drug use that carries far less chance of long term damage

Tell that to my brother, who still gets weird flashbacks when the stuff that is stored in his body fat percolates out. He doesn't drive any more because of this (at least some common sense - now).

Mitigating risk is how you stay alive. I don't rock climb, I don't skydive, I practice safe sex, and I back my files up, and I sure as hell don't fuck up my mind with drugs and shit. You want to do that, go right ahead, but saying that "dude, you seriously have to do this because if you don't you're a lesser man" is just bullshit and you know it.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 5:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

I have had lovely, life-changing experiences with psychedelics and I am always glad to see them portrayed in a positive light. Anyone decrying their use without having personally tried psychedelics is speaking from a position of ignorance.
posted by Lord Force Crater at 5:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [34 favorites]

No. Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.

In all actuality, under the right conditions and being of the mindset that the experience you are about to have has specific perimeters which you must understand before taking the drug, I would say you are completely wrong.

There is nothing more important in life than experiencing the "other."
posted by gcbv at 5:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

Tell that to my brother, who still gets weird flashbacks when the stuff that is stored in his body fat percolates out. He doesn't drive any more because of this (at least some common sense - now).


'stuff'?

Sounds like hysteria and gullibility.
posted by Lord Force Crater at 5:34 AM on July 6, 2011 [21 favorites]

There is nothing more important in life than experiencing the "other."

Right on. To add to my previous post - you can get there through safer and richer means than chemicals, but all those means are rare and possibly difficult. Much easier to stick something in your mouth and - voila. And maybe that one chemical shove into the "other" can be an incentive for people to henceforth pursue it via non-chemical means.
posted by tempythethird at 5:36 AM on July 6, 2011

Faze: " cherish your unmediated consciousness"

I don't think anything like this actually exists.

This is a very confusing topic for me - I don't even drink now (I like being in control of my faculties), but I took LSD exactly once in my early twenties. It permanently changed my personality and life for the better overnight, but I wouldn't do it again, and I hesitate to recommend it to anyone.
posted by vanar sena at 5:36 AM on July 6, 2011

Obligatory.
posted by gcbv at 5:37 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

It permanently changed my personality and life for the better overnight, but I wouldn't do it again

LSD certainly seems almost to be the opposite of addictive in certain cases. John Waters, for example: "I stopped taking drugs when I realized that [...] LSD trips were becoming like TV reruns. I had had enough inner journeys — I felt I knew myself well enough, thank you."
posted by robself at 5:39 AM on July 6, 2011 [10 favorites]

Tell that to my brother, who still gets weird flashbacks when the stuff that is stored in his body fat percolates out. He doesn't drive any more because of this (at least some common sense - now).

How do you know that these 'weird flashbacks' are attributable to his drug use, rather than the onset of schizophrenia or some other mental illness?

John Waters, for example: "I stopped taking drugs when I realized that [...] LSD trips were becoming like TV reruns.

That was also my experience of LSD. It was interesting, but it wasn't especially euphoric. After however many trips it was (not a small number, I'll concede), I was like, 'Ah, shit, not another 8 hours of this again.'
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:49 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

Life's most sublime experience is to wake on a bright morning, with a clear head and a clean conscience.

There's no such thing as a clear head. Your brain is sitting in a bath of chemicals, your emotional state is affected by almost everything you eat, or smell. Everything you think that you see or understand is unconsciously affected by bias, misunderstanding, habits of thought, cognitive shortcuts that evolved in your brain to help you survive on the savannah a million years ago.
posted by empath at 5:51 AM on July 6, 2011 [61 favorites]

You want to do that, go right ahead, but saying that "dude, you seriously have to do this because if you don't you're a lesser man" is just bullshit and you know it.

That's about the exact opposite of what the article actually says, oldandbusted. I quote:

"These encounters take something out of you. Even if drugs like LSD are biologically safe, the potential for extremely unpleasant and destabilizing experiences presents its own risks. I believe I was positively affected for weeks and months by my good trips, and negatively affected by the bad ones. Given these roulette-like odds, one can only recommend these experiences with caution."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:53 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Hallucinogens are interesting if you are boring. That's why they're perfect for college kids (myself included) who are/were caught in a "snare of preparation" and are still waiting for life to happen once they get the job, the big idea, the right connection, meet the right people, date the right dude/lady, whatever.

Bored? Want to expand your mind? Read a motherfucking book. Learn to play an instrument. Make friends with strangers. Study math. Take up a new sport.

(In short: get off my lawn.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:53 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

Hallucinogens are interesting if you are boring.


What a load of shit.
posted by gcbv at 5:55 AM on July 6, 2011 [28 favorites]

LSD ruined my life. But in a good way.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:55 AM on July 6, 2011 [10 favorites]

Bored? Want to expand your mind? Read a motherfucking book. Learn to play an instrument. Make friends with strangers. Study math. Take up a new sport.

I didn't realize it was an either/or decision.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:56 AM on July 6, 2011 [37 favorites]

Wait a few years. Wait to get to see the end result. Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams. For those of us unfortunate enough to have been down that road - the ignorance of this post is astounding.

oh please. You trot this one out every time someone wants to go for a beer at the pub? Far more harmful and addictive than the odd mushroom adventure.
posted by Greener Backyards at 5:57 AM on July 6, 2011 [26 favorites]

I didn't realize it was an either/or decision.

Man, have you ever read a book.... on acid?. It's totally far out.
posted by empath at 5:58 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah, that was rude and I apologize. Sorry, folks.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:59 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

who still gets weird flashbacks when the stuff that is stored in his body fat percolates out

This is easily one of the silliest urban legends ever.
posted by elizardbits at 6:01 AM on July 6, 2011 [45 favorites]

Yeah, I mean really, you're talking about taking 8 hours out of your life, on time, to have one of the most amazing experiences that life has to offer. It's better than watching Big Brother, any day of the week.
posted by empath at 6:01 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wait a few years. Wait to get to see the end result. Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams. For those of us unfortunate enough to have been down that road - the ignorance of this post is astounding.


I waited a few years. End result?

I'm the happiest I have ever been. Psychedelics were a part of a process in which I discovered
a larger world, both inner and outer, and moved me of a rather boring path of birth/school/work/death that I was supposing was something I HAD to do in order to "succeed."

If anything, it GAVE me a dream, larger than I ever expected.

This post is enlightening, not ignorant.

Understand the difference.
posted by gcbv at 6:02 AM on July 6, 2011 [12 favorites]

Man, have you ever read a book.... on acid?

I've tried, but the words wouldn't restrict themselves to two dimensions so it became unmanageable.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:03 AM on July 6, 2011 [16 favorites]

Wait a few years. Wait to get to see the end result. Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams.

Great, Reefer Madness.

who still gets weird flashbacks when the stuff that is stored in his body fat percolates out

I'd tell your brother to stop making stuff up, because that doesn't happen. Does. Not. Happen.

cherish your unmediated consciousness

You're one of those people who think I should embrace the sacred beatuy of my morning commute, aren't you. Life is long, we have time to do stuff without it being a rejection of everything else in the world.
posted by spaltavian at 6:08 AM on July 6, 2011 [15 favorites]

I also had a great experience on Mushrooms. It really opened my mind to the realization that a lot of my moods were biochemical and that I could make some certain, distinct decisions about how to feel and how to act. It gave me a lot of control over my emotional state and some peace and clarity going forward.

I almost never touch the stuff (It's been at least 4 years) but I have amazingly fond memories of it. I felt things I thought I'd forgotten how to feel. I remember a warm summer night in the middle of rural Pennsylvania, feeling like a kid. That kid of natural happiness. Some part of me had assumed I'd manufactured the emotion for the sake of nostalgia. But there it was, like an old friend.

But it also leaves you emotionally hung over the next day. It's a hard drug to abuse. And I feel like those of you in this thread who have HORROR STORIES about LSD/Psyclobin were just as likely to abuse anything. It happened to be Psychedelics that were in front on you. And for every burnout who drops too much acid, there are a thousand alcoholics and drunk driving victims.

My point is this: Some people can 'handle it' and have very, very positive experience. Some people can't. This true of everything from Horror Movies to Chocolate Cake. Just because you crashed your life into the rocks isn't necessarily the fault of the drug.
posted by GilloD at 6:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

LSD, for me, was wonderful. There was this glorious feeling of just being a kid again, literally with the mind of a child for whom everything is beautiful and wonderfully new.

And it was just a delightfully silly thing for me. I remember a trip when I knew I would finally concentrate and finally realize the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Sat down with my notebook to record this understanding for future generations. And I had the moment of enlightenment, wrote it down faithfully, came back to the notebook later when sober and found the page read "The onion man is coming. He's going to eat me. Must hide!" accompanied by a helpful drawing of a guy in a suit with an onion for a head.

I wouldn't trade that sort of experience for anything.
posted by honestcoyote at 6:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [25 favorites]

Wow there seem to be a whole lot of people saying that it's bad for you to take a vacation. You should stay home and appreciate the same traffic, walkways, bodegas, little city parks, the daily commute, the weekly shopping trips, the mall, the drugstore, the beer with your buddies. All of that is all you'll ever need and you should learn to appreciate the days when the sun is especially shiny and the clouds particularly pretty and the flowers are so wonderfully dewy.

Yes, it is good to learn to appreciate the beauty in everyday life.

It is also good to go on a fucking vacation to see something new. Soaring redwoods as wide as your garage. Sandstone mesas carved from the brilliant orange of a sunset. Snow-capped peaks. A million brightly coloured fish whipping around a coral bank. The thrumming of a tribal ceremony. Riding in a snow-cat across the Arctic circle, spying a polar bear in the distance. Half a million people in a Pride march. A solo hike through a vineyards and villages in rural France.

Life is enriched both my mindful contemplation of mundanity and by new and vibrant experiences that push boundaries and lend contrast. We've each been given a three and a half pound organ of perception and we are damn fools if we don't use every bit of its capabilities.

Please be sure to read, understand and follow all the safety rules that come with your power tools. Knowing how to use your tools correctly will greatly reduce your risk of personal injury. And remember, there is no more important safety rule than to use these safety glasses.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [27 favorites]

This post is enlightening, not ignorant.

For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs. Come to an NA meeting and sit and listen to some of the stories there.

Whatever may have been your experiences with drugs - to celebrate a post encouraging drug use, to advocate that others use drugs - there is nothing enlightened about that at all, it is purely ignorant.
posted by Flood at 6:13 AM on July 6, 2011

I've never done LSD myself but I know several people who have who earn way more than me.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:13 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Hallucinogens are interesting if you are boring.

Wow the catchy kneejerk judgments keep coming in this thread, don't they? The idea that there's something pure and noble about the odd set of limits on consciousness that happened to evolve in this particular way this specific time, and that there's something particularly horrific about - and absolutely nothing of value that can be learned by - opening up the perception set we've developed by evolutionary accident - is hilarious.
posted by mediareport at 6:14 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

Considering that even taking a single valium to stop my fidgeting in an MRI was one of the worst experiences of my life, I think I'll have to pass on this one.

Drugs do not exist on a continuum from 'alcohol' (weak) to 'lsd' (strong). They do completely different things, with differing amounts of intensity. I've been far, far, far, far more 'fucked up' with plain old alcohol than I ever was with LSD. I haven't had valium, but I had to take vicodin in the past and did not enjoy it at all. And how you feel about downers is just in no way related to whether you'd enjoy pot or LSD or MDMA or anything else.
posted by empath at 6:15 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

Drugs: vague happy anecdote or angry life-destroying anecdote?
posted by ryanrs at 6:15 AM on July 6, 2011 [19 favorites]

For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs. Come to an NA meeting and sit and listen to some of the stories there.

Which drugs? I would be absolutely stunned if you told me you know people wrecked by LSD and mushrooms alone.
posted by empath at 6:16 AM on July 6, 2011 [18 favorites]

It is pretty fucking ridiculous that few people in this thread appear willing to accept the basic fact that different strokes for different folks applies 100 fucking percent to drug experimentation, and that no one is absolutely right and no one is absolutely wrong. jesus metafilter, get a grip.
posted by elizardbits at 6:17 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

Come to an NA meeting and sit and listen to some of the stories there.

Do they have an LSD anonymous?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:17 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

who still gets weird flashbacks when the stuff that is stored in his body fat percolates out

Yeh flashbacks are real, but there's no proof they're biologically caused. I had them when I was doing LSD often and was in a "drug phase." When tripping was the farthest thing from my mind, I had no flashbacks.

for the boring... who are/were caught in a "snare of preparation" and are still waiting for life to happen once they get the job

I sort of agree with that, except I think this is a good thing! A drug that can make the overtrained privileged joyless kid look past conditioning and thus possibly make some life choices that will lead them somewhere other than Goldman Sachs, what a terrible drug! No wonder its so threatening.

My bone to pick here is when the kid turns into an adult and twenty years later is still holding up said drug as some fountain of truth and beauty.
posted by tempythethird at 6:17 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

What upsets me more than the equivalency with which all drugs are critically treated by some commenters here, is the promotion of personal (or more often, second-, third-, etc. hand) accounts to the realm of undeniable, inescapable globally applicable for-everyone truths.
posted by wrok at 6:18 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: vague happy anecdote or angry life-destroying anecdote?
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:18 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here's an interesting article a few years back from Vanity Fair about LSD therapy among the rich and famous in Hollywood.

LSD was great until it wasn't great anymore, which was about 13 years ago. Absolutely no desire to go near it again. Mushrooms were always great, the stomach ache I got every time for the first 30 minutes or so, not so much.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 6:18 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

And it was just a delightfully silly thing for me. I remember a trip when I knew I would finally concentrate and finally realize the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Sat down with my notebook to record this understanding for future generations. And I had the moment of enlightenment, wrote it down faithfully, came back to the notebook later when sober and found the page read "The onion man is coming. He's going to eat me. Must hide!" accompanied by a helpful drawing of a guy in a suit with an onion for a head.

See, this is where the whole "LSD changed my life for the better" thing never really groks for me. I admire and respect that those who feel this way feel that they did something that changed them into better people, but when I've asked any of them to describe in what ways this has changed them, I get a drawing of a guy with an onion for a head.
posted by xingcat at 6:19 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wow, we have got some squares on Metafilter.
posted by chasing at 6:20 AM on July 6, 2011 [43 favorites]

Put them in the third ark.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:21 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

I admire and respect that those who feel this way feel that they did something that changed them into better people, but when I've asked any of them to describe in what ways this has changed them, I get a drawing of a guy with an onion for a head.

For me it was mostly just making me question all of my assumptions about reality and who I was and who I could be, which, in the succeeding 8 years since the last time I've done it have probably all been replaced by new assumptions that probably needed to be blown out, but I kind of am pretty okay with my life right now so I don't feel the need to 'shake up my reality' again.
posted by empath at 6:22 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Drugs: vague happy anecdote or angry life-destroying anecdote?

Why do you think they call it anecdote?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:22 AM on July 6, 2011

For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs. Come to an NA meeting and sit and listen to some of the stories there.

Whatever may have been your experiences with drugs - to celebrate a post encouraging drug use, to advocate that others use drugs - there is nothing enlightened about that at all, it is purely ignorant.


"Drugs?"

You mean meth, coke, pot, lsd, alcohol?

WHAT do you mean?

Sugar, carbohydrates, protein?

You're talking about the PEOPLE behind the drugs, not the drugs.
posted by gcbv at 6:23 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

@Flood: I'm sure to hear you know someone who was hooked on a substance that's clearly not the subject of this post.
posted by 3mendo at 6:24 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

oops. SORRY.
posted by 3mendo at 6:24 AM on July 6, 2011

I get a drawing of a guy with an onion for a head.

Some philosophies state that all you really see in people is a mirror of self.
posted by gcbv at 6:25 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

What's really important is that everyone tell everyone else to take or not take drugs, and that they imply that those who have or haven't don't know what they're missing or don't know what they're doing.

Or maybe we can start researching a chemical for regulating condescension! Here, I'll start: tried it once long ago; wasn't impressed but completely understand why others are. I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying it, but don't think there's anything there that you can't figure out without the drug.

In my experience, people who insist that you absolutely must or must not try drugs tend to share a certain self-righteousness; if you have that aspect to your personality you'll be very happy with either decision.
posted by phooky at 6:28 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

For me, being "out of control" on LSD and psilocybin helped me to appreciate the control I exert over my own life when in a sober state. I was no longer a college student trapped in the maze of scholastic and parental expectation, but realized that it was ME in control. I was the decision maker, but I also gained a better appreciation for the interconnectedness of people and the world in general. Lots of people come to this realization without the use of drugs. But for me, I learned all kinds of things in my year of experimenting with psychedelics. The last thing I learned was that I no longer needed (or wanted) them. But, I can definitely say that they changed my life. For the better? I think so, but really, who knows? I can only take stock of my life as it is and move forward.
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:28 AM on July 6, 2011

For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs.

I assume these are the kind of "drugs" you pay for with burlap sacks with dollar signs on them?
posted by griphus at 6:29 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

I haven't had valium, but I had to take vicodin in the past and did not enjoy it at all. And how you feel about downers is just in no way related to whether you'd enjoy pot or LSD or MDMA or anything else.

Truth. I have no love for opiates; even taken for actual pain they make me feel so bad that it's not worth it. I had some hydrocodone syrup for a can't-sleep-hacking-up-blood cough a few months ago, and all it did was wake me up every time I started to doze off because I realized I hadn't been breathing.

But cannabis and I are real good buddies. We don't see each other very often, but when we do, it's all good times and a body buzz that lingers for days. It's the damndest thing, because nobody else I know seems to have that experience.

I feel as though I might be too old to start in on psychedelics, though, much as I'm intrigued.
posted by uncleozzy at 6:29 AM on July 6, 2011

Mushrooms and LSD are definitely a different class of drug. I have seen the immediate and long term effects on myself and those close to me of most substances you can name and these two are the only ones I would feel comfortable recommending to someone.

No one is going to get addicted to LSD. There is no danger of overdose. No reliable study has ever found either drug to have a single deleterious long term health effect. And the first time you take it, you are almost guaranteed to learn something new about consciousness, perspective, perception and you.

The only dangers are: 1. You might get arrested trying to buy the drug in the first place; and 2. You might wander into traffic.

With a little foresight, these can both be reduced to effectively zero. And it's worth it.
posted by 256 at 6:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

This is the greatest collection of uneducated opinions I've ever seen collected on MetaFilter.
posted by secondhand pho at 6:33 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

xingcat: "but when I've asked any of them to describe in what ways this has changed them"

I have no veggieman sketches to offer you, but I can vaguely describe what happened. I'm somewhat of an anxious control freak by nature, and that got ripped out in a really decisive way. A lot of the anger and frustration I had building up just went away the next day. Everything was good - I became a lot more tolerant of my own failings and of others around me. As empath said above, some of that may be back now, but I'm okay with it.

That said, it was a beautiful night and I was in the company and care of beautiful people. I feel like it could very easily have gone the other way if that were not the case. This is why I never did it again and I don't recommend it to anyone.
posted by vanar sena at 6:34 AM on July 6, 2011

This is the greatest collection of uneducated opinions I've ever seen collected on MetaFilter.

I see you've been studiously avoiding the global warming and evolutionary psychology threads, then.

Seriously, though, which ones are they and which education is lacking?
posted by griphus at 6:36 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

What's really important is that everyone tell everyone else to take or not take drugs, and that they imply that those who have or haven't don't know what they're missing or don't know what they're doing.

I think that you can't know what you're missing if you haven't done it, just like you can't really understand what raising a child is like if you haven't done it, and can't really understand what warfare is like if you haven't been in one. Saying that doesn't necessarily imply that one should or shouldn't do it, but I think it does imply that if you haven't done it, you should perhaps take seriously the reports of people who have done it, about what it is like, and what it has done for them or to them, before deciding on whether you or anyone else should do it.
posted by empath at 6:36 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

Eagerly awaiting similar pieces, like Fred Phelps on Tort Reform!
posted by mobunited at 6:38 AM on July 6, 2011

Whatever may have been your experiences with drugs - to celebrate a post encouraging drug use, to advocate that others use drugs - there is nothing enlightened about that at all, it is purely ignorant.

From the article:

The problem, however, is that we refer to all biologically active compounds by a single term—“drugs”—and this makes it nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the psychological, medical, ethical, and legal issues surrounding their use.

posted by kirkaracha at 6:40 AM on July 6, 2011 [19 favorites]

So many lawns to get off of....
posted by gimonca at 6:40 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Just to pile on Flood, "drugs" is a fake idea. Some illegal drugs are terrible, and you should really never touch them: meth and heroin are the big ones. Some are more or less harmless, like LSD, mushrooms, DMT, all the various entheogens. Most are like alcohol, fine in moderation, but open to abuse: marijuana, MDMA, whatever else. The fact that they're all considered equally awful by the law and therefore demonised equally by the law's propaganda apparatus is a colossal shame.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 6:40 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

The fact that they're all considered equally awful by the law and therefore demonised equally by the law's propaganda apparatus is a colossal shame.

And more than a colossal shame, it means that if you want to try LSD or MDMA, you have to deal with guys who probably also sell meth and coke, etc.
posted by empath at 6:42 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

This brings up a story that I heard second hand back in the day but I'll personalize it for clarity.

Three of us were tripping. About 3 hours in Eileen screams "I've got it, I just found the secret of the universe. We're pretty much obliterated so we say "write it down and we'll look at it later." Which she does.

Two days later we run into Eileen and ask if she's read the secret. She's forgotten about it and pulls a folded slip of paper from her pocket. Eagerly, we wait for her to unfold it and stare in awe as we read: "If I stand on my tiptoes I can touch the ceiling."

How do you like that rite of passage, Sam Harris?
posted by Xurando at 6:42 AM on July 6, 2011 [10 favorites]

Seriously, though, which ones are they and which education is lacking?

But first... are you... experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well... I have.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:45 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just to pile on Flood, "drugs" is a fake idea. Some illegal drugs are terrible, and you should really never touch them: meth and heroin are the big ones. Some are more or less harmless, like LSD, mushrooms, DMT, all the various entheogens. Most are like alcohol, fine in moderation, but open to abuse: marijuana, MDMA, whatever else. The fact that they're all considered equally awful by the law and therefore demonised equally by the law's propaganda apparatus is a colossal shame.

Sorry, but this is crap. Drugs are not inherently evil or good. You can absolutely take meth or heroin and have it be a positive or nonexistent/minimal force in your life. Chances aren't great that will work out well for you, but it's absolutely possible. All drugs are just chemicals -- they are not animate forces of destruction. Chemicals leave that to the decisions of human beings.

To kowtow to those irrationally set against all drugs by attempting to differentiate between 'terrible' and 'harmless' inanimate chemical substances is a disservice to reason.
posted by wrok at 6:45 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

Everybody must get stoned.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:47 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

What utter nonsense. I am delighted with my consciousness. Why would I need to alter it?
And when I do want another view of things, I meditate...that suffices.
posted by Postroad at 6:47 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sam Harris is an idiot.

Considering what he has been saying recently about using science to develop a secular basis for morality, I can't take anything else he says seriously. The guy is philosophically tone-deaf. He doesn't seem interested to know that utilitarianism is like, still a debatable premise for morality. It has been for the past 200 years. It's not a foregone conclusion, and his complete inability to understand that fact is just embarrassing.

Combine that with his equally-embarrassing credulity for parapsychology, and his utterly reprehensible, glib endorsement of violence and torture against Islamists...

Sam Harris is an idiot.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 6:48 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

I see what you mean, wrok, but that's a pretty absolutist position. You're right that drugs have no inherent moral charge, but empirically you can see that given the sample set of all users of the various illegal drugs, heroin is much more likely to ruin someone's life than marijuana: that's the basis of my distinction between "terrible" and "okay".
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 6:51 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just to pile on Flood, "drugs" is a fake idea. Some illegal drugs are terrible, and you should really never touch them: meth and heroin are the big ones. Some are more or less harmless, like LSD, mushrooms, DMT, all the various entheogens.

One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:52 AM on July 6, 2011

Seriously, though, which ones are they and which education is lacking?

If you're stomping your feet, screaming "DRUGS ARE EVIL!" and even mentioning addiction in this thread, your opinion is irrelevant. People who can't (or refuse to) differentiate between the effects of a hallucinogenic drug and the destructive nature of several other classifications of drugs have no grip on this issue.

I challenge someone to try and get addicted to mushrooms or LSD. Good luck.

I'm not here to sing the praises of either or attempt to convince anyone there aren't some negative aspects, but there are just waaaay too many misinformed opinions and knee jerk reactions saturating this thread. /end rant
posted by secondhand pho at 6:52 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

Flood, more dreams have been destroyed by video games than by illegal drugs. Just because drugs are one of the many, many things that can trigger an addictive personality into addiction doesn't make them wrong for everyone. My father is an addict, my mother is an addict, and I have suffered enormously because of that, so it's not for lack of experience with addicts that I say this.

I don't know exactly what they teach in AA, but if they teach people that drugs are bad for everyone and can never be used by anyone for anything good, I'll just have to disagree. Making drugs illegal because some people are hurt by them is like making cars or gambling or prostitution or ladders illegal. It doesn't make any sense, and creating an underground where none needs to exist only makes drugs more dangerous than they otherwise would be.

Drug use isn't wrong. Drug abuse is wrong. Some people (and I'm not disparaging them) have a hard time keeping use in check, so they shouldn't use. But there's no point in creating more of a problem under the false assumption that making them illegal is going to help users and abusers when it hurts both. Educate the populace on what acceptable use is, eliminate the stigma of use, and you're going to have far less addicts, and probably far less users since there will be no element of rebellion for teenagers.
posted by notion at 6:53 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

more dreams have been destroyed by video games than by illegal drugs.

And more still, no doubt, by late-night street work crews in my Tokyo neighborhood.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:56 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Sam Harris is an idiot.

I wasn't convinced until the second time you said it, so thanks for that.
posted by empath at 7:00 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

The fact that they're all considered equally awful by the law and therefore demonised equally by the law's propaganda apparatus is a colossal shame.

I wouldn't consider it a shame, but a necessary decision made by and for society. This is something that it's better to be more conservative about, because the only thing you'll lose is some temporary enjoyment.

I'm sure individually you've all had great experiences with drugs, and I hope that everyone gets a chance to be able to safely use drugs under careful watch of medical personnel.

But, you know how I mentioned it's better to be a bit more conservative with decisions like this? Because if you get them wrong, you can get something like the Opium Wars. The first war on drugs. You get alcohol used as an agent of social control against Native Americans. And I really don't think that's hyperbole. When you go to the Hong Kong Museum of History there's a huge section and diorama that talks about the Opium Wars, complete with those large black sphere replicas on a fake pier.
posted by FJT at 7:01 AM on July 6, 2011

Flood, more dreams have been destroyed by video games than by illegal drugs.

Oh, come on. It's entirely possible, and more effective, to argue for the legalization of drugs without saying transparently silly things.
posted by IjonTichy at 7:02 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is something that it's better to be more conservative about, because the only thing you'll lose is some temporary enjoyment.

Also, you know, billions of tax dollars and a staggeringly large portion of our population currently in jail for drug-related charges.
posted by griphus at 7:02 AM on July 6, 2011 [15 favorites]

notion: “There's more risk driving your car to work than dropping acid.”

This is a pseudoscientific claim with nothing whatsoever to back it up. I believe that it is probably false.

Sincerely, the risk of using acid or mushrooms is far greater than most suburban teenaged drug boosters will ever realize. My girlfriend is working now in a psychiatric ER; she can tell you downright frightening stories of the things that can happen to you on these drugs. And the things they can do to you – which directly affect mental functioning – are much more dangerous than the things most car accidents will do to you.

"Ah, but it only damages people who aren't spiritually and mentally ready for it!" one might say. "It's only dangerous if you're not prepared!" Well, believe me: most people are not and will not be prepared. Even most fat, happy, suburban white people are not and will not be prepared. People say things like this:

“The only reason most other drugs are more dangerous is because they aren't legal, and thus aren't regulated. ”

... with the apparently brilliant insight that the government has carefully and adequately regulated booze; whereas the truth is that it's laughable to imagine that the government could ever succeed in setting up some sort of spiritual and mental screening process to ascertain that people are ready to take LSD or mushrooms.

Seriously, I don't know why people encourage this stuff openly like this. I am willing to concede that, for some people, these things might be a worthwhile step on a spiritual journey; but those people are few and far between. It's cruel and heartless to act as though those who aren't prepared – people like me, for example – deserve whatever pain and mental and spiritual suffering they get when they take these drugs. We are not lesser people because we can't take certain drugs happily, and we shouldn't be consigned to anguish just because you believe we are.
posted by koeselitz at 7:03 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

I took some DMT and spoke with the elves from the spirit world and they said it's ok, opinions are like assholes and everyone's is a little musty.
posted by FeralHat at 7:05 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Also, you know, billions of tax dollars and a staggeringly large portion of our population currently in jail for drug-related charges.

You didn't read the part where I pretty much supported harm reduction, did you? Because straight out legalization won't do it. You need to put in a government or non-profit that provides an option for addicts to get drugs in a safe, clean, and cost-free environment that of course encourages rehabilitation in the mid to long term.

To me, shifting drugs into a public health issue isn't giving up on the War on Drugs, it's fighting smart. It saws off the legs of organized crime, which relies on drug trafficking for most of their profits. It takes users off the streets, and out of the jails.
posted by FJT at 7:12 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Dudes, shut up, listen to the music, and feel the carpet. Feel that shit. And then notice that you've been living in a projection but now you're in direct contact with your senses. Wonderful. Remember to shut up and listen.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 7:14 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

We are not lesser people because we can't take certain drugs happily, and we shouldn't be consigned to anguish just because you believe we are.

What does 'consigned to anguish' mean in this context?
posted by empath at 7:14 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Serious question - if it's so awesome, why isn't EVERYONE doing it? I know dozens of people who smoke weed or used to, but as far as I know I've only known two or three people who did the stuff in question. Why is that?
posted by desjardins at 7:14 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

> but as far as I know I've only known two or three people who did the stuff in question. Why is that?

Selection bias.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 7:16 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

as far as I know I've only known two or three people who did the stuff in question. Why is that?

"The U.S. government contends that following their arrest there was a 90% drop in the availability of LSD worldwide."
posted by robself at 7:16 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

I'm 36, white, American, for reference.
posted by desjardins at 7:16 AM on July 6, 2011

You didn't read the part where I pretty much supported harm reduction, did you?

Harm reduction is not a solution or strategy for casual use, which is what we're discussing here.

Why is that?

Well, it depends on how easy it is to get where you are, the availability of the stuff, and who you hang out with. Clearly you don't/didn't run with people into this stuff or lived somewhere that getting it was considerably more difficult or expensive than it was worth.
posted by griphus at 7:17 AM on July 6, 2011

Why is that?

It's illegal, not easy to be obtained, and is suffers from the REEFER MADNESS! reactions on display in this thread. Was that a serious question?
posted by spaltavian at 7:17 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

What koeselitz said. I'm a big fan of decriminalization and treating substance abuse as a medical problem. But I have enough experience with my own mind to suspect that the risks of having a very bad trip are likely higher than usual. Given that my mind runs straight to hell like a well-trained dog under even mild intoxicants or lack of sleep, I'm not encouraged to chemically cut that leash.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:19 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Serious question - if it's so awesome, why isn't EVERYONE doing it? I know dozens of people who smoke weed or used to, but as far as I know I've only known two or three people who did the stuff in question. Why is that?

Because it's illegal, because people are afraid, because the government lies to people about what it does, because unlike weed, its not something people want to do over and over and over again, because it just isn't for everyone. It's an extreme experience for people who like pushing boundaries. If you're a person who likes being comfortable and at ease, it's not going to be for you.
posted by empath at 7:20 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

Oh, come on. It's entirely possible, and more effective, to argue for the legalization of drugs without saying transparently silly things.

As someone born in 1981, I know more people who have wasted more hours on video games than they have on drugs. Psychology is always slow to move, but I'm not the only one who sees friends chained to a computer or console 24/7 while scraping by on unemployment as a terrible and life-threatening condition.
posted by notion at 7:21 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

Harm reduction is not a solution or strategy for casual use, which is what we're discussing here.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to set the discussion agenda here at the community weblog. The discussion is now clearly encompassing wider issues involving drug use, including addiction and drug policy.
posted by FJT at 7:24 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

What a terrible thread. People transparently haven't read anything beyond the quoted paragraph of the article and come in to give their opinion. Absolutely beneath the quality that should be associated with this site. I don't feel like participating in it.
posted by codacorolla at 7:25 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

Serious question - if it's so awesome, why isn't EVERYONE doing it?

I'll add - it has a reputation and a stigma. Shrooms and LSD are Serious Drugs and doing them is a Serious Undertaking. A little pot or a few beers are harmless, in comparison (so said many an alcoholic or stoner). It takes either someone really open minded and secure or a real drug user to decide to spend the evening altering the way their mind and senses work. Its a much bigger deal than the stuff you mentioned.
posted by tempythethird at 7:27 AM on July 6, 2011

Heh. This thread is like every other drug thread. Never change, MetaFilter!

[My anecdata, while we're sharing again: Took enough acid to give a hit or two to everyone who's commented so far. Was privy to hundreds of dosings of various people. No hospital trips recorded, and it's not like we weren't paying attention. We always called around to check on folks to make sure the dose was good. Sure, some folks had bad trips but none I know ever required medical attention. My point in sharing this is just to help illuminate the wide gulf of experiences and maybe a few more folks will realize that it's a subject with a bit more nuance then they might have previously thought.]
posted by BeerFilter at 7:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

I don't really like amusement parks anymore. I know what will happen. I can't reconjure the feeling of falling my stomach surging relatively upwards and the trusting but not completely that despite sensations to the contrary I will be fine. But I have experienced rollercoasters and I am glad that I got to experience them and my life is somehow fuller for having done so. I am not transformed by having ridden a rollercoaster. Or having watched The Seven Samurai with audio commentary. Or having read 100 Years of Solitude. Or lying on my back looking at clouds. Or going hiking and touching a barbed plant that caused my fingers to swell up and burn and tingle but not for too long. Or finding the wire skeleton of a mattress and jumping off of it like a trampoline and landing on my face terrified of the damage that I had done to myself that seemed, in the moment, irreparable. Or any particular single experience. As far as I know. I'm sure I have been changed, more subtly, in ways that escape me.

Hallucinogens provide a way to access a very novel, very interesting, very important feeling, usually very pleasant experience, an experience that exists on the same continuum as other experiences. They are probably less meaningful than they seem in the moment, but that feeling of meaningfulness is very much part of the point of them and besides the same could be said for experiences in general. I am not still crying about my cat dying when I was eleven.

Considering their power they are very, very safe. They are also very, very cheap. I think it is precisely because of this cheapness that they are stigmatized. Experiences that important seeming should be reserved for people with the money to walk around foreign places of worship or go white water rafting or ski often enough to hit the black diamond slopes. I think that is at least part of it. The extent to which they are cheap also makes overindulgence easier. That’s another part of it.

I am still, relatively speaking, a young man. If I had to guess I will probably never take any of these drugs again. I’m maybe annoyed by that since it has less to do with my own authentic preferences and evaluation of the risks and rewards of the substances themselves and more with the fact that I have to interface with a society that takes a pretty dim view of them.
posted by I Foody at 7:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

The discussion is now clearly encompassing wider issues involving drug use, including addiction and drug policy.

No, that's what's called a derail. The linked article is about psychedelics. If you're talking about addiction, you should probably wait until someone starts a thread about something that's addictive.
posted by empath at 7:28 AM on July 6, 2011 [12 favorites]

As someone born in 1981, I know more people who have wasted more hours on video games than they have on drugs.

That may be the case, but it's still a silly argument to make as it takes a narrow view of history. I'm not certain at the harm video games cause, but you're probably not alone in your thought of the social harm caused by video games as there are Chinese treatment programs for internet and game addiction.
posted by FJT at 7:28 AM on July 6, 2011

empath: "It's an extreme experience for people who like pushing boundaries."

And some people do it simply because it's made to sound rebellious and cool because of statements like this one. Is there a right reason to do drugs? I don't really know of one, but this is definitely not it.

(I don't mean to be harsh, but I know a guy who took speed because of how cool it sounded in a William Gibson novel. It didn't go so well for him.)
posted by vanar sena at 7:29 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

The author of this article had pretty much the same thing to say about acid that I would say: I am glad I did it, not because it was a "good" experience, but because it was a revealing one. If anything, it pretty well makes clear how tenuous our perception of reality is.

I can certainly relate to Harris' implication that he has some sympathy and understanding for the mentally ill.
posted by Xoebe at 7:33 AM on July 6, 2011

No, that's what's called a derail. The linked article is about psychedelics. If you're talking about addiction, you should probably wait until someone starts a thread about something that's addictive.

Maybe you should take your own advice and stop encouraging such discussion.
posted by FJT at 7:35 AM on July 6, 2011

LSD, for me, was wonderful. There was this glorious feeling of just being a kid again, literally with the mind of a child for whom everything is beautiful and wonderfully new.

And it was just a delightfully silly thing for me. I remember a trip when I knew I would finally concentrate and finally realize the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Sat down with my notebook to record this understanding for future generations. And I had the moment of enlightenment, wrote it down faithfully, came back to the notebook later when sober and found the page read "The onion man is coming. He's going to eat me. Must hide!" accompanied by a helpful drawing of a guy in a suit with an onion for a head.

I wouldn't trade that sort of experience for anything.

That's awesome and cool. I would probably enjoy such an experience.

But it points out something that is being displayed in this thread: psychedelics seem to bring out the ego in people. The story related is humorous in retrospect, but at that moment, this person was absolutely positive they had conjured in their mind The Answer. There are a number of comments in this thread from arrogant-seeming people who are convinced psychedelics are the only way to understanding what life is really about. Maybe psychedelics just make people more arrogant, more trusting of their own senses and intuition rather than reason or logic.

What makes an LSD or mushroom trip better than say, being whipped up into a frenzy by religious or political fervor?

Anecdote isn't evidence, but the people I know who use(d) psychedelics are, as a group, much more strident and sure of themselves. For very little reason.
posted by gjc at 7:36 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

(I don't mean to be harsh, but I know a guy who took speed because of how cool it sounded in a William Gibson novel. It didn't go so well for him.)

You know, I bet it was Neuromancer, and I've always wanted to talk about this. When you're young (and "you're" being "me") Case is a really cool guy, getting into adventures, being badass, etc. When you become older than him, however, you realize how bad of a loser he really is. The whole "surface tension" metaphor stops being about a guy living on the EDGE, and about someone in really, really dire straits.

So, yeah, I can see why someone of a certain age would think the description of speed is cool, but read it a few years later and it comes off as desperate as it is supposed to be.
posted by griphus at 7:38 AM on July 6, 2011 [12 favorites]

Whoops, hit the button too soon.

Is there a right reason to do drugs?

I mean, in an answer-by-exclusion way, the right reason is "because you want to," simply because any other reason is a bad one.
posted by griphus at 7:40 AM on July 6, 2011

How many LSD users (present or past) do you know? How many "onion man" or "if I stand on my tiptoes I can touch the ceiling" stories have you heard? It should be pretty obvious to anyone actually familiar with the effects of things like LSD on humans what's happening here. As a frequent tripsitter for people (quite intelligent people, in fact) who just can't resist, it's certainly clear to me.

Nobody's perceptions or consciousness were expanded or opened or anything like that. People on psychedelics have the same consciousness and perception they've always had, but they're temporarily so stupid that it seems completely overwhelming and mindblowing to them. It's just mimicking (or temporarily causing?) brain damage.

LSD is not some kind of crazy chemical magic that reveals the secrets of the universe. It briefly gives you the experience of being a very stupid person who has suddenly come into possession of the brain of a smarter person. It's certainly an experience you won't commonly find, but you have to decide for yourself whether it's something that's really worth having.

Also, people saying "It's okay because it's less bad for you than alcohol": This is not a good argument. Alcohol is a dark, insidious thing wound through our culture that destroys people's lives every day, and almost everybody personally knows someone who has been ruined or killed by it. If you want people to consider your substance innocuous, don't compare it to something like that.

(Full disclosure: I don't drink, don't smoke, don't inject/drop/whatever else. Based on my experience, I think psychedelics are a dumb thing to do, but I bet people think some things that I like to do are dumb too. I'm generally in favor of decriminalization, especially of drugs like marijuana and LSD that seem to do far less damage to people than alcohol does, if only for logical consistency.)
posted by IAmUnaware at 7:44 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Based on my experience, I think psychedelics are a dumb thing to do,

You have no experience. Jesus Christ, I'm removing this thread from recent activity and trying to pretend that this discussion happened on another site... like the comment section of a Fox News article.
posted by codacorolla at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2011 [20 favorites]

Anecdote isn't evidence, but the people I know who use(d) psychedelics are, as a group, much more strident and sure of themselves. For very little reason.

Is it bad to be sure of yourself? I can assure that that there is no good reason for anyone to be sure of themselves.

I personally came away from it thinking that I knew absolutely nothing about anything. The problem is when people like me try to convince everyone else that they also know nothing about anything. It comes across as arrogant, obviously, but it's not coming from a place of ego. Exactly the opposite. The understanding that you're completely lost in a world without meaning lets you understand that everybody else is as also lost as you are, and no one is better than you. You can see that kind of confidence in someone like Steve Jobs (who said LSD was one of the most important experiences of his life) remaking the world through sheer force of will.

LSD isn't the only way to get to that realization, but it sure is a convenient way to get there.
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

Trips are as different as the people who take them. Blanket generalizations fail. Drugs most definitely are not for everyone.

That given, if you have strong mental discipline, a hungry intellect and a curious soul, psychedelics offer a path to experiences unobtainable by any other means.

I've had my share of "experiences" and I've watched while friends had bad ones. I have no regrets and in fact much gratitude, but know people who would say otherwise. These are waters that should not be waded into lightly. It is a huge mistake, however, to dismiss these powerful tools out of hand. Education and enlightenment can come from many sources. To each their own. Caveat emptor.
posted by kinnakeet at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Cardinal Rules For Tripping Outdoors:
1. No, you cannot fly.
2. Yes, all cars are real.

These are the safety concerns we should all be aware of.

As to the proposition that hallucinogenics can engender some sort of positive experience that changes people's lives and perceptions for the better:
The John Hopkins Study
From there, a cursory google search should (if your filter bubble is willing) present several potential therapeutic applications for hallucinogenic substances related to end-of-life issues(MDMA and LSD), addiction treat (ibogaine), and rectal natural plant fiber removal.
posted by bastionofsanity at 7:48 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

There's nothing that cracks me up more than folks going 'oh I don't NEED drugs to see the world, I prefer to have a perfectly clear perspective to look down my nose at you all.' The greatest realization one can have is the awareness of the artificiality of their own perspective, and nothing throws that in sharper relief than LSD. There is no 'clear' perspective.. everyone looks through their own set of handcrafted lenses, custom fit and designed to distort their intake, and most don't even realize they're wearing them. And LSD doesn't take those glasses off, by the by - it just makes you very suddenly and pointedly aware that you're wearing them at all by radically changing the prescription. And once you become aware that you will NEVER objectively see the universe, you become a lot more aware of your own biases, and hopefully sensitive to the idea that not everyone sees the world the same.

Which is why the prohibitionists' proclamations of absolute condemnation are pretty funny, they're pretty much the narrowest view for claiming the clearest vision.

Oh and Flood - that whole 'body fat makes someone flash back' thing is a complete fabrication and myth. But luckily, the world allows for new revelations, and you can become more educated! LSD leaves no byproducts in the body. No crystals in your spinal fluid, no erosion on your brain surface... those are all lies told out of fear.
posted by FatherDagon at 7:49 AM on July 6, 2011 [31 favorites]

Good lord, this thread is hilarious. The guy talking about NA meetings and body fat flashbacks cannot be for real. Some of you people could use a good mushroom trip, it'd make you less uptight and square.

(Disclaimer: Have taken acid and mushrooms about double the number of posts in this thread, haven't done it for years, once experienced complete ego death, would not trade those experiences for anything)
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:52 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

I personally came away from it thinking that I knew absolutely nothing about anything. The problem is when people like me try to convince everyone else that they also know nothing about anything. It comes across as arrogant, obviously, but it's not coming from a place of ego. Exactly the opposite. The understanding that you're completely lost in a world without meaning lets you understand that everybody else is as also lost as you are, and no one is better than you. You can see that kind of confidence in someone like Steve Jobs (who said LSD was one of the most important experiences of his life) remaking the world through sheer force of will.

But isn't that the height of ego/arrogance/hubris? Assuming that you know what everyone else thinks and feels? Simply because you ingested some neat molecules?
posted by gjc at 7:56 AM on July 6, 2011

Flood: For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs. Come to an NA meeting and sit and listen to some of the stories there.

And for every 10 destroyed by drugs (drugs which you fail to name) I will show you 1000 destroyed by alcohol sitting at AA meetings, and that doesn't include the people in their lives that the destruction touches. Where's the moral outrage about that?

IAmUnaware: Also, people saying "It's okay because it's less bad for you than alcohol": This is not a good argument. Alcohol is a dark, insidious thing wound through our culture that destroys people's lives every day, and almost everybody personally knows someone who has been ruined or killed by it. If you want people to consider your substance innocuous, don't compare it to something like that.

As a starting point, why use categories like "bad" or "dark" to describe alcohol addiction? Since it's indeed tightly wound through our culture in exactly the way that you describe, labeling it "bad" and "dark" and making it The Other does nothing to unwind it. It just makes it harder to talk about it rationally.

FatherDagon: There's nothing that cracks me up more than folks going 'oh I don't NEED drugs to see the world, I prefer to have a perfectly clear perspective to look down my nose at you all.'

Yeah, I'm kind of laughing at that group of comments as well. I wouldn't think that meditation (for instance) is really supposed to be yet another way of letting people know how holier-than-thou you are.

gjc: But isn't that the height of ego/arrogance/hubris? Assuming that you know what everyone else thinks and feels? Simply because you ingested some neat molecules?

I don't think that that's what empath was saying at all.
posted by blucevalo at 7:59 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

The only worthwhile discussions about LSD (or true psychedelics in general) is whether or not it should be legal for science and/or recreation.
posted by rmmcclay at 7:59 AM on July 6, 2011

I think it's fine to take odd risks for the sake of new experiences. I think it's fine to choose not to.

I think it's fine to criticize a person's choices in either direction. They are difficult choices and easy to screw up. Perhaps criticism will help someone's decision-making abilities.

I think it's fine to draw bright, clear boundaries around what you will and will not risk. I think it's fine to argue that your boundaries are better than someone else's, provided that you do so in an informative way. Tell me what it is about your boundaries that makes them better. Tell me what it is about you that makes your boundaries better for you.

If you don't argue in an informative way, your arguments aren't interesting to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

If you try to impose your boundaries on someone else, that act, in itself, violates someone else's boundaries. At that point, a defensive response is merited and appropriate.

If you want to do it anyway... I can imagine situations where that's morally decent; raising a child comes to mind. But yelling at the person whose boundaries you're violating isn't going to make them agree more. That's like yelling at your son when he doesn't clean his room. If you must oppress people for their own good, it'd be better of you to do it quickly and discreetly.
posted by LogicalDash at 8:00 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

The only worthwhile discussions about LSD (or true psychedelics in general) is whether or not it should be legal for science and/or recreation.

Oh it can be plenty worthwhile to trade trip stories with others of a similar persuasion, because that shit can be HILARIOUS.
posted by FatherDagon at 8:02 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

Good lord, this thread is hilarious. The guy talking about NA meetings and body fat flashbacks cannot be for real. Some of you people could use a good mushroom trip, it'd make you less uptight and square.


I mean this in the best way possible. PLEASE, PLEASE don't be a spokesperson for drug enjoyment.
posted by FJT at 8:03 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

We are not lesser people because we can't take certain drugs happily, and we shouldn't be consigned to anguish just because you believe we are.

Of course you're not a lesser person. Just, you know, don't take LSD or psilocybin.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 8:06 AM on July 6, 2011

gjc: Assuming that you know what everyone else thinks and feels?

It's both the height of hubris and yet not (whoa, dude!)

How so: I don't have access to anyone else's experiences, hence any attribution is speculative and confidence in such attribution is hubristic. You may be god incarnate for all I know.

How not: It's called the Theory of Mind. I don't know what others experience, but I assume it's similar to my experiences. That their ears experience sound like I do; their eyes, vision like I do and so forth.

Simply because you ingested some neat molecules?

No, the molecule had to initiate some psychoactivity and that psychoactivity was deemed interesting and/or valuable.
posted by daksya at 8:06 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thorzdad : And, when it's all done, feeling clean and refreshed and happy. Psilocybin is the only way to go.

I've never tried it, but I am under strict orders (and have been since I was a kid), that, should she ever find herself bed-ridden at the end of her life, I'm to supposed to provide my mom with Psilocybin on demand.

This amazes me as she doesn't even drink, and is the very picture of straight and narrow clean-living.

Based on this, I'd say that she completely agrees with your description Thorzdad.
posted by quin at 8:07 AM on July 6, 2011

Wow, some gigantic chips on some shoulders in this thread. Obviously decades of misinformation has some fears well-stoked, but this... arrogance, holier-than-thou stuff? Psychedelics will not make you into an asshole. That's something you bring to the experience, like any experience.

It may make you realize that your friends are assholes, however.

The only arrogance I see in this thread is from the "I've never skydived -- why would I want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane!" crowd. So don't. But there's no need to be offended if someone says "your loss".
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

Also, Sebmojo -- I was occupied for a little while between your first and second comments, and spent the whole time interacting with coworkers, thinking: "Sam Harris cut his dick off while making a table? Really??"

So, uh, thanks for that bit of altered consciousness.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:16 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sebmojo: " I mean shit this dude sawed his dick off making a table."

what
posted by zarq at 8:16 AM on July 6, 2011

Full disclosure: I don't drink, don't smoke

What do you do?
posted by kirkaracha at 8:16 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I've never skydived -- why would I want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane!"

Haha, that is one of the most precisely perfect bon mots I've ever heard to explain that mindset.
posted by FatherDagon at 8:20 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

But isn't that the height of ego/arrogance/hubris? Assuming that you know what everyone else thinks and feels? Simply because you ingested some neat molecules?


No, I don't know. And you don't know either. We're just a bunch of apes with abnormally large brains trying to understand a world that we are in no way evolved to be capable of understanding, and that includes understanding the minds and thoughts of others, even the people we think we love the most. Everyone struggles, everyone is in pain. And the only thing we can do is try our best to understand and not make things worse for anybody else. These are all facts that are easy to see if you bother to look. The only thing that LSD does is make it impossible to ignore it.
posted by empath at 8:24 AM on July 6, 2011 [7 favorites]

I've been harmed far, far more by my consumption of tobacco, alcohol and even caffeine than by the times I've indulged in psilocybin and LSD.

My encounters with the substances in question were overwhelmingly positive ones that left me with a better sense of myself as an incredibly fortunate, living breathing human being at peace in the cosmos.

(re: caffeine - I've managed to cut down to two weak cups of tea a day without incurring the blinding headaches and nausea of cold turkey caffeine withdrawal, though I skirted the edge a couple of times. I'll be so happy when I get that goddamn monkey completely off my back)
posted by fleetmouse at 8:26 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

empath: If you're a person who likes being comfortable and at ease, it's not going to be for you.

Well, on this point, Harris disagrees with you by pointing out that 1) some people shouldn't take psychedelic drugs because of the risks involved and 2) even as an experienced user he had no apparent control that ensured a good trip over a bad trip.

This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved.

[multiple paragraphs snipped]

... Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going—and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others....

But as the peaks are high, the valleys are deep. My “bad trips” were, without question, the most harrowing hours I have ever suffered—and they make the notion of hell, as a metaphor if not a destination, seem perfectly apt. If nothing else, these excruciating experiences can become a source of compassion. I think it would be impossible to have any sense of what it is like to suffer from mental illness without having briefly touched its shores.

Harris' caution echos what a fair number of experienced friends have said to me about LSD. I guess I live in an mirror universe from Harris. He took psychedelics and currently meditates to give up control. I meditate and practice ritual to stay sane. Psychosis to him is a bad setting on his rocket. To me, it's the gravitational singularity that I compensate against.

Durn: The only arrogance I see in this thread is from the "I've never skydived -- why would I want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane!"

Well, in my case it's more along the lines of, "I'm terrified of heights, get horribly motion-sick, and have bad knees. So why am I obligated to take up a sport that depends on the level-headed operation of a parachute in free-fall just to prove my open-mindedness?"
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

I did a lot of LSD back in my rave days. As much as 20-30 hits in a single evening even, a few times. Much like john waters decried, I stopped when I got to the point of familiarity. I made some poor decisions under the influence, but never anything that ruined lives. Every time I hear someone talk about flashbacks, I am suspicious.

I did mushrooms occasionally in the years after I gave up on LSD, up until the night some guys I barely knew took me out into the woods and tried to convince me they were going to kill me, just to fuck with the new guy, ha ha. I took off into the woods, fell into a river, and ended up spending the night stuck on a sandbar.

All that is to say that just like a physical journey, how you prepare and who you travel with will radically affect your enjoyment and safety.
posted by No1UKnow at 8:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Well, on this point, Harris disagrees with you by pointing out that 1) some people shouldn't take psychedelic drugs because of the risks involved and 2) even as an experienced user he had no apparent control that ensured a good trip over a bad trip.

Isn't that what I said? If you want something 'safe', if you want to be comfortable, then you should not take LSD. You are not going to be able to control it. It is probably going to fuck with your life in a profound way. And yes, I would absolutely say that a bad trip is pure hell. It is literally the worst thing I can imagine. Worse than death. I still don't regret it.
posted by empath at 8:32 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

And yes, I would absolutely say that a bad trip is pure hell. It is literally the worst thing I can imagine. Worse than death. I still don't regret it.

Once you get the thing that is worse than death out of the way, the rest of the world seems a lot less terrifying. Putting fear in perspective is always positive, and gives so much more confidence to the rest of life.
posted by FatherDagon at 8:36 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

KirkJobSluder: You're not obligated, at all. Though your bad knees would also keep you from snowboarding, and that makes me sad. I'm supposed to pretend it's not great? Yes, there are risks. Yes, you can hit a tree (I did. Took a branch off with my head.) But I'm not going to engage in disinformation to make you think that it involves risks it doesn't because someone somewhere hurt themselves playing "snow sports".

Besides, everyone knows that skydiving is the gateway experience to wingsuits.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:39 AM on July 6, 2011

#{object} has destroyed lives, families, and souls. #{object} has expanded my worldview, improved my life, and has enhanced my soul. #{object} has support groups that help treat survivors and those family members who have suffered at the hands of people horribly afflicted by #{object}. #{object}has changed my life and everyone should enjoy the benefits of #{object}. #{object} should be made illegal.

Replace #{object} with drugs, alcohol, guns, coffee, cars, donuts, skiing, chess, etc.

Alchohol is not alcoholism. Drugs are not addiction. Guns are not murder.

I feel like blaming inanimate objects for personal failures is a massive abrogation of responsibility. The guys I know who've been at AA for the larger portion of their lives, they don't blame alcohol, they take ownership of their addiction. They don't mind if I have a drink, because they know that it isn't the substance, it is the disease. The disease doesn't live in the substance, it lives in your head. The substance itself has the same moral quality of any chunk of atoms on the planet, and like any other chunk of stuff on the planet, it can be used for good or ill. I know you're going to say that psychoactive substances like LSD are different! They play with your mind! Everything you ingest plays with your mind. Donuts have a very real psychological and physiological effects, and are abused by a large swath of the american population. Should we call Martha Stuart irresponsible for teaching how to make delicious pastries on TV when heart disease is the #1 killer in America?

All of that said, too much of a good thing can be a very very bad thing, and beyond that, de gustibus non disputandum est and all, some drugs really aren't good for some people, just he same way that some people love shooting guns and other people have absolutely no use for the things.

I think that people talking reasonably about the benefits and risks of anything, but especially drugs like LSD is perhaps one of the more socially responsible things that can be done regarding the subject.
posted by Freen at 8:42 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

I hear that when you skydive, the ozone crystallizes in your spinal cord and you spend the rest of your life getting random flashbacks. My cousin's friend's brother was just going down the highway and BAM suddenly he's hundreds of feet in the air. Caused a six-car pileup and shit himself. In the emergency room, the doctors had to replace his spinal cord with a baboon's because he skydove so much it was more ozone than bone.

True story.
posted by griphus at 8:44 AM on July 6, 2011 [23 favorites]

LSD is not some kind of crazy chemical magic that reveals the secrets of the universe. It briefly gives you the experience of being a very stupid person who has suddenly come into possession of the brain of a smarter person. It's certainly an experience you won't commonly find, but you have to decide for yourself whether it's something that's really worth having.

Huh. Interesting. I've never tripped, but I do love me some pot--mostly because it aligns my perceptions closer to what they were when I was young. You see these things as inherently bad; I see a substance that allows you to perceive the joy of the world and its newness and wonder as mostly pretty good.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:50 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

DecemberBoy: “(Disclaimer: Have taken acid and mushrooms about double the number of posts in this thread, haven't done it for years, once experienced complete ego death, would not trade those experiences for anything)”

Ego death is not something a drug can give you; this is almost by definition. The body is an essential extension of the ego. If you experience ego death through the body, it's not ego death.
posted by koeselitz at 8:50 AM on July 6, 2011

I looked into the mirror and saw the faces of my ancestors. All the way back to before we learned to talk with words.

Spoke to them. Was comforted by them.

I saw the wind, not its effects, but the wind itself. Air become ocean, teeming, aware.

I saw music, bathed in its light, felt it running through my blood, a living thing and laughing.

I felt the world the way I felt it as a child, close to the earth, hands in the dirt, full of wonder.
posted by jet_manifesto at 8:53 AM on July 6, 2011 [11 favorites]

Harris structures his reflection around what he would recommend to his daughter. This is a good approach. What drugs would you recommend to a specific young person of your aquaintance, and why? This is part of the responsibility of bringing people into adulthood. Personally, I would recommend staying within social norms. This means, of course, that it is no big deal for young people to take psychedelics; nor is it a big deal if they don't.
posted by No Robots at 8:55 AM on July 6, 2011

Old'n'Busted: Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.

Faze: tempythethird has it right: temporary brain damage.

Your brain is the problem. It needs to be circumvented with poisons occasionally because it is human nature to structure our own brains to establish and affirm our biases so that we are comforted by them, even if they are wrong.
Kary Mullis, a nobel prize winning biochemist, claims to have gotten the idea for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from a revelation experienced while under the influence of LSD.
To counter my own example though, for no other reason than to be fair, Richard Feynman eventually swore off all mind-altering substances because he believed they were destructive to the mind.
posted by Demogorgon at 8:56 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

You guys think your drug stories are badass?? Let me tell you about the last time I took acid. I sat in the park (it was sunny out), then came home, and my cats were in my kitchen (one of them is puffy, I think she's part Maine Coon). I petted them for a while, then I took a bath (I was sweaty and hot).

Is that kind of experience for everyone? No, probably not. Some of you just can't HANDLE it. And yeah, a number of people will go down a dark and lonely road where they take a bath EVERY DAY, or want to go to the park all the time, or start talking to the cats like they're humans capable of comprehending complex linguistic structures. But man, I wouldn't trade those wild experiences for ANYTHING.

I guess what I'm saying is that I understand not everyone can take the insane LSD roller coaster ride I did, but if you can... hoo boy, watch out. Cats, baths, parks, it's all off the fucking chain.

What a long strange trip it's been.
posted by Greg Nog at 9:00 AM on July 6, 2011 [28 favorites]

From TFA:

[T]here was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage.

Holy shit. Not to be all like "ha ha your inner life sucks" but...holy shit.
posted by DaDaDaDave at 9:03 AM on July 6, 2011

I mean this in the best way possible. PLEASE, PLEASE don't be a spokesperson for drug enjoyment.

Because Bill Hicks said it best?
posted by mikelieman at 9:03 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

nicolas léonard sadi carnot: "I've only ever taken LSD, and those evenings spent exploring the quiddity of modern culture with my best friends are among my fondest memories. Is the psilocybin experience qualitatively different? I didn't interpret my experience as a rite or ritual, but the disruption of my usual perceptual filters was definitely a useful learning experience."

Yeah it is. Very different. Hard to describe. LSD is light, Psilocybin is earth. Thinks take on a heavier air w/Psilocybin. Not that there isn't that beautiful lightness, but the color patterns are darker and earthier. Subdued. LSD is brighter and more primary, generally. I've had alterations of space-time perception (inhabiting an Escheresque world for a brief period, where the mystic state of "as above so below" took on not only a logical meaning but an intuited FELT thing. Grokking something, understanding it intuitionally. It's the difference between describing the taste of a pizza and eating a pizza. Yeah, you can say the same for LSD experiences, obviously. My point is that the experience I had was a very physical thing.

I've had bad shroom trips. More like "mildly uncomfortable" trips. The last couple I've had have let me know that my time w/them is done (at least, unless I got healthier, but I have a bad feeling that that's not going to happen ;_;)

But wow, I'm surprised at all the hate here.
posted by symbioid at 9:07 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I knew a lot of people who did shrooms/acid as a teenager. The thing was, while they seemed to think they were transcending the boundaries of normal human experience, from the outside it seemed like they'd temporarily become brain-damaged children. I'm sure their experiences at the time was everything they insisted they were, but none of the profound changes they crowed about could be perceived from the outside. They were not smarter, not wiser, not more insightful, not more self-aware, not more creative -- markedly less so, in one case, but that guy would ingest anything.

As someone who's never even been drunk, it's not for me to judge their experiences or them for having them, but there was just no evidence that any lasting change had occurred. It was almost like their memories of how they'd been were obliterated and their new (old) reality just suddenly seemed shinier.
posted by klanawa at 9:07 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Drugs of all sorts were always an escape for me. As I've gotten older and (dare I say) happier, escapes of all sorts seem much less appealing. I'm not grinding through RPGs anymore either. It's better for me, I think. You mileage probably varies.
posted by Kwine at 9:09 AM on July 6, 2011

But wow, I'm surprised at all the hate here.

Well, hate is the natural evolution of fear, and realizing that your way of seeing the world is not the only way (nor inherently 'right') is pretty scary sometimes.
posted by FatherDagon at 9:09 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

Halloween Jack: "I've taken LSD once, and the experience was highly, highly overrated."

you probably had shit acid. I've had shitty acid (to the point of getting major stiffness and pain in the body with no head trip at all) to completely pure shit in liquid form that had me floating through light everything had a sheen. Everything was so clear and clean. No body load. The mind felt crystalline.

I've only had 400-600 mics at the most though, so I can't say I've done what the hippies did back in the day. But it was definitely good.
posted by symbioid at 9:11 AM on July 6, 2011

...pure drugs free of poisons...

Not that I inherently disagree with your broader point, but this particular phrase stood out to me. Many drugs -- alcohol included -- are toxins (i.e., poisons) by their very nature. Claiming that pure drugs are free of poisons is a little bit naive.
posted by asnider at 9:12 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ego death is not something a drug can give you; this is almost by definition. The body is an essential extension of the ego. If you experience ego death through the body, it's not ego death.

I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. I wish I could put it into words in a way that would make you understand, but I can't. You don't know what your ego is, until you've experienced it being ripped into shreds, until time and space dissolve, cause and effect become meaningless concepts, and the sense of yourself as being embodied in a singular place and time expands until you're one with the universe. And that doesn't even come close to describing it, because I have to use words like "I" and "you" and ordering thoughts in time, which doesn't really apply to the experience. There are just so many unspoken assumptions about thought and time and space that cease to make any kind of sense when you're going through the peak of the experience where something like 'ego death' happens. It's ego death, but it's also ego birth. It's just the end and beginning of everything.

Read Pinker or Lakoff about the metaphors that we order our lives by and imagine that you can't rely on any of them -- not time moving forward, not causes preceding effects, not even you as a whole, individual being, rather than a temporary collection of atoms that happen to hold an electrical pattern that believes it is a conscious human being.

I'm sorry, I'm still completely failing to get across what 'ego death' is like. Perhaps you can get there with meditation. I've read experiences of people who say they have and it matches up pretty well with what I remember, but if you ever had, you would absolutely know it.
posted by empath at 9:13 AM on July 6, 2011 [18 favorites]

The thing was, while they seemed to think they were transcending the boundaries of normal human experience, from the outside it seemed like they'd temporarily become brain-damaged children.

Basically, yes. You are absolutely not smarter or more creative or any of those things while on it. It's just an experience. Going to Disney World doesn't make you a smarter, better person, but it's an experience that people who haven't been there haven't had.
posted by empath at 9:16 AM on July 6, 2011

whereas the truth is that it's laughable to imagine that the government could ever succeed in setting up some sort of spiritual and mental screening process to ascertain that people are ready to take LSD or mushrooms

I sure don't want them to do this. You can buy scuba gear, mountain climbing equipment, booze, all without any givernment checking of your competence tousethem. Caveat emptor.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:16 AM on July 6, 2011

Not that I inherently disagree with your broader point, but this particular phrase stood out to me. Many drugs -- alcohol included -- are toxins (i.e., poisons) by their very nature. Claiming that pure drugs are free of poisons is a little bit naive.

In that sense, LSD-25 is kind of weird. There's not really a lethal dose, and it doesn't put any load on your body/organs like other toxins.

That said, I haven't done it in years now, and I have much less healthy habits than occasionally enjoying an enthenogen.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 9:19 AM on July 6, 2011

I enjoyed LSD. Though why anyone would gobble more than a couple of hits at a time is mystifying to me, and seems almost blasphemous.

Like most people, I stopped taking it when I could no longer wring insight from it.

Comparing it to skydiving isn't really fair, though. I love skydiving, but for a completely different reason. Skydiving is all about inducing an adrenaline rush and facing your fear. It's fun as hell (IMO). Dropping acid isn't about a "rush",and it isn't always "fun". And the day after skydiving you're still feeling the adrenaline coursing through you. You feel strong, honed to a sharp point, in charge. The day after an acid trip you feel like hammered shit. Not hungover, just down. Like a depleted battery awaiting recharge.

tl,dr: I recommend both, though not simultaneously.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:22 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

empath: Isn't that what I said?

No it's not. In fact you're digging your heels in deeper.

If you want something 'safe', if you want to be comfortable, then you should not take LSD.

That's the central point of contention here. Life as I see it, isn't safe or comfortable. It's a bad couple of hours away from tasting and feeling like a Lovecraft or Poe story, and from there it's another couple of bad hours away from psychosis. And that can happen with nothing in my system stronger than coffee.

So please stop handwaving away assessment of the risks as mere cowardice and sloth. And it strikes me as quite interesting that Harris automatically assumes that his daughter would be in the group of people he thinks should use psychedelics and not in the group that shouldn't. Otherwise, I found his discussion of the benefits, risks, and limitations to be very well-balanced.

FatherDragon: Once you get the thing that is worse than death out of the way, the rest of the world seems a lot less terrifying.

That's not been my experience. In fact, I think that's the big luxury most people have with bad trips that Harris notes. Madness is a recreational experience that can be left behind as the drug leaves your system, not something that dogs your steps year after year.

Durn: Though your bad knees would also keep you from snowboarding, and that makes me sad.

Why does it make you feel sad that we get to the same places using a different path and different methods? That's the central problem I'm objecting to. And do you feel that Harris is spreading disinformation when he points out that psychedelics are risky and some people shouldn't use them?

empath: I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

So, you have no ego and know less than everyone else but still decide to take a big dump on other people's spiritual experiences? Classy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 AM on July 6, 2011

empath: “I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. I wish I could put it into words in a way that would make you understand, but I can't... I'm sorry, I'm still completely failing to get across what 'ego death' is like. Perhaps you can get there with meditation. I've read experiences of people who say they have and it matches up pretty well with what I remember, but if you ever had, you would absolutely know it.”

I think it's funny that you think you can know objectively that I don't know what I'm talking about simply because I haven't used mushrooms or LSD. I obviously believe ego death is a real thing; else I wouldn't have mentioned the point.

But this "you can't possibly understand" stuff... it's just one more example of the common trope that people who don't use drugs are lesser human beings than people who do. This seems to be a particularly pernicious idea where psychedelics are concerned. Why is it that lots of people who seem otherwise liberal are so closed-minded and prejudicial when it comes to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, people who haven't touched psychedelics are capable of leading full spiritual lives and encountering important spiritual moments?
posted by koeselitz at 9:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

i needed a small break in the visual center of the brain.

Bags of 'em, just there for the picking.

I had this recall of when the canoe tipped early in 1978, went back to camp and stumbled upon a trove of flat top beer cans. The sights and sounds are still with me. Back camp, we took a sip of moonshine and tried a smoke, which we did not inhale.

Boyscouts were ok. I used to have this theory that most people, say 80's youth, think they tried LSD but is was something else. This holds for a small group though. I hated the mescaline tabs but did try LSD once, the real stuff. (I lived in Dow town, chemistry was king)

It made sense, all of it, for about 6 hours another 3 watching a lake.
experimentation is ok if done with precautions... walter, WALTER!
posted by clavdivs at 9:27 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

But this "you can't possibly understand" stuff... it's just one more example of the common trope that people who don't use drugs are lesser human beings than people who do.

I don't think people who haven't done them are lesser people. Only that reading about things is not the same as experiencing them. That applies to lots of things besides drugs.
posted by empath at 9:28 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't think "you can't possibly understand if you have not been there" is only a drug trope, koeselitz, because we see that here all the frikkin' time about many topics besides recreational pharmaceuticals.
posted by adipocere at 9:29 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Why is it that lots of people who seem otherwise liberal are so closed-minded and prejudicial when it comes to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, people who haven't touched psychedelics are capable of leading full spiritual lives and encountering important spiritual moments?

Also, I think you can. I was responding to you saying that we haven't experienced ego death. You simply don't know what we've experienced.
posted by empath at 9:29 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

What makes an LSD or mushroom trip better than say, being whipped up into a frenzy by religious or political fervor?

Well, we're talking about opening the doors of perception here. Those institutions have very clear ideas about how you ought to perceive the world.

These drugs are also immensely fun recreationally, because things are often hilarious and beautiful in a way you don't see most of the time, or reality becomes almost totally fluid. In my experience, they're also 100% more likely to result in things like good music or friendship than politics and religion.

Anecdote isn't evidence, but the people I know who use(d) psychedelics are, as a group, much more strident and sure of themselves. For very little reason.

Wouldn't that be a chicken vs. egg issue, though? Certainly in America, we grew up being told the same kind of stuff people are saying in this thread--that all illegal drugs are terrible and evil and only damage you in different ways. Also that drug users are filthy lazy criminals, and that all kinds of laws have been created to make sure that they literally will be criminals if caught. I think it takes a certain kind of confidence to go up against all that, especially when you're young.

If you think they're more strident, I would imagine that's simply your experience. In my experience, those people are introverts as often as not.


Ego death is not something a drug can give you; this is almost by definition. The body is an essential extension of the ego. If you experience ego death through the body, it's not ego death.

Well shit, it happened to me. I had no name, there was no time, I was no one, I was part of everything, and I came into being and ended again and again along with everything else.
posted by heatvision at 9:34 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

The day after an acid trip you feel like hammered shit.

Huh. I usually feel pretty great after a trip, like my filters have been cleaned, my fluids topped off, and a fresh coat of perspective, enthusiastic to engage in the world with a reinvigorated sense of wonder. Sort of a mental colonic + full service car wash.
posted by BeerFilter at 9:38 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

I think people use hallucinogens as a shortcut to insight (I know I did when I was in my 20s), but really all you're getting is your brain trying to make sense of a bunch of mixed signals caused by a wash of foreign chemicals. The only thing spiritual about it is what you make out of it. It's fake.

Meditate instead. It's better for you, with no adverse side effects and no way for anyone to sneak adulterants into it.

That said, I did experience the most beautiful sunrise I've ever seen while on LSD(in the Army no less). It was amazing and I can still remember it vividly.
posted by dave78981 at 9:45 AM on July 6, 2011

"Ego death" is a coarse term, and a holdover from Leary-esque LSD priest mentality.

But LSD enables a kind of reduction or even sublimation of the usual map of your personal reality that your brain has formed over the course of your development. That map can be both useful and detrimental to your daily existence, but it's still a projection and limitation of what's really available for you to experience in this moment, now.

But, as people have said, it's hard to know you're swimming in it until you're plucked above the waterline.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 9:46 AM on July 6, 2011

Empath is right. It has nothing to do with "lesser people" stuff. It's that how things look and taste and sound can be described, but you really can't articulate how you think on it, and that's essential.

It's like this: the people who have done them loads are saying "written descriptions are inadequate" not because we're part of some secret club but because we read those descriptions are recognize the great central thing is missing. It's not mystical, it's not profound, it's just that you think differently and when you're thinking normally that's damn near impossible to understand. Even to those of us with experience. I could write a book and people who have done it would feel like it reminds them of their own experiences, but that's the best I could manage.
posted by neuromodulator at 9:46 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

klanawa: I knew a lot of people who did shrooms/acid as a teenager. The thing was, while they seemed to think they were transcending the boundaries of normal human experience, from the outside it seemed like they'd temporarily become brain-damaged children. I'm sure their experiences at the time was everything they insisted they were, but none of the profound changes they crowed about could be perceived from the outside.

and

I had no name, there was no time, I was no one, I was part of everything, and I came into being and ended again and again along with everything else.

See, to me, becoming a "brain-damaged child" is the appropriate corporeal response to something like that. Try telling someone what is happening to you when you can't even remember that you are a person. I understand that from the descriptions people give of their drug trips you might expect them to turn into Superman right before your very eyes, but all the laws of physics and probability are still applicable in the universe you are engaging them in, regardless of where they are mentally.
posted by Demogorgon at 9:46 AM on July 6, 2011

it's just one more example of the common trope that people who don't use drugs are lesser human beings than people who do. This seems to be a particularly pernicious idea where psychedelics are concerned

I've never actually encountered this idea. In fact it seems that the opposite is more true. Typically what I've seen is people who use drugs saying to those who don't a combination of "you don't know what you're missing" and "your ideas about this drug are wrong." Conversely, there is no denying that the USA treats all recreational drug use as a function of criminality, addiction, and personal deficiencies.
posted by Hoopo at 9:49 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: Sort of a mental colonic
posted by griphus at 9:50 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Okay . . . the descriptions of what it must be like, by people who haven't actually tried it, are pretty far off base.

That's awesome and cool. I would probably enjoy such an experience.

But it points out something that is being displayed in this thread: psychedelics seem to bring out the ego in people. The story related is humorous in retrospect, but at that moment, this person was absolutely positive they had conjured in their mind The Answer. There are a number of comments in this thread from arrogant-seeming people who are convinced psychedelics are the only way to understanding what life is really about. Maybe psychedelics just make people more arrogant, more trusting of their own senses and intuition rather than reason or logic.

For example, the effect is pretty much the opposite of what gjc says. It makes you lose your ego and that's why you feel like you understand stuff and have The Answer. Part of what's important about these experiences is reflecting on them after it's over. Of course you didn't really have The Answer, but simply experiencing that feeling in that moment was what changed you. And you can look back and say, 'hey, I guess I don't know The Answer, and I never will, and now I'm okay with that. I felt what it was like to enjoy the universe and not be afraid of my life.' Thats the valuable part you take with you. You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

seanmpuckett decribes it beautifully, in my opinion. it's like a vacation to a different part of your mind that's completely worth exploring. your brain is this absolutely incredible machine that's capable of doing way more than simply what it does for you on a day to day basis. maybe i'm affected by the fact that i don't believe in an afterlife, but I want to have a wide variety of experiences before I leave this planet, and exploring the cool shit my brain can do is a large part of that. I know you have a friend who has a friend who's addicted to drugs and had their life ruined. But you only know that because they did it in an irresponsible way and, you know, ruined their lives. There are almost certainly way more responsible, thoughtful, successful people you know who also do (or have done in moderation at one time) drugs and you just don't know about it.

lastly, i thought it was pretty stupid that the author writes about his bad trip . . . wait . . . he took LSD on a boat, alone, in the middle of a fucking lake? THAT was a bad idea. that was his fault, not the drug's.
posted by GastrocNemesis at 9:55 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

It's nice to see a Sam Harris thread so full of evidence-based conclusions and the rejection of anecdotal evidence. Oh, wait.
posted by The World Famous at 9:59 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks, GastrocNemesis. You make me see my LSD experiences in a positive light, as an opportunity to reflect on the nature of my thought processes, rather than just as a dangerous, scary, irresponsible lark.
posted by No Robots at 10:02 AM on July 6, 2011

It's not mystical, it's not profound, it's just that you think differently and when you're thinking normally that's damn near impossible to understand.

And I could literally transcribe every word that goes through my head while tripping, but that still wouldn't come close to describing the experience, because one of the things you realize is that the words that are constantly going through your consciousness are a tiny fraction of what constitutes your mind, and until the rest of it is so radically altered, it's really hard to understand that. Words are just a woefully inadequate way of describing the experience of being. We mostly developed language as a way of communicating change and differences between things. Since the experience of consciousness is generally so constant and unaltered, we just have really poor tools for describing what an altered consciousness is like, except in the most superficial ways. The word 'ineffable' is basically as close as you can get to describing it.

It's nice to see a Sam Harris thread so full of evidence-based conclusions and the rejection of anecdotal evidence. Oh, wait.

Its kind of against the law to do any kind of reasonable scientific study of these things (though that is changing), so anecdote is all we have to work with.
posted by empath at 10:04 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

See, to me, becoming a "brain-damaged child" is the appropriate corporeal response to something like that. Try telling someone what is happening to you when you can't even remember that you are a person. I understand that from the descriptions people give of their drug trips you might expect them to turn into Superman right before your very eyes, but all the laws of physics and probability are still applicable in the universe you are engaging them in, regardless of where they are mentally.

Obviously, I am not a Guild Navigator. I ascribe nothing mystical, supernatural, etc. to the experience. I am fully aware that I did not touch some unseen part of the space-time continuum, and that I was physically there the whole time, because I am not a moron.

It was merely one of many unusual experiences I had over the years that demonstrated how useless the word 'reality' seems in contrast to our actual experiences of life and being. If that's not something you're interested in, feel free to not do it.
posted by heatvision at 10:05 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

The day after an acid trip you feel like hammered shit. Not hungover, just down. Like a depleted battery awaiting recharge.

I’ve rarely heard that about psilocybin, though, and not experienced it myself. Calm and energized. I initially expected to feel terrible the next day, because isn’t that always the price for illicit experience? But not in that case. As for skydiving, well, not an analogy intended to address the quality of the experience, of course, but experience evangelism, and pushback against it. It’s all optional. Most of life is optional. But the resentment I’m detecting is approaching vegetarian levels, which is weird.

Why does it make you feel sad that we get to the same places using a different path and different methods? That's the central problem I'm objecting to.

Well not to sound like a complete stoner here, but it’s the journey, man, not the destination. If you never snowboard, or have sex, or have an incredible shroom trip, I’m not sure how you “get there” via yoga or hang gliding or fantastic food, anymore than I could somehow enjoy those latter things through those former. Everybody doesn’t have to do everything, obviously, and loads of people enjoy things I don’t and vice versa. But in a world of more possible experiences than you have time or resources to try, here’s one guy with a sign saying “For me, this was pretty great.”

FWIW, though, twenty years ago I would have been tempted to tell you that both psilocybin and snowboarding are transformative experiences. If we were friends, anyway. But you notice something that characterizes enthusiasts of this activity far more than others, it seems? Caution. I hardly ever hear "you must do this" said to a stranger (if anyone) in relation to a drug. And I don't see it happening here, though people are reacting as if that's exactly what's being said.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:05 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not grinding through RPGs anymore either.

“And with that, the remaining slave lords flee the Aerie. You have won, and your compatriots are already eyeing the spoils. So... it’s 3am... Sleep?”

“Fuck that. Bring on the Dungeons.”
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:06 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Xurando: "This brings up a story that I heard second hand back in the day but I'll personalize it for clarity.

Three of us were tripping. About 3 hours in Eileen screams "I've got it, I just found the secret of the universe. We're pretty much obliterated so we say "write it down and we'll look at it later." Which she does.

Two days later we run into Eileen and ask if she's read the secret. She's forgotten about it and pulls a folded slip of paper from her pocket. Eagerly, we wait for her to unfold it and stare in awe as we read: "If I stand on my tiptoes I can touch the ceiling."

How do you like that rite of passage, Sam Harris?"

That's nothing, if I laid on my back I could float to the ceiling. Suckers! My truth was better than yours, nyah nyah nyah!
posted by symbioid at 10:06 AM on July 6, 2011

Its kind of against the law to do any kind of reasonable scientific study of these things (though that is changing), so anecdote is all we have to work with.

I understand that. That doesn't make it any more ridiculous for psychedelic evangelism to be coming from one of the self-proclaimed leaders of the skeptic community.
posted by The World Famous at 10:07 AM on July 6, 2011

See, to me, becoming a "brain-damaged child" is the appropriate corporeal response to something like that. Try telling someone what is happening to you when you can't even remember that you are a person. I understand that from the descriptions people give of their drug trips you might expect them to turn into Superman right before your very eyes, but all the laws of physics and probability are still applicable in the universe you are engaging them in, regardless of where they are mentally. posted by Demogorgon at 9:46 AM on 7

Its not as if you become a brain damaged child, that is clearly not an accurate portrayal of psychedelic drugs.
Hallucinagens are not some solve all, or a magic thing that gives you some new powers. It broadens ones perspective. Not unlike traveling, exploring, or any other new experience, except that it is chemically induced and completely unique. I wouldn't trade any (even the negative) experiences with psychedelics, just like I wouldn't trade that feeling of ones first love. Its something that you can't accurately describe even amongst others who ventured down that path, except in vague terms that language simply cannot accommodate or portray in a way for people who have not.
Do people go overboard? Yes and I've seen them, but we can't always save everyone from themselves. Many people I know who tripped just once were very happy to of had such an experience. I use to down drug use due to things I saw my peers doing when I was younger. Once I was an adult, and things didn't fit inside tiny good/bad boxes I threw out that framework, and realized as other have pointed out up thread that I, just as everyone else doesn't know anything about truths/meaning of life.
posted by handbanana at 10:09 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

> It's nice to see a Sam Harris thread so full of evidence-based conclusions and the rejection of anecdotal evidence. Oh, wait.

Well, for one, the instrument is your own experience, not some PET or MRI (although I'm sure there's a huge amount of research that could be done using LSD in that vein). Evidence based conclusions can be reasonably arrived by using statistical methods available in psychology. That would necessitate LSD and similar compounds to be made legal and available for research, however.

But yeah, preaching LSD can be tiresome.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 10:10 AM on July 6, 2011

(any less, that is)
posted by The World Famous at 10:10 AM on July 6, 2011

psychedelics seem to bring out the ego in people.

Perhaps if the dose wasn't high enough.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:11 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

Wow, MetaFilter is grary lately.

So, first of all, I liked the article. I used to be put off by Harris because of his association with the Dawkins-Hitchens Fundamentalist Atheist Alliance, but the more I'm exposed to him, the more I like him.

Secondly, there's...a crapton of weird anecdata and genuine misinformation in this thread and I don't even know where to start, but let's go with this:

The article isn't advocating psychedelics use for everyone. No one is advocating psychedelics use for everyone. Some people are pointing out that the physiological risks of LSD and psilocybin are very minimal--and those people are correct. There is really no risk of addiction with these substances and no known physiological risks (lots of people do get cramps and tummyaches with psilocybin, but on the other hand both psilocybin and LSD have shown success in treating cluster headaches [PDF]). MDMA may be neurotoxic, so if you want to attack psychedelics based on physiological risk, there you go.

While the physiological risks are minimal, there are psychological risks. A bad experience on psychdelics can be traumatic, and all of the horror stories are cases of trauma. Understand that many people advocating for decriminalization and responsible psychedelics use would prefer that use to happen under the guidance of a trained and knowledgeable professional. Most people using psychedelics approach them from a point as far away from that as possible; some of them have traumatic experiences, and I'm sorry if it's happened to you or someone you know, but knowledge, realistic expectations and having someone present who can help make the experience as meaningful as possible for you do help.

Psychedelics can offer some people very meaningful experiences. The most widely known psychedelics are really very safe and have genuine medical value in below psychedelic threshold doses. It's probably not a good idea for everyone everywhere to be taking them all the time, but that's true of any other drug. Real psychdelic evangelizing has happened in the past, but most of it has receded to a quiet hum; the reason for all the cheerleading has always been that legitimate medical and psychological use of these drugs has always been fighting an uphill battle against an avalanche of ignorance and historically losing, a lot.
posted by byanyothername at 10:12 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

What you described sounds a lot like how people describe the effects of meditation. I've never meditated so I can't speak to whether it's true or not, but this statement seems a bit dismissive.

That's not to say there aren't some unique elements to the psychedelic experience. I would imagine meditating probably involves less giddiness and giggling, for one thing.
posted by Hoopo at 10:12 AM on July 6, 2011

Obviously, I am not a Guild Navigator. I ascribe nothing mystical, supernatural, etc. to the experience. I am fully aware that I did not touch some unseen part of the space-time continuum, and that I was physically there the whole time, because I am not a moron.

I didn't mean to make it sound like you were claiming that, heatvision. I was merely using your description of the experience to illustrate a point for klanawa and others that you can not necessarily expect someone to engage with you rationally while they are going through something like that.
posted by Demogorgon at 10:14 AM on July 6, 2011

MDMA may be neurotoxic

I thought I heard on the news recently that a new study controlling for things like polydrug use, lifestyle, etc, showed no cognitive impairment, but I can't find the article now.
posted by empath at 10:20 AM on July 6, 2011

What's most off-putting is the endless garbage about "childlike wonder", "spiritual journeys" and "cosmic awareness". I have never experienced "childlike wonder" when I was a child. I was self-conscious, self-absorbed, awkward and anxious to grow up. And I don't remember any of my friends experiencing this "childlike wonder" either. We were too busy looking for ways to destroy eachother to walk around wondering like fools.

As for "spiritual journeys": I took ages to get a driving license and when I finally got one I discovered for the first time the meaning of journey, as in GO SOME PLACE, rather than veg out in front of a game console with an ashtray full of filter tips, endlessly rehashing the same tired threads with your stoner companions.

For me, using drugs has always been a way to escape, to not have to deal with shit. Drugs allow me to retreat into a pleasant little zone where I can't be bothered - just can't be bothered. When I do drugs, I don't want to become more aware, I want to become less aware. Of course, I've spent my time regurgitating all the tired crap about using drugs "as a tool" to "explore" and "really connect" and more of that weak shit, but in my experience that's just an unfortunate bit of gloss that comes right off if you do it right.
posted by eeeeeez at 10:21 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Its not as if you become a brain damaged child, that is clearly not an accurate portrayal of psychedelic drugs.

No, it's not. Nor is it the one I was trying to convey. Maybe there was something confusing in the way I worded the original phrase.

What I meant to say is that yes, on the outside, a person who is hallucinating can have the appearance of being childish or brain-damaged, but the profundity of what they are experiencing can make efforts to communicate that experience through speech or body language seemingly futile.
posted by Demogorgon at 10:21 AM on July 6, 2011

neuromodulator: It certainly does when empath accuses the people who don't use psychedelics of cowardice.

I don't know. I certainly would like to be able to bring my experiences in this discussion but the "drugs are great" crowd have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand to say that they didn't happen because I didn't dose at the time. Which is, of course, missing the whole point of Harris' essay that compared and contrasted psychedelics to other forms of spiritual and psychological experience to say that they're similar methods to explore the same space.

GastrocNemesis: You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

Yes, and it makes me so sad that you'll never experience the Great Rite with the Goddess and God, understand yourself as the the ice that starts to sing on a midwinter morning, or realize the ecosystem around you on a summer thunderstorm. So deeply sad indeed.

Durn: Well not to sound like a complete stoner here, but it’s the journey, man, not the destination.

Well, on what grounds do you consider my journey, or the alternative journey advocated by Harris as inferior?

Durn: And I don't see it happening here, though people are reacting as if that's exactly what's being said.

Bullshit because that's exactly what's being said. Thus far, every single advocate of psychedelics has handwaved away or completely dismissed Harris' warning that people at risk of serious mental illness shouldn't use them.

byanyothername: The article isn't advocating psychedelics use for everyone. No one is advocating psychedelics use for everyone.

Oh, certainly the advocates do admit that those who are lazy and lack courage shouldn't try psychedelics. But when it's phrased in that way, it's more a prejudice than Harris' thoughtful discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:21 AM on July 6, 2011

Ah, here it is:

New study finds no cognitive impairment among ecstasy users
posted by empath at 10:22 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

neuromodulator: It certainly does when empath accuses the people who don't use psychedelics of cowardice.

I did what?
posted by empath at 10:23 AM on July 6, 2011

Thus far, every single advocate of psychedelics has handwaved away or completely dismissed Harris' warning that people at risk of serious mental illness shouldn't use them.

No one has done this. You are inventing things. I don't think people with mental problems should use any kind of psychoactive drug without consulting a physician.
posted by empath at 10:24 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

I mean this in the best way possible. PLEASE, PLEASE don't be a spokesperson for drug enjoyment.

The inherent problem with this position is, as stated earlier, putting all mind-altering substances into the same bag is really poor information. Pot is CLEARLY not more damaging than alcohol. So when people try pot, they think "What else is everyone lying about" and try lots of stupid stuff. I've seen it happen, and to some extent been victim to it.

I know some people have one drink, one puff, one tab and go right from there to ruining their lives. But saying that this is universally true for all people, all the time is really destructive misinformation. It's clearly not true and adds to the fog of confusion about what substances are right for whom and when.

Handle your high. If you can't, stop. I wish it was that simple for everyone. But it doesn't help those people for whom it isn't to pretend that it's that way for everyone.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:25 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Well, on what grounds do you consider my journey, or the alternative journey advocated by Harris as inferior?

I what now?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:25 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Pot is CLEARLY not more damaging than alcohol. So when people try pot, they think "What else is everyone lying about" and try lots of stupid stuff.

Yep, after I tried MDMA, I pretty much did anything anybody put in front of me for a year, so I could see what else I was missing. To save everyone else a lot of time and money -- MDMA, LSD and shrooms. For everything else, you aren't missing much.
posted by empath at 10:28 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

Demagorgon,
thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit confused by the wording.
yes from the outside, people sometimes look as you stated.
posted by handbanana at 10:31 AM on July 6, 2011

> People on psychedelics have the same consciousness and perception they've always had, but they're temporarily so stupid that it seems completely overwhelming and mindblowing to them.

[and many more comments with the word "stupid" in them]

This doesn't help anyone's argument - it seems deeply insecure to me!

I'm almost 50 years old, I've taken psychedelics easily a hundred times and perhaps two hundred, last time on July 4 of this year. I don't trip regularly, before I got married in November I hadn't tripped in over a year, and I've only tripped twice since then.

I'm a cautious person, and one of the reasons that I gravitated to psychedelics was precisely because of the extremely low toxicity. (I avoid "ecstasy," partly because I don't like it, mostly because of the higher toxicity). People have survived taking thousands of hits at one time (by mistake) - without medical attention!

I do not agree that meditation is the same. It's not just that the mind states are quite different, but that the sustained "effort" in attaining meditative states is "good for you". A teacher compared it to taking a balloon to get to the top of a mountain - it shows you that the top of the mountain is there and you get the view, but you missed all the steps along the way and you can't do it again on your own.

As for the danger element, well, I've been a musician in New York for a quarter century and seen people get screwed up on every drug, but nearly always that drug is alcohol, and then after that cocaine and heroin.

I've had friends who took LSD and later went nuts but they were none too tightly wrapped before they took the acid - it seemed like the madness led them to the drugs. Psychedelics should absolutely, absolutely not be taken if you have any associations with schizophrenia.

I think of psychedelics as a vision quest or rite of passage that some American youths find their way to.

I would recommend psychedelics in a controlled and comfortable setting to any adult of sound mind who is interested in finding out what having a mind really means. I believe the experience often makes you a better person, a more compassionate individual who is more sensitive to others, to the presence of the Buddha nature in all other humans.

And if this doesn't sound like the sorts of drugs you know, perhaps you don't know everything you think you know.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:35 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

GastrocNemesis: You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

Yes, and it makes me so sad that you'll never experience the Great Rite with the Goddess and God, understand yourself as the the ice that starts to sing on a midwinter morning, or realize the ecosystem around you on a summer thunderstorm. So deeply sad indeed.

All right. I had a feeling I should have expanded on that statement more, I just didn't want to make my comment super-long in an already long thread. But all I'm getting at is that the experience is qualitatively different than any I've experienced. Even if the end result is similar (like meditation) the experience presumably won't be exactly the same.

I still think seanmpuckett's travel metaphor is a good one. If you've seen some amazing mountains, and try to tell someone who's seen pyramids that it's the exact same experience, they may disagree. Just like if someone tried to tell me I should go see the pyramids, and I tell them "no, I've seen pictures, that's good enough for me" they may think I'm missing the point and they would probably be right. I think all that many of us are trying to get at here is that: 1) psychedelics create a unique experience that may be similar to, but is ultimately different than any other, and 2) for most of us that's a positive thing. But hell, it's not for everyone. Just like traveling.

(Also, is all the sarcasm and stuff necessary? I was trying to avoid it myself. I am just trying to share my point of view. If you don't like drugs, don't do them.)
posted by GastrocNemesis at 10:36 AM on July 6, 2011

I took a fair amount of LSD, experienced most of the stuff that the great psychedelic writers talk about, the whole ego loss thing, that sense of being at one with the cosmos as your body and brain dissolve and become a part of that single cosmic dance.

Problem was, I could never attribute any spiritual or mystical significance to the experience -- it just seemed like getting high to me.

All that changed one day when I was at the dentist. He'd given me a combination of iv valium and nitrous oxide, and while I'm under the anaesthetic, I experienced the same ego dissolution, but this time it really did feel different. At last, I knew what the great mystics were talking about. For the first time, I actually knew what the mystics meant when they said that the Om mantra was the sound of the universe. I could hear it as body and brain and ego became part of the larger totality.

I suppose it was about a year later. I was having a filling done when real enlightenment came to me. Om wasn't the sound of the universe at all.

It was the sound of the dentist's drill.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:37 AM on July 6, 2011

empath: No one has done this. You are inventing things.

Not just once, but twice. "If you want something 'safe', if you want to be comfortable, then you should not take LSD."

You then go on to say that bad trips are still worthwhile.

So yes, the message was understood the first time, and understood when you repeated it the second time. And so now, when called on your evangelistic shitting on other people's spiritual experiences, which I sort of expect in a thread about Harris, albeit from the religious about my experiences as an atheists, you finally admit:

I don't think people with mental problems should use any kind of psychoactive drug without consulting a physician.

Which would have been nice if you had said so when it was first brought up rather than a dozen posts of argument that we're just depriving ourselves of something that can't be achieved any other way. I'm pleased that your now belatedly joining Harris' more nuanced advocacy.

Durn: (working the metaphor) You're not obligated, at all. Though your bad knees would also keep you from snowboarding, and that makes me sad.

There's no reason to feel sad if I'm acting in my self interest, or to feel sad if those alternate journeys are equally powerful and authentic.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:37 AM on July 6, 2011

The times I've used entheogens have been some of the happiest and most spiritually significant of my life, and it absolutely disgusts me when people who have never tried them think they have any right to decry, or worse, deny them to anyone else.

I'm not naive, I don't think they are harmless aside from the possibility of getting arrested or losing awareness of one's surrounding. I think Lovecraft may have said it best:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far... but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Just as there are experiences available on entheogens that can change you forever for the better, there are experiences that can break you. Some people just don't have what it takes to emerge from a truly bad trip, and those people should stay away. The thing is, people have some very odd notions about what it means to be vulnerable to damaging experiences.

This is incredibly detrimental, as it seems like the vast majority of liberal adults who haven't tried these drugs have abstained out of fear. It seems then, that if you identify the personal characteristics that play a part in immunizing a person against the bad effect, that you would have a lot less people petrified to try them, and less ignorance in general. I would suggest the following:

1. Do you have a high tolerance for strangeness?
2. Do you act calmly and rationally in the face of (perceived) emergencies?
3. Do you have high self-complexity?
4. Do you engage in meditation or some other form of metacognitive refinement? Do you fully understand the concept of mindfulness?

I think if you can answer yes, honestly, to all three of these questions, then there is an extraordinarily small chance of suffering any long term (beyond the next couple of days) negative effects.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is the issue of having a bad trip. The most enlightened approach to drug use, in my opinion, is self-explorations and learning, and "bad trips" are a holdover from a hedonistic culture surrounding drug use. Yes, there is the potential for both unpleasant and pleasant experiences, but to say because a trip was partly (or even wholly) unpleasant that it was bad, is ridiculous.

I'm sure people have heard the prohibition against looking in mirrors while on entheogens. I've found this is mostly bullshit, yet it illustrates a point: most of the time what people call a bad trip is in fact just a revelation of an aspect of ourselves, our lives, or the world that we would prefer had remained hidden. Of course it isn't fun, but if you can't see why that's valuable then sorry, you weren't meant to be a psychonaut.

Determining whether they are for you (now that I've proposed how to determine if they aren't), is simple. Do you contain a shred of spirituality?
posted by paradoxflow at 10:38 AM on July 6, 2011 [9 favorites]

Man I did not expect to be defending LSD in this thread, because, as BitterOldPunk puts it, I feel like I've wrung all available insight out of it and any further use would be masturbatory and begging a bad trip, and I think this happens to most people with sufficient use.

But! That doesn't mean that I didn't wring quite a bit of growth and insight from it. I also credit LSD for saving me from a multi-year drug-streak in my youth. I took LSD because at that time, I would try anything. I barely knew anything about it. It returned the favor by helping me move past an immature and destructive phase of my life - I'd like to see pot or alcohol do the same for anyone.

I clearly remember the closing part of a trip where, as our egos reconstituted I saw myself and my friends stripped of all the hubris and identity-play and odd notions of being hardcore. And for the first time I saw myself and them as vulnerable and valuable and worthy of love and preservation. It might sound melodramatic, but I challenge anyone to achieve anything by telling a posturing kid busy heading in the wrong direction that he would do better by meditating, loving himself, valuing his consciousness, or any such nonsense.
posted by tempythethird at 10:38 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

> I have never experienced "childlike wonder" when I was a child. I was self-conscious, self-absorbed, awkward and anxious to grow up. And I don't remember any of my friends experiencing this "childlike wonder" either. We were too busy looking for ways to destroy each other to walk around wondering like fools.

Well, I hope it's just that your memory is bad. I certainly remember a lot of time like that, but I remember a huge amount of "childlike wonder" as well... part of it is that I spent the first seven+ years of my life in a magical place and time, London between 1962 and 1970, but, heck, I remember being entranced by things like a broken pipe in a construction site that endlessly sprayed water into a rainbow...

I never lost this, and my habits prove it - my hobbies include automated lighting, magic tricks, electronic music, all things my five-year-old self would have seen as waaay cool.

In contrast, my magic trick friend at the time, who never as far as I know did psychedelics, is now a bitter lawyer in Florida.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:41 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

For me it was mostly just making me question all of my assumptions about reality

I see this sort of statement made frequently by people who've taken LSD or psilocybins.

Would anyone have an example of an assumption about reality that psychedelics led them to question and that they have since decided should in fact be rejected?
posted by straight at 10:43 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

Let me guess. I have to take a leap of faith and I can't possibly understand or even argue against it unless I take that leap and experience it for myself?

Thanks, but I already have religion.
posted by The World Famous at 10:44 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Bill Hicks quote is fairly apt here: "Always that same LSD story, you've all seen it. 'Young man on acid, thought he could fly, jumped out of a building. What a tragedy.' What a dick! Fuck him, he’s an idiot. If he thought he could fly, why didn’t he take off on the ground first? Check it out. You don’t see ducks lined up to catch elevators to fly south—they fly from the ground, ya moron, quit ruining it for everybody. He’s a moron, he’s dead—good, we lost a moron, fuckin’ celebrate. Wow, I just felt the world get lighter. We lost a moron! I don’t mean to sound cold, or cruel, or vicious, but I am, so that’s the way it comes out. Professional help is being sought. How about a positive LSD story? Wouldn't that be news-worthy, just the once? To base your decision on information rather than scare tactics and superstition and lies? I think it would be news-worthy. 'Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves' . . . 'Here's Tom with the weather.'"

"What makes an LSD or mushroom trip better than say, being whipped up into a frenzy by religious or political fervor?"
Right, exactly.

What makes religious expression favored speech?
There is recognition of the link between an altered state of consciousness and religious expression. Indeed, one is allowed to take peyote in certain Native American churches.

So what make political fervor or other fervency favored?
Well, it's externally controllable.
Unlike the extensively tested LSD which, apparently, was outlawed only after the discovery that individuals, while in some cases subject to suggestion, were ultimately uncontrollable.
(""I believe that with the advent of acid, we discovered a new way to think, and it has to do with piecing together new thoughts in your mind. Why is it that people think it's so evil? What is it about it that scares people so deeply, even the guy that invented it, what is it? Because they're afraid that there's more to reality than they have confronted. That there are doors that they're afraid to go in, and they don't want us to go in there either, because if we go in we might learn something that they don't know. And that makes us a little out of their control." - Ken Kesey)

Most of the attraction of certain drugs is that you're able to lose control and forget yourself for a while.
The initiation of this kind of detachment from social or involuntary or rote commitment has long been one of the most powerful elements in churches. Even alcohol, which is still used in Christianity (only symbolically now, given the uncontrollable nature of the Dionysian Mysteries).

That element - which also encompasses abuse - aside - there is genuine personal development to be had with the use of hallucinogens. LSD in particular.
And this can be constructive.
Not that it inherently by its nature is. But it can be.
And like any tool it can be misused/abused.

"I have had lovely, life-changing experiences with psychedelics and I am always glad to see them portrayed in a positive light. Anyone decrying their use without having personally tried psychedelics is speaking from a position of ignorance."

I suspect these (and other) kinds of sentiments is what draws a lot of critical "ego" type comments.
The tone might be a bit high-handed, but the truth is self-evident. Virgins are speaking from a position of ignorance when they speak about sex.
This is not to say one can't debate the social context around sex. Clearly there are many topics one can discuss - should adolescents be educated about sex for example? If so how? Where? What's the rubric? Etc. etc.

So too someone who has not taken LSD can reasonably debate about its use, effects how it should be treated socially.

But...

"We are not lesser people because we can't take certain drugs happily, and we shouldn't be consigned to anguish just because you believe we are."

This too, while true, misses some of the point. LSD, or any drug, method, etc. is not a universal panacea.

But there are people who do need the effect LSD has. And some studies have shown that it's useful in treating some mental illnesses. Were the reaction to LSD not nearly psychotic we would have more studies. As it is, it is as it is.

So what's the objection then? The meat here seems to be the contention that some people need the (beneficial) effects LSD (et.al) have. The counter argument is that, well, no they don't and/or that it's too dangerous.

I needed LSD.
When I took it I was in lockstep with a serious social commitment.
I was on a ship looking at the stars and gained some insight into my basic character which... well, you who have taken it have been there.
But one thing which stands out purely objectively, some guys said "He's tripping, let's fuck with him" and someone said "What if he flips out?" some laughter. Pause. "What if he kills us all."
In that moment, yeah, I was enlightened as to who I was and what I was most certainly becoming.

Caveat here - I had studied martial arts my whole life. I was well versed in the 'void' aspect (as Mushashi intimates in the Book of Five Rings) of combat. I meditated. I practiced yoga. But something had not clicked until I took LSD.
From there it was "Oh ... that's REAL."

I had read Huxley, Dante, Hesse, Jung, Wm. James, many Zen masters, Lao Tse, Buddha, Lilly, Blake, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, St. Thomas, Meister Eckhart, etc. etc.
There was a rationality there as well. Niels Bohr, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Pauli - lots of physicists were interested in Buddhism and Indian mysticism and the concepts from the Upanishads, et.al.
So I was well prepared for what I experienced.

I suspect I would have reached the same realization without LSD. Might have taken a bit more time. I don't know that it's analogous to taking a cycle of steroids in a weightlifting routine, but it was a shortcut.
Like any shortcut it can be abused or used.

But, given that its effects are similar to realization reached in deep meditation, the only point of contention there would be that one does not need this kind of understanding.

And that's simply not true. It's similar to arguing one does not need to learn language. Or how to walk (hey, there are motorized wheelchairs, why do we need to learn to walk or teach our kids to walk).

So the argument winds up similar to demands to outlaw meditation or opposition to any introspection in one's own life.
(And among the things Harris may be incorrect about - he's most certainly wrong that is no guarantee that anything will happen with meditation. If the goal is introspection and effects similar to the consciousness shift with LSD you can absolutely do that, but it no longer becomes necessary as the discernible contrast between one's 'waking' life and one's meditative state is greatly reduced. If the goal is to get high by heightening this contrast, well shit, you can do that with booze. And hell the contrast gets greater as you go.)

While I agree that no one should zealously preach that someone else needs to do (or refrain from) - whatever - in their lives, I do think exercise and exploration of any kind is good for one's psyche as long as one avoids abusive practices.

You can overtrain your muscles for example. And there are people who can't lift weights so they run or swim. And vice versa.
And there are shortcuts and potential pitfalls. But those depend on realizing the goal which in the exercise analogy is being healthy not abusing oneself to reach some illusory goal like being 'huge.'

There are other experiences I think are worthwhile and life changing (reading Hesse - Steppenwolf and Siddhartha for example) which other people might not need or understand.
And some people can't go that route. Some people cannot climb mountains and perhaps do not need to climb mountains any more than the mountain climber needs the more introverted life of the lab researcher. But every path can have its benefits and pitfalls. Some deem the risks worthy, others are not lesser beings because they see the dangers of a given path as overwhelming.

But the pursuit itself, the need for understanding - whatever the nature or intensity of the experience - is unquestionable. And an unmixed good.

As Le Guin puts it:
"Increase of knowledge. The augmentation of the complexity and intensity of the field of intelligent life. The enrichment of harmony and the greater glory of God. Curiosity. Adventure. Delight."
posted by Smedleyman at 10:46 AM on July 6, 2011 [13 favorites]

New study finds no cognitive impairment among ecstasy users

Awesome! Thanks. After the "Oops! We labeled our meth wrong, SORRY!" study, I've learned to take studies done with controlled substances with a grain of salt, but I'm willing to accept evidence of actual neurological damage, if that ever really happens.
posted by byanyothername at 10:46 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Would anyone have an example of an assumption about reality that psychedelics led them to question and that they have since decided should in fact be rejected?

I don't really think it's something that can be discussed well in this forum. But, I don't know if "rejection" is the right word. Perhaps having a new sense of things that supersedes the old one. For me, the various layers of imposed identity (nation, race, social status, even transmitted gender notions) lost their weight and I was able to be me without having to relate everything to what I already knew.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 10:48 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

So yes, the message was understood the first time, and understood when you repeated it the second time

I meant exactly what I said, no more, no less. Please don't read between the lines for hidden messages in what I am saying, thanks.
posted by empath at 10:48 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

The writer acknowledges the following:

- His life was changed for the better because of his experimentation with LSD and Psilocybin.

- He acknowledges that people he knows and loves will probably experiment with "drugs" and probably drink as well.

- He hopes that he can positively influence people who do choose to try certain drugs to be safe, and choose wisely.

- He thinks that anyone who is willing to experiment with alternate consciousness should try LSD and/or Psilocybin. He specifically states that it is not for everyone, and is not insisting that everyone should try it or they're lesser beings because they don't.

Set and setting...know your source...be excellent to each other.
posted by Chuffy at 10:49 AM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

1. tolerance...
2. rationally...
3. self-complexity...
4. mindfulness...

I think if you can answer yes, honestly, to all three of these questions

Big words followed by an inability to count to four. Fitting
posted by eeeeeez at 10:50 AM on July 6, 2011

Would anyone have an example of an assumption about reality that psychedelics led them to question and that they have since decided should in fact be rejected?

Easy! That there is "one way to be me." Esoteric I know, but its actually really simple once you grok it. I think most people who do anything incredibly mentally intensive, like serious sport or meditation, would arrive at the same insight. You are the consequences of your brain being chemically tuned for a very specific experience, which evolution and culture have decided is the most fit. But that doesn't mean that that state is the only possible one. With a few tweaks, so many things can be changed - the solidity of the ego, sensory perception, focus, perception of time, and it goes on and on. Before LSD, I thought the nature of my subjective experienced was fixed.
posted by tempythethird at 10:51 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

DecemberBoy claimed to have once experienced complete ego death, and most people (save one) know what he is talking about. My experience, and the last time I took LSD because it was the experience I was looking for, is surprising easy to describe. I looked inside my mind and I saw a big empty room with a whole lot of overstuffed filling cabinets against the walls. All of the files were full of societal conditioning, rules and laws, stuff my Dad told me, maybe genetic tendencies, experiences I had had and stories I had told myself about those experiences, but, in the center of the room, where I had assumed my "self" resided, there was nothing. That was ego death, albeit very temporary.

My experiences did lead me to a life of spiritual experimentation (gateway drug!), in which I've experienced a variety of similar realizations/experiences. For example, it is not uncommon for all boundaries to dissolve between my body and the world. A tractor moving on the horizon feels like it is not happening "somewhere far away," it is happening to me, because "me" includes everything. Now, that is a totally different experience than the LSD trip I related, but it has in common the sensation that this guy with a name who is always telling stories to himself to make sense of the universe is not really much of an authority about what is true.

I don't think I have ever recommended LSD to anyone, as important as it once was in my life. I have, however, recommended meditation. And I have told youngsters they might not want to take drugs while their brains are still developing. And I have gone on record as believing that heroin is probably not a good way to deal with stress, all things considered.
posted by kozad at 10:52 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Note how my response and temptthethird's are similar! There is a commonality of experiences that suggest the proper action of LSD and similar compounds is not just a subjective high, but a real process of introspection.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 10:53 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

There's no reason to feel sad if I'm acting in my self interest, or to feel sad if those alternate journeys are equally powerful and authentic.

There's some kind of language barrier here that I'm starting to think cannot be overcome. I mean, I really don't get this. Do you really slot all experiences into some kind of 1 to 10 scale and say "Alpine skiing is a 6? I've done a 6" even if (to you in particular) SCUBA was a 6 and they're worlds apart in terms of experience?

Let me say again: these are all optional experiences. I don't think less of you if you never eat a pizza. I *will* think less of you, however, if you criticize the experience of eating a pizza without ever having attempted to do so. So, I guess, you're kind of stuck there, if others' approval is really such a central concern to you.

The sadness is just because it (snowboarding) has been fricking awesome in a way I never would have anticipated, and your knees may mean you never get the opportunity to try it and see if you feel the same way. Capisce?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:56 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

(sorry, tempythethird)
posted by Horselover Phattie at 10:56 AM on July 6, 2011

Would anyone have an example of an assumption about reality that psychedelics led them to question and that they have since decided should in fact be rejected?

That I have an immortal soul. That I'm a single unified being set apart from the rest of reality, rather than being a tiny part of a larger universe. That I had to follow through with the life that seemingly had been set before me (living in my parent's town, working at the same place that my parents and grand parents did). That life has any meaning apart from what I give to it. That our normal perception of the world in any way constitutes a direct experience of reality. I dunno, lots of stuff like that. Which are all things that one can arrive at in other ways, but perhaps not so easily for a 19-year old suburban graduate of the catholic school system.
posted by empath at 10:57 AM on July 6, 2011 [15 favorites]

It is truly precious when a drug rush is made into something that qualifies as meaningful "work". Surely that must be the epitome of *something*, though I'm not sure of what (narcissism? puritanism??)

Drugs are FUN because they provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION. There is nothing else to it. Have a good time, kids.
posted by eeeeeez at 10:59 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

That's very interesting, Smedleyman. My experience was the opposite. I was completely unprepared intellectually for the LSD experience. One way to explain my life since is as an attempt to come to terms with the LSD experience by doing the same kind of reading you did beforehand. I may well have done the same reading without the experience. I was definitely going down that path. But the experience gave me a kind benchmark: if my reading and reflection wasn't as filled with intensity as my drug experience, then I hadn't finished reading and reflecting.
posted by No Robots at 11:00 AM on July 6, 2011

kozad: “DecemberBoy claimed to have once experienced complete ego death, and most people (save one) know what he is talking about.”

Pray, who is this "save one" you're talking about?
posted by koeselitz at 11:01 AM on July 6, 2011

It is truly precious when a drug rush is made into something that qualifies as meaningful "work". Surely that must be the epitome of *something*, though I'm not sure of what (narcissism? puritanism??)

Strawmanning?
posted by Greg Nog at 11:01 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

> Drugs are FUN because they provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION. There is nothing else to it. Have a good time, kids.

You're really contributing far below any threshold of good faith, but prior to LSD being made a Schedule 1 substance, there were lots of research studies into its efficacy as a therapeutic tool.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 11:02 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

> Let me guess. I have to take a leap of faith and I can't possibly understand or even argue against it unless I take that leap and experience it for myself?
>
> Thanks, but I already have religion.

Not at all.

You need to accept either science, which seems to clearly show that people who are under the influence of psychedelics are in fact in a different state of consciousness, or the reports of personal experience, which says the same thing.

Choosing not to take psychedelics is fine, but to choose not to do so and then claim you know better than those who have what the subjective experience is like is unreasonable.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:02 AM on July 6, 2011 [7 favorites]

Goddamn Nancy Reagan for eternity.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 11:03 AM on July 6, 2011 [10 favorites]

It is truly precious when a drug rush is made into something that qualifies as meaningful "work"

Man the speed with which that made me start composing my reply set off my troll alarm.

Read what me and Horselover Phattie have written. I'm sure others have touched it but I haven't had the time to read the entire thread.

Anyway, I think the recognition and subsequent weakening of externally imposed identities and a new awareness that one has agency regarding their identity certainly qualifies as work. I think any therapist would agree.

Also hallucinogens don't cause a "rush."
posted by tempythethird at 11:07 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Big words followed by an inability to count to four. Fitting

I added another point after I had written the subsequent paragraph and then neglected to amend it.

That the desire to point out other people's mistakes and imply they are drug addled idiots is actually evidence of one's own deep-seated insecurity seems like a realization one might be able to arrive at without the use of drugs. Guess I was wrong.
posted by paradoxflow at 11:07 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

Let me guess. I have to take a leap of faith and I can't possibly understand or even argue against it unless I take that leap and experience it for myself?

Thanks, but I already have religion.

My point was not that one is better or worse than the other, simply that they are different. That's why i used the word "same" instead of "as awesome as" or something like that. This is a thread about psychedelics and all I had to say was that, like many others, it's unlike any experience I've ever had and no, I really don't think I could have understood what it was like beforehand. I thought I did but I didn't. This whole thread was not about "let's argue the merits of different ways of being enlightened." It's about the value of psychedelics for this purpose and my opinion is that it's hard to understand what it's like without having done it because personally, I didn't, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I'm not bashing meditation, or religion, or saying anybody NEEDS to do drugs. (On preview, what lupus says.)
posted by GastrocNemesis at 11:07 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

LSD (which I haven't encountered in years and years) helped take the stick out of my ass. It helped me reconcile my bone-deep materialistic atheism with the numinous experiences I'd had throughout my life. It exposed the gears of group social interaction and helped me both not flail so much and also not be such an asshole. It gently reminded me that even if I was certain about things, I wasn't necessarily right about them. It was under these conditions I was first able to realize that everyone is essentially walking wounded, and that the first and best thing was to be kind.

But anything I have to say is just more anecdote from someone who might not be honest or even real, so why not take a look at the last mushroom post here, summarizing the Johns Hopkins study someone mentioned above? It has numbers and science, etc.

other things that make the people involved look goofy: sex, mourning, celebration, ritual. Then again, poisonous self-consciousness is one of the things psychedelics helped me shed... OH NOEZ IT IS THA DRUGS TALKING¡

posted by jtron at 11:07 AM on July 6, 2011 [6 favorites]

Pray, who is this "save one" you're talking about?

Oh, when DecemberBoy said he experienced ego death on LSD, I seem to recall that someone said he didn't know what he was talking about and that he could not have experienced ego death. It was about 75 posts back. And then a few people weighed in on DecemberBoy's behalf. It doesn't really matter. Defining ego death is a pretty difficult proposition. It's been an interesting thread. LSD is an interesting drug. I don't think we could talk at such length about meth.
posted by kozad at 11:11 AM on July 6, 2011

Late in the game, and I can't read the 150+ comments that have been posted since I last checked this thread, but at that point, it didn't appear that anyone was talking about Sam Harris's article at all. There was lots of talk about what an idiot he is for telling everyone to take drugs. AHEM:

This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage.
posted by nosila at 11:13 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

GastrocNemesis: In this case, it comes off as telling people who've seen mountains we've not really seen mountains, because you've chosen to travel to a different mountain range. Which again, the entire point of Harris' essay is that psychedelics are a useful but not exclusive method for exploring spirituality. I agree with Harris here.

empath: That's the problem. I'm not reading between the lines. If you meant exactly what you wrote, (twice) then abstaining from psychedelics is merely a choice of superficial safety and comfort.

paradoxflow: The times I've used entheogens have been some of the happiest and most spiritually significant of my life, and it absolutely disgusts me when people who have never tried them think they have any right to decry, or worse, deny them to anyone else.

As I've said above. I advocate legalization of LSD and most other drugs. But the fact that you've used psychedelic drugs does not make your spiritual revelations more authentic, nor does it translate my methodological sobriety based on over two decades of introspection and mindfulness into what's lurking in my consciousness into puritanical cowardice or spiritual sloth.

Durn: There's some kind of language barrier here that I'm starting to think cannot be overcome. I mean, I really don't get this. Do you really slot all experiences into some kind of 1 to 10 scale and say "Alpine skiing is a 6? I've done a 6" even if (to you in particular) SCUBA was a 6 and they're worlds apart in terms of experience?

But we're not talking about all experiences. We're talking about a person's spiritual experiences with themselves, the universe, and their god(s). It's rather akin, to my mind, of saying that I don't love my family because our celebration of birthdays have shifted to one of convenience rather than exact days.

Durn: I don't think less of you if you never eat a pizza.

But you've already said otherwise, and repeated it.

Durn: I *will* think less of you, however, if you criticize the experience of eating a pizza without ever having attempted to do so.

That's nice because I'm not criticizing your experiences with psychedelics. I'm criticizing the notion that my experiences with a beautiful Universe are worthy of pity because I wasn't dosing at the time. I suspect that we'd actually have a fair bit to share about our experiences if advocates were not so insistent on defensively drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. I'll say it again, I agree with Harris that psychedelics are one of multiple ways to do this.

I've suggested this before, but it was a metaphor. I don't really have bad knees, and if I did, your pity would be unwelcome regardless.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:15 AM on July 6, 2011

> It is truly precious when a drug rush is made into something that qualifies as meaningful "work".

> Drugs are FUN because they provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION. There is nothing else to it. Have a good time, kids.

> Thanks, but I already have religion.

> Big words followed by an inability to count to four. Fitting

Overall, I'm not seeing much if anything in the way of reasoned arguments from the "psychedelics are evil" side - nor am I seeing anyone actually trying to rebut or respond to the reasoned arguments from our side.

At this point, unless there's a sudden burst of reasonableness from your side, I'm afraid I have to say that you've pretty well lost the debate.

Certainly, there seems ample proof of the claim that psychedelic drug users are nicer people in the above thread.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:16 AM on July 6, 2011 [12 favorites]

> GastrocNemesis: In this case, it comes off as telling people who've seen mountains we've not really seen mountains, because you've chosen to travel to a different mountain range.

No, it's like telling people who've climbed a mountain that they don't really know what it's like to be in a balloon...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:17 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Metaphors are blunt instruments.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 11:19 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Overall, I'm not seeing much if anything in the way of reasoned arguments from the "psychedelics are evil" side

For the record, I am not on that side. I think psychedelics are great way to have fun/waste time.
posted by eeeeeez at 11:21 AM on July 6, 2011

My experience was the opposite. I was completely unprepared intellectually for the LSD experience. One way to explain my life since is as an attempt to come to terms with the LSD experience by doing the same kind of reading you did beforehand.

This is also what happened to me. I had been already been an atheist for years, but not one with much of a philosophical foundation. The experience made me sit up and recognize how completely at sea I was, and I spent years reading philosophy and science books trying figure out who I was and why I was here-- why anything was here-- and just trying to understand what I experienced. I was basically just sleep-walking before that.

But the fact that you've used psychedelic drugs does not make your spiritual revelations more authentic, nor does it translate my methodological sobriety based on over two decades of introspection and mindfulness into what's lurking in my consciousness into puritanical cowardice or spiritual sloth.

You seem to be really insecure about whatever it is you are talking about and projecting a lot onto what other people are saying that isn't even addressed to you or related to what you are talking about. I don't know what to tell you.
posted by empath at 11:23 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

Oh wait, never mind, psychedelics are illegal and a cheat. Best to stick with the healthy, non addictive things prescribed to me. I mean, you never hear of anyone fucking up their lives with "hydrocodone," right? And "mixed amphetamine salts?" I seem to recall a mister John F Kennedy who took that all the time! Just keep those things that might give me better social relationships with family and others, increased physical and psychological self-care, and increased spiritual practice far far away because they are WRONG.
posted by jtron at 11:24 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I disagree that LSD per se is 'one of the most meaningful rites of passage' for humanity, but I do agree that significantly altering one's state of consciousness is seriously important. I haven't gotten through the entire thread yet, but I encourage all of you who are decrying drugs for their 'brain damaging' effects to check out The Natural Mind by Andrew Weil. He argues that just about everything we do is mind-altering so it's kind of ridiculous to ostracize psychedelics over other activities. Along the same vein, have a gander at The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley. I would also recommend anything by Alan Watts for the relation to Eastern mysticism.

Personally, for me, psychedelics are just not it. I think I inherit this from my father--my parents have always been extremely open about their adolescent drug use (and beyond!), and my mother has always talked about the great fun she had on LSD. My father, on the other hand, has talked about nightmarish experiences that I know would drive me to have epic panic attacks and maybe worse. I've done psilocybin a couple of times and while it has been positive on one of those occasions it has been utterly horrific the other two. So I definitely think it should be experienced, especially for those who have better trips than I--because of my experience with it, though, I've also steered away from LSD. I'm just too afraid of how I will feel or what I might do while I'm in; every person I've ever talked to that's done LSD has told me that this is a great reason not to partake, and I agree with them. :)
posted by nonmerci at 11:26 AM on July 6, 2011

Oh, and I meant to state in that first paragraph--I think MOST hallucinogens could fit in that category, including marijuana (one of the most impactful of drugs I've ever used as far as its effect on my quality of life), as opposed to ONLY stating that LSD has such an effect. A very minor nitpick.
posted by nonmerci at 11:30 AM on July 6, 2011

That the desire to point out other people's mistakes and imply they are drug addled idiots is actually evidence of one's own deep-seated insecurity seems like a realization one might be able to arrive at without the use of drugs. Guess I was wrong.

Yeah, it was a cheap shot, but I'm not below cheap shots, especially if the pretense is so overwhelming.
posted by eeeeeez at 11:31 AM on July 6, 2011

You're really contributing far below any threshold of good faith, but

Threshold of good faith? I am trying to offset the woo a little. There are drug users among us who have no use for all the weak justifications.

prior to LSD being made a Schedule 1 substance, there were lots of research studies into its efficacy as a therapeutic tool.

Right, and there are research studies into the effectiveness of prayer as well. I will not give it the time of day.
posted by eeeeeez at 11:34 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Let me guess. I have to take a leap of faith and I can't possibly understand or even argue against it unless I take that leap and experience it for myself?

Thanks, but I already have religion.

Yeah, it's not really like religion at all. In religious practice, you take the sacrament. *Maybe* the bread turns into a body. *Maybe* the wine turns into blood. Maybe it doesn't. Even if you take the leap of faith, chances are, you aren't going to get any empirical evidence that'll convince you one way or the other.

Drugs aren't like that. If they don't work for you, nobody keeps on expecting you to keep on doing it and exhorting that if you'll just have faith, the great bearded guy in the sky will eventually appear and grant your wishes.

If trancendental experiences are what you're seeking, with drugs, you either have them or you don't. And there isn't an established body of dogma to interpret that experience for you, or a priesthood to tell you how you need to live your life in the light of that experience.

I can see why Harris is fond of LSD. It is the kind of quasi-mystical experience that would appeal to an atheist.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:37 AM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

At this point, unless there's a sudden burst of reasonableness from your side, I'm afraid I have to say that you've pretty well lost the debate.

I didn't realize there was a debate. What's the debate about? All I have done is point out that the pro-drug arguments here and where Harris is concerned are faith-based and anecdotal. I haven't said that drugs are evil or made any attempt at rebutting the faith-based, anecdotal arguments advanced by Sam Harris or others.
posted by The World Famous at 11:38 AM on July 6, 2011

I think Harris does a good job of explaining how LSD and the like can be a good experience, but the pain of his bad trip is evocative. He writes about the good trips with passion but the bad trip is handled at a safe distance.

The warning I would give my children, friends or anyone contemplating the plunge is this: A bad trip leaves a hole in you. It is a place in your life experience that you will likely dread and is a source of disturbing imagery and sensation for decades. It feels like the trauma of war, but in the material sense it never really happened. Besides, if you try to talk it out it all sounds ridiculous. The post traumatic stress of a bad trip can be incredibly isolating and take a long time to work through.

If everyone could stop tripping on a high note that would be great, but I've met many who stopped after the bad trip.
posted by dgran at 11:39 AM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

lupus_yonderboy: Overall, I'm not seeing much if anything in the way of reasoned arguments from the "psychedelics are evil" side - nor am I seeing anyone actually trying to rebut or respond to the reasoned arguments from our side.

Is there really a "psychedelics are evil" side here? Again, I agree with Harris that they're one useful way of exploring consciousness.

No, it's like telling people who've climbed a mountain that they don't really know what it's like to be in a balloon...

I've not found this to be the case. I've had great discussions about spiritual revelations that were achieved all kinds of ways. Perhaps these experiences are better off done face-to-face where we have facial expression and body language to establish empathy, but I don't think the experiences are alien to each other.

jtron: ... far far away because they are WRONG.

They're wrong for me. I don't know how that translates into wrong for everyone else.

empath: This is also what happened to me. I had been already been an atheist for years, but not one with much of a philosophical foundation. The experience made me sit up and recognize how completely at sea I was, and I spent years reading philosophy and science books trying figure out who I was and why I was here-- why anything was here-- and just trying to understand what I experienced. I was basically just sleep-walking before that.

That's nice. For me it was the Vision of the Flowers. Early summer in Bloomington, IN. Standing in the front yard of the house on Maple St., watching a storm come in over the city and feeling surrounded by green life. Something clicked, and I had a moment of realization and awareness of the sheer complexity of the systems around me. It eventually passed, but tipped me out of neopaganism entirely.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:41 AM on July 6, 2011

It is truly precious when a drug rush is made into something that qualifies as meaningful "work". Surely that must be the epitome of *something*, though I'm not sure of what (narcissism? puritanism??)

Drugs are FUN because they provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION. There is nothing else to it. Have a good time, kids.
posted by eeeeeez at 10:59 AM on July 6 [+] [!]

It's funny when shallow people declare unequivocally that the whole world is shallow, because they've been unable to find depth. And by 'funny' I mean 'sucks to be them.'
posted by FatherDagon at 11:41 AM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

Yeah, it's not really like religion at all.

I think you may have missed my point.

Drugs aren't like that. If they don't work for you, nobody keeps on expecting you to keep on doing it and exhorting that if you'll just have faith, the great bearded guy in the sky will eventually appear and grant your wishes.

Interestingly, that's not how religion works, either.

If trancendental experiences are what you're seeking, with drugs, you either have them or you don't.

Guess what else is like that?

And there isn't an established body of dogma to interpret that experience for you, or a priesthood to tell you how you need to live your life in the light of that experience.

I respectfully disagree.
posted by The World Famous at 11:42 AM on July 6, 2011

> faith-based and anecdotal.

One of these things is not like the other.

What do you think about anti-depressants or other psychotropic drugs? Do you consider their effects "faith-based" or equivalent to religion?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:43 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

All I have done is point out that the pro-drug arguments here and where Harris is concerned are faith-based and anecdotal

Can you elaborate on what exactly you think is faith-based here?
posted by empath at 11:44 AM on July 6, 2011

> > Drugs aren't like that. If they don't work for you, nobody keeps on expecting you to keep on doing it and exhorting that if you'll just have faith, the great bearded guy in the sky will eventually appear and grant your wishes.

> Interestingly, that's not how religion works, either.

A religion that says, "If it doesn't work for you, it's not for you?" Which religion would that be?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:44 AM on July 6, 2011

Right, and there are research studies into the effectiveness of prayer as well. I will not give it the time of day.

Why would you not give it the time of day? You don't think these things can have positive effects?

*Maybe* the bread turns into a body. *Maybe* the wine turns into blood.

No matter how many times I hear this, it still creeps me out. I feel a lot better assuming that my Catholic family does not believe they are really eating human flesh and drinking blood. I mean, ewwwwwwwww!


I can see why Harris is fond of LSD. It is the kind of quasi-mystical experience that would appeal to an atheist.

Why does it have to be "quasi-", though?
posted by Hoopo at 11:47 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, it was a cheap shot, but I'm not below cheap shots, especially if the pretense is so overwhelming.

Can I be the first to thank you for saving us from pretense with the shining light of your derision? Someone has to do it, right?
posted by paradoxflow at 11:50 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why does it have to be "quasi-", though?

It doesn't have to be anything. I was using the term to signify my personal agnostic relationship to the issue.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:52 AM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

> faith-based and anecdotal.

One of these things is not like the other.

What do you think about anti-depressants or other psychotropic drugs? Do you consider their effects "faith-based" or equivalent to religion?

If the two were the same, I would not have stated them separately. I would note, however, the extensive writing that has been done by various notable skeptics and atheists regarding the failure of personal anecdotes as evidentiary tools.

Do I consider the effects of anti-depressants, etc. to be "faith-based?" No. But I don't consider the effects of LSD or other illegal drugs to be faith-based, either. That was not my assertion.

Can you elaborate on what exactly you think is faith-based here?

The argument that one simply cannot rebut the merits of psychedelic drugs unless one takes a leap of faith and uses the drugs.
posted by The World Famous at 11:57 AM on July 6, 2011

The World Famous: "Guess what else is like that?"

Having really good sex?
posted by vanar sena at 11:59 AM on July 6, 2011

> The argument that one simply cannot rebut the merits of psychedelic drugs unless one takes a leap of faith and uses the drugs.

You can if you wish, but frankly you'll be speaking from a place of relative ignorance.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 11:59 AM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

You need to accept either science, which seems to clearly show that people who are under the influence of psychedelics are in fact in a different state of consciousness, or the reports of personal experience, which says the same thing.

People who are experiencing religious ecstasy are also in a different state of consciousness, and there are various papers out there about both the measurement and stimulation of such experiences in neuroscience labs. Likewise, people who are dreaming have distinctly different mental states from the waking norm, and so do people skilled in meditation. Certain drugs can induce certain mental states in a (somewhat) controlled fashion, without all that chanting or invocation of spirits or what-have-you.

Some people who have had positive psychedelic experiences have become terribly snooty about it, and seem unaware that they sound much the same as people talking about faith or some marginal spiritual practice. Sure, you can talk about enlightenment and openness to new ideas and throwing off old conditioning, but people who have gone through a religious conversion or revival talk the exact same way. why do you think so many evangelical types refer to themselves as 'born again'? That's how they actually feel, and people who haven't had that experience often just don't get it, just as many people who have not had psychedelic experiences just don't get how profound they seem to those who have. Conversely, those who have had their inner life substantially transformed or expanded in some way have an unfortunate tendency to mistake intensity for reality and go about arguing that their experience was somehow deeper and more meaningful than experiences of the kind that they happen not to get.

Readers of this thread might find it worthwhile to cut'n'paste the whole discussion into a text editor and do a quick word replace on LSD/ drugs/ psychedelics/ experienced, to (say) Jesus/ religion/ faith/ saved or some similar combination. This only takes a few minutes, although if you invest a little extra time to replace the keywords in both directions the effect can be even more intense. For many, this activity can be truly eye-opening, although some may find it disturbing or even scary.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:00 PM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

Can you elaborate on what exactly you think is faith-based here?

The argument that one simply cannot rebut the merits of psychedelic drugs unless one takes a leap of faith and uses the drugs.

Basically, someone can tell me 'telescopes are bullshit' all they want. If they're using that stance to back both a) never looking through a telescope themselves and b) not letting anyone else have telescopes, then I am strongly inclined to believe they are talking out of their ass, and don't have much to contribute to further conversation.
posted by FatherDagon at 12:00 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Harris is a cool guy. He made me want to try meditation again. I did. I failed, again.
posted by Decani at 12:00 PM on July 6, 2011

Readers of this thread might find it worthwhile to cut'n'paste the whole discussion into a text editor and do a quick word replace on LSD/ drugs/ psychedelics/ experienced, to (say) Jesus/ religion/ faith/ saved or some similar combination. This only takes a few minutes, although if you invest a little extra time to replace the keywords in both directions the effect can be even more intense. For many, this activity can be truly eye-opening, although some may find it disturbing or even scary.

I prefer to randomly replace nouns with racial adjectives, until everyone looks like a racist. That's how the parlor trick usually works, right?
posted by FatherDagon at 12:02 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

> Harris is a cool guy. He made me want to try meditation again. I did. I failed, again.

It helps if you can find a group of some sort or other that has an established meditation practice. Sitting with others tends to make it easier than sitting alone.

The problem, of course, is finding a group that is acceptable.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:06 PM on July 6, 2011

The argument that one simply cannot rebut the merits of psychedelic drugs unless one takes a leap of faith and uses the drugs.

The experience that we are describing is easily reproducible. It's as faith-based as gravity. Feel free to construct a double blind experiment with a placebo if you like. Other people have.
posted by empath at 12:07 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Readers of this thread might find it worthwhile to cut'n'paste the whole discussion into a text editor and do a quick word replace on LSD/ drugs/ psychedelics/ experienced, to (say) Jesus/ religion/ faith/ saved or some similar combination.

The FPP is literally about transformative psychedelic experiences. The fact that people here are writing about it represents more of a miraculous example of staying on topic than any kind of evangelizing, in my opinion.

Added to which, it took less than one comment for people here to begin saying negative things about drugs. It's hardly surprising that later posters who have actually taken them might feel the desire to write more persuasively than normal.
posted by heatvision at 12:10 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

You can if you wish, but frankly you'll be speaking from a place of relative ignorance.

Indeed.

Note, please, that I'm not making any attempt to rebut the merits of psychedelic drugs. I'm just amused a the willingness of so many people here to embrace a method of argument that is typically frowned upon by the very intellectual circles of which Sam Harris is a part.

The experience that we are describing is easily reproducible. It's as faith-based as gravity. Feel free to construct a double blind experiment with a placebo if you like. Other people have.

That's what I keep saying re: Mormonism to my atheist brother-in-law, but he doesn't believe me for some reason.
posted by The World Famous at 12:11 PM on July 6, 2011

> People who are experiencing religious ecstasy are also in a different state of consciousness, and there are various papers out there about both the measurement and stimulation of such experiences in neuroscience labs. Likewise, people who are dreaming have distinctly different mental states from the waking norm, and so do people skilled in meditation. Certain drugs can induce certain mental states in a (somewhat) controlled fashion, without all that chanting or invocation of spirits or what-have-you.

So far, so good.

> Some people who have had positive psychedelic experiences have become terribly snooty about it, and seem unaware that they sound much the same as people talking about faith or some marginal spiritual practice.

Specifics, please?

I'm a unbeliever, but I don't see anything wrong with the claim that the religious experience is ineffable, that you just have to experience it to know. My beef with religion is the claims to magic and miracles and the appeal to authority.

I don't see what at all is unreasonable to say, "You have to experience religion/psychedelics/a good orgasm to really know what they're like," and I fail in the slightest to see why this is a religious claim. I could say the same thing about menstrual cramps or jock itch and it would be entirely uncontroversial.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:12 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

FatherDagon: Basically, someone can tell me 'telescopes are bullshit' all they want. If they're using that stance to back both a) never looking through a telescope themselves and b) not letting anyone else have telescopes, then I am strongly inclined to believe they are talking out of their ass, and don't have much to contribute to further conversation.

Well, a) is advocated for many people, not only by Harris but by most of the people I know who've used LSD in the past. I'm not certain why we're supposed to listen to Harris on the varieties of psychedelic spiritual experience but not on his discussion of the risks.

I don't think many people are advocating b). You can have your catadioptric and I'll use my Newtonian, and perhaps we might be able to compare notes after a good night.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:14 PM on July 6, 2011

I don't see what at all is unreasonable to say, "You have to experience religion/psychedelics/a good orgasm to really know what they're like," and I fail in the slightest to see why this is a religious claim.

It's not at all unreasonable, and it's not a religious claim.
posted by The World Famous at 12:15 PM on July 6, 2011

> Indeed.
> That's what I keep saying re: Mormonism to my atheist brother-in-law, but he doesn't believe me for some reason.

Because you're comparing apples to oranges here. LSD is going to have the same effect on the majority of users' brains. They may have a range of reactions to it, but the basic sensory effects are going to be the same.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:15 PM on July 6, 2011

Because you're comparing apples to oranges here. LSD is going to have the same effect on the majority of users' brains. They may have a range of reactions to it, but the basic sensory effects are going to be the same.

Unless you have some actual evidence to back up those factual claims, I'm not inclined to just give you the benefit of the doubt.
posted by The World Famous at 12:18 PM on July 6, 2011

You may think that you can have the same enlightening moment without the drugs, but trust me, it's different.

BS. My green could be your red. My sober could be your fucked up. My meditation could be your LSD. Et cetera.

I'm fascinated/thankful that we can communicate at all.
posted by 3FLryan at 12:18 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

The World Famous: I've decided I'm going to act as if you're having a serious discussion with us.

> > The experience that we are describing is easily reproducible. It's as faith-based as gravity. Feel free to construct a double blind experiment with a placebo if you like. Other people have.

> That's what I keep saying re: Mormonism to my atheist brother-in-law, but he doesn't believe me for some reason.

So what specifically are you saying? You tell your atheist brother-in-law that he has no idea what it's like to be a Mormon without experiencing it, and he says he does?

Doesn't make sense to me. I can decide your religion is dumb and still believe that you are getting into strange mental states that I don't want to share.

Now, the fact is that if I give you or some random lab volunteer 250ug of LSD, you're going to experience various perceptual disorders and metabolic changes and this will reliably show up on tests and be reported as such to experimenters.

So it seems to me that you're the one who's going all religious on us. We're saying, "There's a particular mind state that can be reached by psychedelics, and the only way to understand it is to experience it, and there are decades of scientific research on this top," and you're all nonono but we really aren't seeing your data.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:20 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Unless you have some actual evidence to back up those factual claims

There are innumerable accounts of LSD/mescaline/psilocybin/DMT users that report very similar experiences, and most with no foreknowledge or expectations. What kind of evidence are you looking for? It's not something that we really can plot on a chart yet, but we can sift through the mountains of anecdotal evidence to arrive at statistical conclusions. That's what psychology is all about.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:22 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Unless you have some actual evidence to back up those factual claims, I'm not inclined to just give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you were actually interested in the truth, I couldn't come up with a single reasonable Google search that didn't have good results on this topic! Here's a nice survey paper that isn't too technical and http://maps.org has a lot more.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:24 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

So what specifically are you saying? You tell your atheist brother-in-law that he has no idea what it's like to be a Mormon without experiencing it, and he says he does?

That was really more of a jokey illustration of how off the logic was in the statement to which I was responding.

I am specifically saying that it is fascinating and sort of funny to see MetaFilter so tightly embracing personal, subjective experience as evidence of the merit of a method of attaining introspection and a personal sense of well-being.

Doesn't make sense to me. I can decide your religion is dumb and still believe that you are getting into strange mental states that I don't want to share.

Yes! Bingo! I think we're understanding each other now.

Horselover Phattie:

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Well, you could start by showing evidence for your assertion that I was comparing apples to oranges. You seem to think you have the oranges covered. Now do the apples. I won't even ask you to cite anything for your assertions about the oranges.

It seems like you and lupus_yonderboy didn't even notice that you made an unsupported assertion about religious experience, as well as your assertions about psychedelic drug use.
posted by The World Famous at 12:27 PM on July 6, 2011

> You seem to think you have the oranges covered. Now do the apples

No, you keep moving the goal posts so that all we're talking about is rhetorical tactics rather than the idea that LSD can indeed induce useful states. No need to continue.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:30 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is going nowhere. Kinda like when I sat behind the wheel in a VW bus with three other tripping teenagers in 1969 and I realized that taking LSD and driving an automobile were two incompatible activities. We decided we should just go back in the woods for a while.
posted by kozad at 12:31 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

No, you keep moving the goal posts so that all we're talking about is rhetorical tactics rather than the idea that LSD can indeed induce useful states.

How is that "moving the goal posts?" It was my comment from the beginning. Nothing has moved. If you don't disagree with me, don't argue with me.
posted by The World Famous at 12:34 PM on July 6, 2011

Now, the fact is that if I give you or some random lab volunteer 250ug of LSD, you're going to experience various perceptual disorders and metabolic changes and this will reliably show up on tests and be reported as such to experimenters.

Indeed. These are entirely predictable psychological changes based on underlying chemical changes in the brain, all of which are observable and correlatable, and the mechanisms for how it works are beginning to be better and better understood as scientists study it more. Its as opposite of faith-based as anything in psychology can be.

Now the subjective experience of those changes and the interpretation of it is pretty personal and far away from science, but the fact of the experiences and the reliability of their occurrence isn't really in dispute.
posted by empath at 12:37 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Right, and there are research studies into the effectiveness of prayer as well. I will not give it the time of day.
anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula and the orbito-frontal cortex blah blah blah

I like to throw random orbital sanders into wood chippers to watch them blowed up good. Apparently they're useful for some other tasks.

I like to exercise as well. Despite the fun I have, and the ubiquity of forklifts and other machines, there's apparently some benefit to it.

I'd argue that as a society the U.S. is overmarketed medication and the instant gratification element is a result of marketing medication as a guilty pleasure. Walgreens is the largest drug store chains in the U.S. They were founded on selling bootleg booze as 'medicinal.'

No doubt there are pleasure receptors in the brain being triggered by certain drugs, but addiction is fostered more by behavior and reinforcement. S'why nicotine is more addictive than heroin (or considered to be so).
Psychedelics are, chemically speaking, the least addictive of drugs. The kinds of pleasure taken from them is diverse and not as simple as you posit.
And they seem to have negative behavioral enforcement as well.

This 'God/Jesus' thing tho - there are people who think Christ gives them the strength to lift heavy iron. Doesn't make it so. But their misinterpretation doesn't invalidate exercise.

So too, attempting to understand and clarify the instrument with which one experiences the world and reality, whatever the label (mystical, enlightenment, etc) or means is valid or invalid not by consensus but by efficacy.

And, as with drugs, you can see where people like to instill elements of control in whatever they spread as their own flavor.
Neat thing about that is that gets in the way of practical method and the more hung up one is on dogma, the less useful the practice generally is.

And often the more resistance there is.
Sometimes it's just knee jerk (atheism/religion threads, etc) but the suspicion isn't less warranted for that.
Most people are receptive to a practice that improves their lives.

On the other hand, the urge to sweeten the concept is often irresistible. Say "diet and exercise" to people (the 'in general' people) and you'll get a 'yeah, yeah, yeah' but put out something that looks like a shortcut and attach a celebrity to it and people flock to it and you rake in the dough (because no one would just give away a 'secret' like that, would they?).
And you have to convince them it's worth it. Sex, body image, etc.
Aw, how great could working out it be if you're not getting laid. You just like it because of endorphins. There's nothing really there.

But there is. Like (apocryphally) Galileo "And yet it moves" because I've seen it even if someone else refuses to look.
Whether it's worth it? Different story. From there you can argue hedonism (fun) or utility or deny there is any use at all (hey, we have cars, bio-science and cybernetics are advancing).
There is great pleasure to be had from intellectual pursuit. I've gotten really high off of thinking deeply and had awe and wonder in contemplation of how physics describes the universe.
That pursuit and its attendant pleasures are nevertheless often disparaged - still. Even in its infancy. How many nerds are tormented in high school? Oh, you like astronomy? Spaz.

But even so - I'm sorry someone else might not like to exercise or the fact people really enjoy the wonders of the universe and advocate how mind expanding thinking about these things are.
Someone else doesn't have to like something for it to be objectively useful.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:38 PM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

My green could be your red.

I'm not sure I get the point of this argument. If this were the case it would be due to your genes. What does that have to do with drugs?
posted by GastrocNemesis at 12:42 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Set and setting, folks. a huge reason some people have amazingly positive psychedelic experiences whilst others experience hell is because of where, when and with whom they take the drugs. this is why those mushroom studies are so interesting: they basically say that with a good setting and experienced guides and low doses, most people can have a life-changing mystical experience with very little risk.

and btw, meditation can actually be horrible for the mentally ill too: ruminating on depression, as can happen in meditation, can actually make people worse. anything powerful enough to help is often powerful enough to harm: the idea that drugs are dangerous and evil while meditation is safe and harmless is misguided.

i'll also respond to this:

For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs.

The data doesn't support this idea. The vast majority of drug users are not harmed by drugs, 85% of heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine users do not get addicted and psychedelics aren't addictive at all. LSD overdose doesn't kill and there's little evidence that people who were not pre-existingly mentally ill are made that way by these drugs, even when they take them in bad environments.

that's not to say that drugs can't do tremendous harm but it's simply not the case that the majority are harmed.

NA is a self-selected group: no one goes there because they're having good drug experiences. But the National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health and the Monitoring the Future study show every year that most people who take drugs never get hooked and do not suffer any particular kind of harm. The research also shows that even with heroin and cocaine, most users don't get addicted and most of those who *do* get addicted quit without 12-step programs or other treatment.

Btw, the idea that drugs are stored in fat and come out and cause flashbacks: it's from Scientology. No data supports it.
posted by Maias at 12:43 PM on July 6, 2011 [10 favorites]

yes, true, though I have never seen Gnomes after using the treadmill.
posted by clavdivs at 12:45 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

No. Fucking around with and fucking up the only brain you have is a seriously stupid idea.

As a child I was fearful and tense. As an adolescent I was fearful, tense, angry, and cruel.

I dropped acid in college, when I was 19. Until that point in my life I had never gotten high on anything, ever, including pot and alcohol.

Honestly, that experience, and a few more like it, saved me from becoming a fearful, angry, cruel adult, and I am grateful for it.
posted by Ratio at 12:46 PM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

I'm not sure why the pro-psychedelic viewpoint is derided as "faith based" when much of the point is that the results are widely reproducible and there have been studies showing their nontoxicity and potential for low risk high upside use.
posted by jtron at 12:51 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Basically, someone can tell me 'telescopes are bullshit' all they want. If they're using that stance to back both a) never looking through a telescope themselves and b) not letting anyone else have telescopes, then I am strongly inclined to believe they are talking out of their ass, and don't have much to contribute to further conversation.

[...]

I prefer to randomly replace nouns with racial adjectives, until everyone looks like a racist. That's how the parlor trick usually works, right?

What a difference two minutes makes.

If trancendental experiences are what you're seeking, with drugs, you either have them or you don't. And there isn't an established body of dogma to interpret that experience for you, or a priesthood to tell you how you need to live your life in the light of that experience.

I'm inclined to disagree. In any discussion of this subject, you'll see references to 'set and setting,' how bad trips are reflective of the hallucinogen-takers' personal baggage that they brought along the trip, and references to Tim Leary (LSD), Terence McKenna (DMT, along with mentions of 'self-transforming machine elves'), Gordon Wasson (mushrooms), Alexander Shulgin (everything else and the kitchen sink). A psychedelic evangelist is more likely to have/like certain books (Huxley's Doors of Perception, RA Wilson's Cosmic Trigger or one of its many sequels), artwork (Alex Gray, surrealism), music (duh) and so on. I'm not saying this to be dismissive: I consider these things to be cultural signifiers, no better or worse than those associated with various religions and spiritual practices around the world and throughout history. Psychedelic drug use is less institutionalized and formalized than many religions but it has its own distinct cultural framework...and a long, albeit obscure, history.

Now I could start in on a long essay beginning with the Eleusinian mystery cult in ancient Greece, but readers might like to consider the significance of the communion wafer and wine in Christian religious practice, and in turn the significance of 'manna' in both the old and new testaments. One might also want to consider the unpredictable availability of certain natural resources as a factor in in the development of institutional structures. Of course, others might consider this to be just so much navel-gazing.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:52 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

MDMA, LSD and shrooms. For everything else, you aren't missing much.

I protest this statement on behalf of 2c-b.
posted by elizardbits at 12:58 PM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

Tim Leary (LSD), Terence McKenna (DMT, along with mentions of 'self-transforming machine elves'), Gordon Wasson (mushrooms), Alexander Shulgin (everything else and the kitchen sink)

When you're trying to figure out what the fuck just happened to you, you're going to read the available literature, as sparse as it is. The fact that everyone gravitates to the same few (mostly bad) authors is really just a reflection of the neglect by the scientific community of the subject. I'd have much preferred to have read less woo-woo explanations than Robert Anton Wilson and Terrance McKenna, but they were the ones I could find.
posted by empath at 12:58 PM on July 6, 2011

GastrocNemesis: I'm not sure I get the point of this argument. If this were the case it would be due to your genes. What does that have to do with drugs?

The point is that you're frustrating any attempt at building a common understanding if you insist that your qualia are unique and can't be shared. I don't think this is the case, and Harris argues that religious practices and psychedelic experiences can inform each other.

jtron: I'm not sure why the pro-psychedelic viewpoint is derided as "faith based" when much of the point is that the results are widely reproducible and there have been studies showing their nontoxicity and potential for low risk high upside use.

The faith-based claim is that the psychological and spiritual insights of psychedelics are unique, an that we can't understand them unless we take them ourselves. Harris disagrees, and so do I.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:07 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'd just like to step in and say:

Summer is here! (at least in the US). It really is a beautiful season. I'd encourage everyone to go out for a walk in the woods, desert or beach with their friends and family and enjoy the beauty of it all.
posted by formless at 1:09 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

It's funny when shallow people declare unequivocally that the whole world is shallow, because they've been unable to find depth. And by 'funny' I mean 'sucks to be them.'

I thought this was a great comment and I favorited it. Cosmic unity seems to always lose out against the divisive forces of plain old snobbery.
posted by eeeeeez at 1:10 PM on July 6, 2011

you're going to read the available literature, as sparse as it is

Certainly. I'm just pointing out that such authors provide essentially the same service to their readers that religious writers do for adherents of their various belief systems. The loose institutional structure they provide performs a similar function to that of religion in community - an experiential, participatory one rather than the intellectual/analytical framework of philosophy, dogma, science and lawmaking - specialized functions, generally quite remote from from the everyday life and concerns of ordinary people.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:11 PM on July 6, 2011

"drugs" is a fake idea. Some illegal drugs are terrible, and you should really never touch them: meth and heroin are the big ones. Some are more or less harmless

While I agree that talking about "drugs" is problematic, you've drawn the wrong inference and bought into propaganda. "Our drugs are good, your drugs are bad" is quite pernicious.
posted by Justinian at 1:12 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

>I had a moment of realization and awareness of the sheer complexity of the systems around me.

That is awesome, and that is what I would like everyone to experience, preferably without drugs.

>It eventually passed

Now, that's a shame.

>but tipped me out of neopaganism entirely.

Into what, then? Mechanistic scientism?
posted by No Robots at 1:20 PM on July 6, 2011

I first tried acid before I ever even drank or tried pot. Or even had sex.

My experience was perhaps unusual because I didn't hallucinate at all the first time. No tripping out, no happy fun party times. I was young, perhaps as young as 17 or 18 and I was suffering from abuse related depression and self esteem issues - and very, very angry and very serious.

I hated myself and thought very strongly that I was a terrible person because of the things that were happening to me, and the thoughts I was having as a result. I could barely stand to look at myself in a mirror - and I beyond the depression and abuse related angst I was confused about my gender and experiencing gender dysphoria.

So, for about an hour or two I watched some friends come up on their trip and leaving me behind in boring introspective-land.

Then I went to the bathroom, and did that thing they tell you never to do on acid - look in the mirror.

And I was able to see myself from the outside, as another person. And I saw that I wasn't actually hideous, and that I was actually a nice but damaged person. And that I really should love myself, because things will get better if I let them and work for them.

And that was basically it. A little giddy, a little dizzy - but no technicolor rainbow. But for the first time in my life as far as I could remember I could look myself in the eye and not hate what I saw. That lesson and message stuck with me. It didn't go away after I was done. It helped me deal with my life immensely and more or less saved my life from what ultimately would have been a suicide.

But it was a meaningful short cut to therapy and self worth. Seriously, I was able to cast aside much (not all) of the side effects what was a decade of severe physical abuse.

I went on that trip many times. Sometimes it was unhealthy - seeking to get high rather than introspective. But out of those many times I've had exactly one 'bad trip' that was unpleasant and not educational or rewarding, and even then I learned things. How to deal with unpleasantness, for an easy example.

As for addiction? LSD isn't addictive. It's anti-addictive. The closest I've ever come to successfully quitting smoking cigarettes was during/after a trip, which lasted several days as opposed to the mere hours on pretty much any other attempt at quitting smoking.

I've known others that have used it to quit alcohol. It's almost impossible to get buzzed or drunk on an acid trip, so they stopped drinking, went through withdrawals and came out the other side to never drink again with a renewed love for life and hope.

I've seen people literally cure their own depression. A single trip can leave a sense of peace and self worth that can last for years or a lifetime. Try that on Prozac.

No, acid isn't a miracle fix or cure all. No more so than a hammer, or a microscope, or an inclined plane - or any other tool.

No, acid isn't for everyone. I used to think that everyone could use a good, strong trip at least once in their lives, but there's many people who shouldn't ever trip. Schizophrenics are probably a good example of who shouldn't trip. People who can't handle uncertainty, chaos and ambiguity - or excessive novelty or strangeness.

I also think it shouldn't ever really be used as a "party drug". It's not really meant to be used at raves or acid tests or parties. It's honestly most effective when taken alone in a calm, quiet space without too much stimulation so one can gaze inward and face both the light and the dark that is the human subconscious. If not alone, then with a competent, quiet babysitter - or a professional but unintrusive therapist that's trusted.


But even if not everyone should do it, by banning it and criminalizing it and refusing to permit research to happen - we're discarding what may be the most powerful tool to inspect the human mind or to be used for mental health and healing that has ever been discovered. It's like being able to stain a microscope slide sample for better contrast - but for something as nebulous thoughts and the human psyche.

Above and beyond the therapeutic uses - it really does inspire invention, creativity, visualization and discovery. It helps people think in new, uncommon ways, to form unusual associations or juxtapositions of ideas that would never previously associate with each other.

We indeed have LSD to thank for any number of surprising things. The discovery of the structure of DNA. The personal computer. Many, many lines of new programming have been written under the influence. Many ideas in art and science and industry have come to fruition inspired by a trip in the right person.

Acid isn't just hippy shit so Hendrix can play a mean psychedelic guitar - it's also maddeningly logical and mathematical, like a Escher painting or Douglas Hofstaedter book come to life.

These aren't just passing, inconsequential delusions. They're as real as your own, unaltered thoughts. While it can be akin to dreaming - they aren't just dreams, either. There's more there than that.

To classify it as an "addictive drug" like heroin or alcohol or nicotine is utterly failing to see the forest for the trees - and it completely misses the point that our lives have already been positively impacted by it whether we've personally tried it or not.

Here's to 50 more years of sunshine. Long may it shine.
posted by loquacious at 1:21 PM on July 6, 2011 [39 favorites]

Psychedelic drug use is less institutionalized and formalized than many religions but it has its own distinct cultural framework...and a long, albeit obscure, history.

When I said it didn't have it's own dogma, I was being literal. Sure, there's a literature, and sure, most evangelists will have read it. But only a tiny minority of the people who've used these drugs will have read those books -- and even among those who've read them, it's kind of unusual to find two people who believe that the information contained within is the equivalent of holy writ when it comes to interpreting the drug experience.

Some illegal drugs are terrible, and you should really never touch them: meth and heroin are the big ones.

Heroin is a really useful drug. Here in the UK, we prescribe it to many thousands of people every year for pain relief, with great benefits and virtually no negative consequences besides constipation.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:23 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

The faith-based claim is that the psychological and spiritual insights of psychedelics are unique, an that we can't understand them unless we take them ourselves.

I don't at all think that the insights one can gain from it are unique or incommunicable -- as many people here have demonstrated by communicating their insights. I do think the experience itself is unique and ineffable, and in different ways than prayer and meditation are. You can't replicate an acid trip (or ecstasy or shroooms) with meditation alone. It depends on chemical changes to the way signals are transmitted across the brain that just are physically possible through meditation alone.
posted by empath at 1:23 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Didn’t we just do this?
My problem with this discussion is the defensiveness and "you just don’t get it", "you’re doing it wrong", which usually tells me there’s something age related going on. I find one of the hardest concepts for people to grasp is that everyone is different.

I did acid a couple of times and mushrooms a few times when I was younger. It was never good. I didn’t have a "bad trip", it was just annoying, went on way too long, ruined my night, and I generally didn’t feel good. Every time I thought "thank god that’s over" and was really tired. I was not trying to have any sort of spiritual experience, I was trying to get high. That might have been part of it, who knows?

I’ve had many mind expanding, consciousness raising experiences that changed my perspective on life, but never while under the influence of psychedelics. A few times when I was drunk, but mostly sober.

I’m not trying to insult anyone, but it could be that people who claim that the experience they had was exclusive to psychedelics are only speaking the truth for themselves; that’s the only way they could get there. It doesn’t mean it’s the only way there. You could say "I went out and had a great time, I was laughing and singing and dancing on the table. You couldn’t know about that feeling because you weren’t drunk. You can only feel like that when your drunk". I felt that way when I was younger, but later realized that some other people can feel all that when they’re not drunk. It was my problem, not theirs.

This doesn’t mean that I’m against any of this. I don’t care what you do. If that’s what works/worked for you, do what you need to do. Seriously. Everyone’s different. Just quit telling people they’re doing it wrong.
posted by bongo_x at 1:23 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I went out and had a great time, I was laughing and singing and dancing on the table. You couldn’t know about that feeling because you weren’t drunk. You can only feel like that when your drunk

There's a difference between saying "you can only be happy and sociable when you're drunk", which is wrong, and "you can only really know what being drunk is like by getting drunk.", which I think is probably right, or at least more right than the former.
posted by empath at 1:28 PM on July 6, 2011 [7 favorites]

Flood: “For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs.”

Maias: “The data doesn't support this idea. The vast majority of drug users are not harmed by drugs, 85% of heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine users do not get addicted and psychedelics aren't addictive at all.”

Huh? I mean, I totally think Flood is full of it – if not, I encourage him to show us the ten people who he says he'll show us who were destroyed by drugs – but where are you getting this "data"? I hate it when people spout a bunch of stuff that sounds factual but isn't, and I take to say it but that's what this is.

For one thing, people are capable of getting addicted to anything if they try. I have read about cases where people got addicted to LSD or mushrooms – yes, addicted; they are very rare, and there's clearly nothing physically addictive about these substances, but it is possible for someone in a certain state to do the drugs and keep doing them and get used to the feeling.

This is much more true of cocaine. There have been a lot of people addicted to cocaine, even though it sometimes doesn't seem to have a powerful physical addictiveness. It is absolutely addictive, however, and I wonder if you've ever met anyone who's used it heavily or regularly. I've met people who felt they couldn't function without it. Some of them were ADD, like I am, and were self-medicating to manage. They were clearly dependent, and quitting had side-effects; it's hard to say they weren't physically addicted on the drug.

Mostly I'm confused about the 85% figure you bring up. That sounds odd. It sounds weird that anybody would even do a study across heroin, meth, and cocaine users. Why? They're completely different drugs. You wouldn't be demonstrating anything.

I don't know, this has nothing to do with this side or that side of this discussion. I just don't get where you're pulling this data from.
posted by koeselitz at 1:31 PM on July 6, 2011

I hate to say it, I mean
posted by koeselitz at 1:32 PM on July 6, 2011

It is truly precious when a drug rush is made into something that qualifies as meaningful "work". Surely that must be the epitome of *something*, though I'm not sure of what (narcissism? puritanism??)

Drugs are FUN because they provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION. There is nothing else to it. Have a good time, kids.

Yeahhh... no. I mean yes, you can have the pretty colours experience and that’s about it, and you have some control over that (I have a moderate level of experience with various kinds of shrooms, not LSD, so I’ll stick to what I know). But depending on your state of mind and what you decide to take, there’s the potential for a lot more. I haven’t strayed into personal descriptions in this thread (though I have before on MeFi) but the fundamental experience for me on psilocybin is one of abstraction – a breaking down of the way my brain apparently synthesizes my environment into a cohesive whole. Never seeing things that aren’t there; just seeing them (and in turn thinking about them) differently.

Very basic example: the very first time I realized that anything “odd” was happening the first time I went on a mushroom trip, it was the sudden perception of light hitting my nose. Just one of those things – always in view; seldom noticed. Soon to be followed by a very-difficult-to-describe splintering of perception – optical inputs, then auditory, then more. Way, way down the path of abstraction (and another trip, another country, another kind of shroom) what is being termed here as “ego death” if that was indeed just another, very extreme, kind of abstraction. Oh, and a personal kind of hell that seemed to go forever, because I’d lost awareness of time.

Now “work” or a thinking-kind-of-trip doesn’t need to be anywhere near that extreme, and probably typically isn’t. But is there the possibility of more than pretty colours? Yeah, there most definitely is. It can, I think, be a kind of extremely intense therapy. You can learn more about yourself (and the people you’re with, whether you want to or not) in hours what you might get in a year or two of counselling. However, I also believe you could instil new neuroses that would take that kind of time and more to cure.

That's nice because I'm not criticizing your experiences with psychedelics. I'm criticizing the notion that my experiences with a beautiful Universe are worthy of pity because I wasn't dosing at the time. I suspect that we'd actually have a fair bit to share about our experiences if advocates were not so insistent on defensively drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. I'll say it again, I agree with Harris that psychedelics are one of multiple ways to do this.

Hollywood has given pity a bad rap. I just pitied someone because they never had the opportunity to play 1986’s Chiller. It ain’t no thang.

If someone is denied, or denies themself something that I think was really fantabulistic for me, and might be for them, then sure, I think that’s too bad. But your initial reasoning, that given your self-assessment, this doesn’t seem like it would be worthwhile to you, is a-ok with me. I encourage people to trust that kind of intuition. What I don’t encourage people to trust is the Scare Campaign. No, that does not include warnings about persons diagnosed with mental illness (particularly schizophrenia) or a propensity to same. But I agree with empath that you seem to be doing some projecting here, and if you take issue with things I’ve said, I’d appreciate that you quote me, because there’s a sizeable gap between what I’m saying and what you seem to be hearing me say.

As for “experiences with a beautiful Universe”, the most pushy line I see – if I squint a bit – is the notion: “why confine yourself?” Absolutely no one is saying lock yourself in a closet when you’re not tripping, because tripping is the only way to experience anything. I used to think it pretty sad that people would insist on seeing a movie (the only time) high. But I thought it was perfectly legitimate to want to go to the Van Gogh museum twice – the first time straight and the second time tripping. Why not? Mind you, I think it’s a bit overkill. I’m not much for structured external sensation while on shrooms (nevermind a whole lot of straight people with straight expectations), but I see nothing wrong with it. But no one is going to tell you that a “sober” view of that painting, or that rainbow, or that bamboo stand, is the “wrong” way to experience it, and no one has. What I do think there is some reaction to in this thread is the same old assertion that the “natural” way (and there isn’t one) to experience the world is intrinsically superior, when such an assertion, given our knowledge of biology and natural selection, is clearly groundless.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:38 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

@ empath>There's a difference between saying "you can only be happy and sociable when you're drunk", which is wrong, and "you can only really know what being drunk is like by getting drunk.", which I think is probably right, or at least more right than the former.<

Exactly. There seems to be a lot of confusion on that point here.
posted by bongo_x at 1:38 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yep, empath just made the point more concisely than I could hope to.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:40 PM on July 6, 2011

> “The data doesn't support this idea. The vast majority of drug users are not harmed by drugs, 85% of heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine users do not get addicted and psychedelics aren't addictive at all.”

> but where are you getting this "data"?

This wasn't addressed to me, and I have to bow out, but any decent book on drugs will tell you all of these things. I was startled to find out that 90% of heroin users only do it periodically to party and never get hooked, but further reflection made it clear that the only way a drug could spread is if the majority of people who used it weren't in fact skanky addicts.

But I'm curious - where are you seeing the contrary facts? I assume you tried to do the research yourself before asking that question, right?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:53 PM on July 6, 2011

I've always been led to believe that as a depressive, I should avoid hallucinogens.

I think it's possible to do quite a lot with lucid dreaming. Having never taken hallucinogens, I can't really compare. Still, I think there are other avenues available. Some require a bit more work (lucid dreaming takes practice before it becomes meaningful and interactive more more than a few seconds at a time).
posted by Eideteker at 1:54 PM on July 6, 2011

I guess to expand the conversation a bit to a different drug. There's a feeling you can get to really easily by dancing to techno while on ecstasy -- of this kind of blissful trance state, losing track of time, feeling lifted up by the music, and at being at one with the people surrounding you, that was a revelation to me. I'd never felt anything like it before. After going clubbing for a while on e and developing the habit of dancing for hours to get there, I realized eventually get to that blissful trance state without being on E at all. It wasn't the same, precisely, but it was close enough. I never would have known it was possible without E opening the door, though.

I would not, however, say that someone who can get that feeling from dancing all night while entirely sober (which anybody can -- its amazing, you should do it!), therefore knows what ecstasy is like. Because they don't. Not even close. There is so much more to it that again, is impossible to put into words, and is only possible by chemically changing the activity of your brain. It's just not physically possible to duplicate the entirety of the experience without the drug, and if you haven't had the experience, you can't really say you know what it's like.

I think that LSD opens the door to a lot of insights and feelings that are possible to get to without chemical assistance, but that doesn't mean that getting to those insights or experiences another way therefore tells you what LSD is like. It's just not the same, never can be the same, just because of the physical basis of the drug activity that just isn't reproducible 'naturally'. It's not something you can think or practice your way into.

We can share the insights and feelings, and relate them to each other, even though we got there different ways, but I don't think we can ever share the common experience, unless you've had the common experience. Hell I have a hard time even imagining what other people's trips were like, even though I've done acid a dozen times.
posted by empath at 1:55 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

empath: Now the subjective experience of those changes and the interpretation of it is pretty personal and far away from science, but the fact of the experiences and the reliability of their occurrence isn't really in dispute.

But there are two different claims here:
1) LSD has neurological effects.
2) in LSD veritas.

I don't think there's any skepticism that LSD has neurological effects. There is reasonable skepticism about Harris' claim that the neurological effects of LSD create religious experiences that we can accept as the basis of philosophical or spiritual truth. Harris I think is on stronger ground when he suggests that psychedelic experiences are a different flavor of religious experience, one that can be sampled in other ways. A part of that stronger ground for me is that he comes off as reasonably skeptical of his own claims. (Possibly a secular Buddhist influence there.)

The argument that these experiences can't be examined from an outside perspective, only shared by people dropping acid strikes me as problematic, and missing Harris' point. It is, as pointed out, a faith-based argument. Which is fine, but if you (not you specifically just some of the arguments here) treat psychedelic experience as a novelty that can only be understood as an inside view, you cut your argument for spiritual or psychological insight off at the knees. It becomes exactly what critics of psychedelic philosophy have been arguing since the 60s: navel-gazing solipsism.

No Robots: Into what, then? Mechanistic scientism?

I'd call it more of a green nature-loving ignosticism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:59 PM on July 6, 2011

You can't replicate an acid trip (or ecstasy or shroooms) with meditation alone. It depends on chemical changes to the way signals are transmitted across the brain that just are physically possible through meditation alone.

But how do you know that? Your pineal gland will secrete DMT under the right circumstances. Mystics through the ages have known about this to varying degrees, and any serious study of mystical practice shows multiple means to a singular end. Considering your firm belief that only people who have taken psychedelics can fully appreciate what they are like, your refusal to countenance the idea that people can learn how to do this sort of thing by themselves is slightly surprising.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:03 PM on July 6, 2011

Whew...wild post. I just wanted to provide some information from a doctor's perspective regarding some of the complications of the use of psychedelics in comparison to other drugs. This is from Dr. Julie Holland's excellent presentation "Psychedelics in the Psychiatric ER" (thanks, Lemuring). Emphasis mine.

"I spent 9 years running the psych ER at Bellevue every Saturday night and Sunday night for 15-16 hours and actually it was a lot like tripping; I never knew what I was going to get. I knew I was going to have to go with the flow and, you know, 16 hours later I would come out the other side...but not unchanged. Every single shift that I worked I saw people in acutely altered states, whether it was induced by drugs or endogenous means. I would see people in manic episodes, schizophrenic breaks, horrible suicidal depressions. I saw people strung out on methamphetamine, high on crack, drunk, stoned, and tripping, but I’m sorry to tell you tripping was the least of my problems and very rare. The alcohol was far and away the drug that wreaked the most havoc at Bellevue."
posted by nTeleKy at 2:03 PM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

2) in LSD veritas.

I don't think anyone is claiming that. Trips last an eternity and most of it is completely incomprehensible and/or stupid (My big personal revelation while looking at a starry night sky was "Holy shit, black isn't the absence of color, it's ALLLL the colors, man.").

I think perhaps we are not all explaining ourselves well. LSD is an experience. It's not a communication. It's not a smart drug. It doesn't provide answers. It doesn't make you a better person. It only forces you to ask questions. If you learn anything from it, you learn it the same way you learn anything from any other experience you have.
posted by empath at 2:06 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'd encourage everyone to go out for a walk in the woods...with their friends and family and enjoy the beauty of it all.

If I stay in the basement and eat mushrooms I'm less likely to get eaten by a bear. Just sayin.
posted by Hoopo at 2:07 PM on July 6, 2011

Considering your firm belief that only people who have taken psychedelics can fully appreciate what they are like, your refusal to countenance the idea that people can learn how to do this sort of thing by themselves is slightly surprising.

Well, DMT aside. But is there any evidence that people actually secrete DMT during meditation?
posted by empath at 2:07 PM on July 6, 2011

koeselitz: I'll bite.

relative harm caused by a variety of "drugs". LSD and mushrooms are far less harmfull than most other drugs.

wikipedia: 47% of 12th graders have used some sort of illicit substance.

whitehousedrugpolicy.gov
In 2008. 4% of all 8th graders reported using LSD at some point in their life.
...
From 1997 to 2007, the number of admissions to treatment in which hallucinogens (LSD, DMT, STP, mescaline, peyote, etc.) were reported as the primary drugs of abuse decreased from 2,672 in 1997 to 1,502 in 2007. The hallucinogens admissions represented 0.2% of the total drug/alcohol admissions to treatment during 1997 and 0.1% of the treatment admissions in 2007.

in 2007 there were about 26 million students in secondary education in the US. 1 million highschool students tried LSD.

In general, Flood's perceived ability to find ten destroyed lives for every one enjoyable experience is incorrect, at least based on the available data.
posted by Freen at 2:08 PM on July 6, 2011

Pineal Gland production of DMT is at best pure conjecture.
posted by Freen at 2:10 PM on July 6, 2011

empath: I don't think anyone is claiming that.

Then I'm confused, what does this discussion have to do with Harris' excellent essay on psychedelic drugs as a form of spiritual experience, if no one is claiming them as such?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:11 PM on July 6, 2011

Meditation and DMT are pretty much different animals. Meditation is not supposed to be some kind of electric light show visionary journey.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 2:13 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Countryside just out of Birmingham, Alabama. Summer of the year 1974. After a rainy night, a hot sunny morning. In cow pastures, growing on the cow dung, psilocybin mushrooms. Bags of 'em, just there for the picking.

Good times.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:11 AM on July 6 [3 favorites +] [!]

You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
posted by hal_c_on at 2:17 PM on July 6, 2011

Why Prescription Ecstasy or LSD Could Happen Much Sooner Than You Think
posted by homunculus at 2:19 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

In 2008. 4% of all 8th graders reported using LSD at some point in their life.

Crack, meth, pot, prescription meds.

But LSD...in 8th grade? HA!

Not because 8th graders can't get drugs...but LSD is like the Enya of drugs, and 8th graders would much rather Rihanna that shit.

I'm guessing its more likely that most of those 4% 8th graders just didn't give a shit and marked "YES" to every question.
posted by hal_c_on at 2:24 PM on July 6, 2011

koeselitz:

Maias: “The data doesn't support this idea. The vast majority of drug users are not harmed by drugs, 85% of heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine users do not get addicted and psychedelics aren't addictive at all.”

Huh? I mean, I totally think Flood is full of it – if not, I encourage him to show us the ten people who he says he'll show us who were destroyed by drugs – but where are you getting this "data"? I hate it when people spout a bunch of stuff that sounds factual but isn't, and I take to say it but that's what this is.

You just asked maias for a cite? Someone who writes about topics like this (neuroscience) regularly? And put "data" in scare quotes? Without even googling it yourself? I'm impressed.

Jeremy Sare on drug sentencing



posted by psyche7 at 2:31 PM on July 6, 2011

Please stop talking.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 2:31 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sorry: Jeremy Sare on drug sentencing.
posted by psyche7 at 2:38 PM on July 6, 2011

Y'all are harshing Horselover Phattie's mellow, man.
posted by kozad at 2:43 PM on July 6, 2011

No doubt. It's like when the geometric grid is getting really interesting and you're really feeling your breath and the movement of the planet and then someone just won't shut up about how messed up some personal issue they're having is. Ride the beams, man.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 2:44 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Both of your links are broken, psyche7. And: what exactly was I supposed to google? No matter what data you bring up, I still insist that heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are so different that it's pointless to lump them together, much less something even more different like LSD or mushrooms. And I have a hard time imagining data that's supposed to prove that they're all somehow the same.
posted by koeselitz at 2:47 PM on July 6, 2011

Pineal Gland production of DMT is at best pure conjecture.

It's rather better than that, but N,N-DMT is difficult to study because of its rapid metabolism. It turns out that N,N-DMT is an endogenous sigma-1 receptor regulator ie, it seemingly helps to helps to regulate cardiac activity among other things. See also this dissertation (paywalled) and this relatively up-to-date Wiki article on the Sigma-1 receptor (more for the comprehensive list of references at the end than the actual content). The pineal hypothesis, while still speculative (and overstated by me above) is not purely guesswork. You can find other links of interest if you search on 'endogenous dimethyltryptamine' on Google Scholar and restrict your search to the last decade.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:48 PM on July 6, 2011

koeselitz: he means this link here

anigbrowl: sweet! thanks.
posted by Freen at 2:50 PM on July 6, 2011

Now “work” or a thinking-kind-of-trip doesn’t need to be anywhere near that extreme, and probably typically isn’t. But is there the possibility of more than pretty colours? Yeah, there most definitely is. It can, I think, be a kind of extremely intense therapy. You can learn more about yourself (and the people you’re with, whether you want to or not) in hours what you might get in a year or two of counselling. However, I also believe you could instil new neuroses that would take that kind of time and more to cure.

Cool comment, thanks.

Of course it is possible to have deep, meaningful experiences while on drugs. But I don't see that as a worthwhile justification for (anything to do with) drugs. You do drugs because they're drugs and their drug-being is to fuck you up in some more or less subtle way, which means you get to spend some time in a pleasant or interesting state of mind. Depending on many factors this may result in a deep and meaningful experience, but what that means exactly is pretty tenuous - frankly I think you already need to be in a certain mindset (culture, upbringing, alignment) before the whole "deep and meaningful experience" thing itself gets any meaning. It's certainly not a given, not required, and not "better".

Strong drugs can leave strong emotional imprints and these can profoundly affect how people view themselves and the world around them. The cognitive or intellectual aspect seems very limited. The "insights" are really "infeels", not dissimilar to the experience you can have during a rollercoaster ride: "I am ALIVE...".

Drugs are the ultimate consumption good: they turn the world into Disneyland and their sole purpose is to do exactly that. This explains why they're a lot of fun. But it also explains why you shouldn't go there too often and why, ultimately, they're not all that interesting metaphysically or therapeutically.
posted by eeeeeez at 2:51 PM on July 6, 2011

I just found this thread, now it's too late to comment since everything's been said .
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:55 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

koeselitz: "Both of your links are broken, psyche7. And: what exactly was I supposed to google? No matter what data you bring up, I still insist that heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are so different that it's pointless to lump them together, much less something even more different like LSD or mushrooms. And I have a hard time imagining data that's supposed to prove that they're all somehow the same."

Of course. But the point was that even the drugs we consider most addictive, are not addictive in 85% of the people who try them.

Nicotine is a much more dangerous "drug" if we go by addiction rate.

Thanks for Freen for saving the link.

Jeremy Sare on drug sentencing

In drugs policy, there remains an unparalleled disconnect between power and knowledge. And power means both ministers and media who, on drugs policy, are intertwined in a deadly embrace.

posted by psyche7 at 2:58 PM on July 6, 2011

Drugs are the ultimate consumption good: they turn the world into Disneyland and their sole purpose is to do exactly that. This explains why they're a lot of fun. But it also explains why you shouldn't go there too often and why, ultimately, they're not all that interesting metaphysically or therapeutically.

Fun? Disneyland? Bullshit! You've obviously never tried DMT. Or had a deep experience with anything. It ain't "fun". It's INTENSE.It'll scare the hell out of you. Like skydiving, only safer. Your argument is the typical uninformed over simplification used by people who don't understand these substances and think it's all about "getting high".
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:01 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Then I'm confused, what does this discussion have to do with Harris' excellent essay on psychedelic drugs as a form of spiritual experience, if no one is claiming them as such?

I think psychedelic drugs are as valid a form of spiritual experience as any other. That has nothing to do with "in LSD veritas", which I took to mean that LSD provides truth. Spiritual experiences of any kind don't provide 'truth'. It's just a way of looking at the world that can provide new insights, as can any other kind of experience. The insights are valid or not, on their own, without reference to where they came from.
posted by empath at 3:01 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Koeselitz, this is a good recent citation on addiction "capture" percentages by drugs, from the good old U.S. government, which obviously doesn't want to make these numbers as low as they turn out to be. You will note that I cited *higher* percentages, that's because I'm talking lifetime and the study I link is only past year, which will not capture as many for obvious reasons.

Note: what is labeled "substance dependence" here is addiction; the stupid and confusing term "dependence" will be removed from DSM V.

If you want more on how most heroin users don't become addicts, google Lee Robins and Viet Nam for the classic research.

Re: set and setting. This is not druggy nonsense, it's widely acknowledged in pharmacology and not just for psychedelics. The environment in which drugs are taking and the users' beliefs about drugs have a huge influence: see also, placebo and nocebo effects.
posted by Maias at 3:08 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

empath: That has nothing to do with "in LSD veritas", which I took to mean that LSD provides truth.

I explained exactly what I meant by that in the next paragraph. Beyond that, I'm not certain were we disagree, and I've taken my argument in favor of Harris' essay about as far it can go.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:15 PM on July 6, 2011

Fun? Disneyland? Bullshit! You've obviously never tried DMT. Or had a deep experience with anything. It ain't "fun". It's INTENSE.It'll scare the hell out of you. Like skydiving, only safer.

Drugs are for recreation and rollercoasters are sometimes scary.

Your argument is the typical uninformed over simplification used by people who don't understand these substances and think it's all about "getting high".

Of course it is about getting high. That's why people produce, market and use the stuff, at great risk and expense. Or why do you think they do it?
posted by eeeeeez at 3:21 PM on July 6, 2011

Drugs are the ultimate consumption good: they turn the world into Disneyland and their sole purpose is to do exactly that. This explains why they're a lot of fun. But it also explains why you shouldn't go there too often and why, ultimately, they're not all that interesting metaphysically or therapeutically.

This is definitely not true of all drugs. Many, including mushrooms, peyote, and marijuana (among others), have religious significance for some people and are used by many more specifically for deep and meaningful experiences. My first go at mushrooms was to get messed up and see shit, but every time after that--once I knew more about the experience--it was for different reasons entirely.

You do drugs because they're drugs and their drug-being is to fuck you up in some more or less subtle way, which means you get to spend some time in a pleasant or interesting state of mind

Why are you using the word "you" when you clearly mean "I"?

The "insights" are really "infeels", not dissimilar to the experience you can have during a rollercoaster ride: "I am ALIVE..."

They are very dissimilar, other than the possibility of vomit.
posted by Hoopo at 3:33 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Of course it is about getting high. That's why people produce, market and use the stuff, at great risk and expense. Or why do you think they do it?

I think the issue is that you are using the term 'getting high' to mean 'alter perceptions of the exterior world', when the real point of contention is WHY one would do that. Sure, it can be spectacular fun. It can also be done for a tremendous variety of other reasons... it's kind of like you're saying the point of driving is 'to make very fast left turns' because your personal experience is entirely with Indy 500 racing.
posted by FatherDagon at 3:49 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is definitely not true of all drugs. Many, including mushrooms, peyote, and marijuana (among others), have religious significance

Yes, but the recreational aspect is particular to and necessary for something to be a "drug", whereas _many_ random things have religious significance. That some drugs should also have religious significance is... well, it would be stranger if no drugs had religious significance.

The "insights" are really "infeels", not dissimilar to the experience you can have during a rollercoaster ride: "I am ALIVE..."

They are very dissimilar, other than the possibility of vomit.

Then - I might say - you have never been on a good rollercoaster ride.

~

In any drug scene there's always a story about some "amazing" product "a few years back" that was "really great"... There's always this "fall from Eden" story going around about drugs being better back in the day etc. What drives this narrative, of course, is the idea that with the right drugs, you can be catapulted straight back into Eden: no worry, no effort, just find the right _thing_ and you'll experience bliss/revelation/really good times.

But this is really what Disneyland promises, as well: a return to childhood innocence, a realization of dreams, yadda yadda yadda, and all without any real effort, just a few bucks.

Drugs used to be a major part of my identity until I realized that like everything else, they are just so much stuff. The drugs would raise waves, but they were standing waves: the water never actually flowed.
posted by eeeeeez at 4:07 PM on July 6, 2011

Wait a few years. Wait to get to see the end result. Empty lives, addiction, and shattered dreams.

All of my regrets revolve around decisions I made while sober.
posted by lekvar at 4:12 PM on July 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

old'n'busted: never have I read a comment about drugs so tedious, so sideways to reality, and so obviously based on negative personal experience. I'm extremely thankful you didn't derail the whole thread with that one.
posted by tehloki at 4:14 PM on July 6, 2011

on reading further in the thread: ah, the ol' "drugs get stored in your body fat and fuck you up years later" bullshit. Classic. I'm sorry about your loved one's mental illness, but picking drugs as the root cause is as arbitrary a decision as picking noise pollution. There are no universal bogeymen.
posted by tehloki at 4:18 PM on July 6, 2011

All of my regrets revolve around decisions I made while sober.

That would make such a great Ryan Adams song. You should write him a letter or something.
posted by The World Famous at 4:20 PM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

It is absolutely addictive, however, and I wonder if you've ever met anyone who's used it heavily or regularly

Hi. I still managed to graduate college and work full time. Nowadays, I spend my income in more future-oriented ways, but today is my birthday!

Of course it's addictive, but remember, unless you or people you are around, use recreational drugs, the only people you'll ever hear about are addicts, criminals, starlets who crashed their car,e etc.

You've probably dealt with several a drug users without ever knowing it, because they had a productive life. We never question this with alcohol; most adults drink, and we accept that they aren't all alcoholics.
posted by spaltavian at 4:28 PM on July 6, 2011

> As much as 20-30 hits in a single evening even, a few times.

Argh! Please take this comment with 20-30 grains of salt. Who knows whether chemists ever really followed the 100 micrograms per dose of blotter rule, but if you hear stories about people ripping a whole piece off a sheet of acid or taking many hits, don't take it as an invitation to "push your limits." Mind expansion doesn't need macho bullshit.

I had the best time on (late 80s) 1/2 hit, several OK, but overly prolonged times on 1, a hold-my-hand-so-I know-I-still-have-one time on 2 and lets not talk about 3.

> The last thing LSD makes you want to do is more LSD.

The time when you're on LSD when you want more LSD is before it kicks in, same as ingesting cannabis. Give it an hour. A full hour. Don't take more. If it's bunk LSD, give up; it *might* be weak LSD and doubling down *might* work, but is that a chance you want to take?
posted by morganw at 4:30 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yes, but the recreational aspect is particular to and necessary for something to be a "drug", whereas _many_ random things have religious significance. That some drugs should also have religious significance is... well, it would be stranger if no drugs had religious significance.

There is no need for something to have a recreational aspect to be a drug. Also you're overlooking the fact that the reason the drugs have religious significance (over some random thing) is that they produce these effects. Effects which are conducive to deep, meaningful experiences for many, many people.

Then - I might say - you have never been on a good rollercoaster ride.

For me there are no good rollercoasters, and I've been on enough just to avoid looking like a sissy in front of my friends. They make me very tense and nauseous. I have a problem with my inner ear. Fact is I'm not a guy that's built to enjoy rollercoasters, and there may be people out there who can't enjoy drugs. But I've never heard anyone say a rollercoaster ride was a profound or revelatory experience. Just that it's a rush of adrenaline.

What drives this narrative, of course, is the idea that with the right drugs, you can be catapulted straight back into Eden: no worry, no effort, just find the right _thing_ and you'll experience bliss/revelation/really good times

I don't know what you're talking about here. This is neither the narrative of the linked article nor of this thread. You've decided you don't like hallucinogens and moved on...sort of. Good for you. This is not the end of the discussion for anyone except you.
posted by Hoopo at 4:46 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

The stats about the majority of drug users - even of drugs that we consider to be most addictive, like meth and heroin, presented earlier match up pretty well with those I've seen in standard psych textbooks. I realize that's a pretty general source but I just wanted to offer that it's fairly accepted in mainstream circles that the vast majority of people who try any sort of drug will not end up addicted to it.
posted by bizzyb at 5:09 PM on July 6, 2011

"Summer is here! (at least in the US). It really is a beautiful season. I'd encourage everyone to go out for a walk in the woods, desert or beach with their friends and family and enjoy the beauty of it all."

You enjoy summer only because it fucks you up. Not because of some tenuous Wordsworth shit.

"in LSD veritas"

Well, some people never, and I mean never, have any kind of change of perspective.
Might be worth it just for that.
There again, someone who's not receptive to any kind of change in their perspective probably isn't looking for any kind of truth beyond their preconceptions anyway so no amount of anything will affect them anyway.

"Drugs are the ultimate consumption good: they turn the world into Disneyland and
their sole purpose is to do exactly that."

Michael J. Fox contracted Parkinson's just to get messed up on Sinemet.

"You can't replicate an acid trip (or ecstasy or shroooms) with meditation alone. It depends on chemical changes to the way signals are transmitted across the brain that just are physically possible through meditation alone.

'But how do you know that?'

Just from my own experience, you can't replicate an acid trip with meditation because your perspective on LSD is radically different from your waking life. With meditation your daily life is closer to that state of mind.
Like taking a pill and suddenly being able to press 500 lbs vs. working out and having enough muscle to lift 500 lbs as a matter of course.
Most skilled practitioners consider side effects, the 'high', hallucination, as an obstacle to meditation and clarity of thought. (I'm not an expert tho I just fite reel gud.)

Jumping a bit - One of Harris' core points is that 'drugs' are stigmatized (and indeed the 'purely recreational' use is one) and we need more education and study. I'm surprised by the resistance to this point. There's no utility in altering brain chemistry at all? It's purely hedonistic?
Why don't we outlaw long distance running? I don't know anyone else who gets more high on their own supply of opiates.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:31 PM on July 6, 2011 [4 favorites]

*thread needs an "M'kay?" tag.*
posted by Smedleyman at 5:32 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Drugs are not a replacement for a spiritual life, but a spiritual life is no replacement for drugs".


-Terence McKenna
posted by Liquidwolf at 5:52 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Mitigating risk is how you stay alive.

I'd say not dying is how you stay alive and sometimes that involves mitigating risk. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Sometimes mitigating risk keeps one alive yet dead.

I don't rock climb

It's a lot of fun and quite safe, should you bother to adhere to safety protocol at all times, even when you are an expert.

I sure as hell don't fuck up my mind with drugs and shit.

Depends what drug. Some will fuck up your mind. Some (Psilocybe and iboga, for instance) have a very good chance of straightening out a fucked up mind. All shit, however, will cause a very rapid infection of the brain, followed by death. The only place for feces is in the colon. Just say no to opening your skull and placing excrement on your gray matter.

saying that "dude, you seriously have to do this because if you don't you're a lesser man" is just bullshit and you know it.

It sure sounds like bullshit to me. Mind you, I haven't heard that before and I don't think anyone is trying to say that.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 5:57 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I sure as hell don't fuck up my mind with drugs and shit.

Bad news for you man, your body ..operates on drugs!!!!! Your brain produces them! Sorry to bring you down. I hope you can survive this state of fucked-upness.
posted by Liquidwolf at 6:12 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Bad news for you man, your body ..operates on drugs!!!!! Your brain produces them!

Woaaah, maaaaaaan! Like, did you ever really, like, look at your brain, man? It, like, operates on drugs all the time, man. All. The. Time.
posted by The World Famous at 6:23 PM on July 6, 2011

One of the most important rites of passage? No.

But it certainly can be an important one.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 PM on July 6, 2011

There's so much I could add to this thread, but I'm sure it's already been said. So I will just attest to the fact (yes, it's a fact...I think) that LSD flashbacks happen. They do. I had at least 2 or 3 flashbacks out of maybe a dozen trips over a ten-year period. The flashbacks happened days and weeks after the trips, and I was otherwise stone sober. They weren't as intense and didn't last as long (but really, what does last longer than LSD?) but they absolutely, positively happened. I was a fan of LSD, and though I'll probably never do it again, it should be known that flashbacks are a factor and those taking the drug should prepare for it to happen, even if it doesn't; surely there are plenty of people who have done a ton of acid and never had a flashback. But it does happen. If scientists can't figure out a medical reason for it, then that means the studies conducted thus far and/or the technology for studying this phenomenon have yet to catch up with reality.

I don't miss acid, but shrooms...man, shrooms are nice. A warm, almost alcohol-like drunken body high, colors are amazing, food tastes incredible, art of any kind takes on new perspectives, and generally you're still able to carry on conversations with fellow trippers, and laugh and laugh. Bonus: you wake up with an anti-hangover, a good, positive feeling that lasts for days. Shrooms are nature's Prozac.
posted by zardoz at 6:57 PM on July 6, 2011

What's interesting about psychedelics—and why they are *not* addictive—is that they let you see both pleasant and unpleasant truths. When I was addicted to heroin, I had no interest in psychedelics in part because I didn't want to look at the fact that I was addicted to heroin!

Heroin was addictive to me because I was in deep emotional pain and because it numbed my extreme oversensitivity to stimuli; most people actually don't like the opioid experience when they aren't in pain because it makes them feel like there's a barrier between them and the world. for those of us who feel too permeable, that's why we love it. the euphoria is nice, but the pain relief is what makes it feel essential.

while psychedelic experience is absolutely affected by set and setting, pharmacology is also real: and the pharmacology of psychedelics is uniquely suited to producing insights that are spiritual and life-changing. that's not to say everyone should take them or that there aren't uses for painkilling drugs: but denying the fact that psychedelics can be profoundly moving and positive by deriding them as "merely drugs," is to miss the fact that all experience is "merely chemical."

drugs make this unsettling fact visible; some more than others. psychedelics in particular also promote empathy simply by making you realize overwhelmingly how much perspective can change and how much this matters. when your own senses bring you a whole new way of seeing, it's kind of hard to not realize that other people must have widely varied experience and that you may not always be able to predict it based on your normal perception. that should give you more compassion because you recognize the limits of your ordinary view and therefore that you need to try to understand differences better.
posted by Maias at 7:03 PM on July 6, 2011 [12 favorites]

People fear mental illness in others, and especially in themselves.
Hallucinogens produce temporary symptoms of mental illness.

Hallucinogens are a direct and strong illustration of something
fundamental and subtle about the nature of reality that is obvious if you
think about it, but usually no one does: The reality you perceive and
interact with on a daily basis is a model constructed in your mind from
sensory input. *It is not reality*, but only your brain's best attempt at
producing one you can work with, and your brain usually does a pretty good
job.

To put this another way: photons don't have color. Photons have
variations in energy. The perception of color and its value and all the
connotations of color happen *entirely in your head*. Everything around
you is like this - a model your brain constructs from unbelievably noisy
sensory input.

Trouble during tripping comes from missing this idea - usually the fear is
that reality has fundamentally changed, or that the brain is
malfunctioning in a way that may be permanent. It wears off.

Your brain is capable of producing a completely immersive experience of a
reality that has no connection at all to sensory input. It usually only
does this when you are asleep. Imagine how useful it would be to be able
to construct and manipulate an imaginary world, for memory, for thinking,
for creative work, for entertainment - but healthy brains don't do this,
because it is too easy to get killed if you're not paying at least some
attention to the physical world around you. When you dream, your body is
actively paralyzed, to keep you from jumping around and interacting with
your dream world and ending up dead in the real one.

Hallucinogens disrupt the model construction and stuff leaks in from other
parts of your brain. This lets you experience your unconcious more
directly, as well as experiencing aspects of reality that are normally
filtered out. Your conscious mind will find this unsettling, because we
are not normally confronted with the idea that "perception is not reality"
in such a visceral way.
posted by and for no one at 7:11 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

For everyone saved by drugs, I will show you 10 destroyed by drugs. Come to an NA meeting and sit and listen to some of the stories there.

For every one person in NA whose life has been destroyed by (always addictive, not psychedelic) drugs, I will show you 10 who have been saved by psychedelics. Your Nancy Reaganing is thoroughly unconvincing to me.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 7:15 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

An NA meeting? Gimme a break. Nobody is at your NA meetings because of a psychedelic drug. And by the way Bill Wilson, the founder of AA was a proponent of LSD therapy as a cure for alcoholism, but they won't tell you that at any meetings.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:18 PM on July 6, 2011 [8 favorites]

I'm not belittling NA, just pointing out the difference in the "drugs".
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:34 PM on July 6, 2011

Smedleyman: Well, some people never, and I mean never, have any kind of change of perspective.
Might be worth it just for that.
There again, someone who's not receptive to any kind of change in their perspective probably isn't looking for any kind of truth beyond their preconceptions anyway so no amount of anything will affect them anyway.

The Universe loves to throw a monkey-wrench into my perceptions with burning-bush moments. But I'd prefer more days that taste like Rumi than Poe.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:51 PM on July 6, 2011

ut when I've asked any of them to describe in what ways this has changed them, I get a drawing of a guy with an onion for a head.

It was taking LSD that changed my life forever for the better. I quit drinking. It was nearly impossible for me to imagine this happening before that experience. I was headed towards the gutter quickly and very well may have ended up dead. I can honestly say it saved my life. That night was the catalyst that lead me to undergo a spiritual journey of personal betterment, to deal with all the problems I had piled up one at a time. It took years of work on myself and recently professional therapy. Now I've begun the next part of that journey, which involves making my life truly my own, starting with building my own business from scratch.

If you want to hear about the trip itself, well, it might be hard to describe properly, except to say I saw my life clearly for what it was for the first time. I had a choice to make, and I knew exactly what the consequences would be whichever way I chose. It wasn't the first time I'd taken it by any means, and the experience wasn't planned or expected. Nearly a decade later, and my life is so much better than it was back then, nearly a decade ago. Almost seems like someone else's life.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:13 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

I'd love to take them, but things like hash messed me up bad. LSD would make me go full-on Syd Barret.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 10:14 PM on July 6, 2011

Psychedelics vs. meditation ...

Like taking a pill and suddenly being able to press 500 lbs vs. working out and having enough muscle to lift 500 lbs as a matter of course.
Most skilled practitioners consider side effects, the 'high', hallucination, as an obstacle to meditation and clarity of thought.

An interesting analogy. Years ago I wondered if I was missing out on something by not taking LSD, shrooms, etc. Marijuana was okay, but nothing special. I started all that too late to be a convert. I started meditating much before I even tried pot and also dabbled in metaphysics, fasting, sleep deprivation. Over the years I've had some amazing teachers. From my experience I can say hallucinations, altered states, euphoria, the good and the bad (and all the rest) were quite accessible without any drugs. I resent anyone telling me I 'should go further' when I have come so far. We are all on the same path.
posted by Surfurrus at 10:14 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

But I've never heard anyone say a rollercoaster ride was a profound or revelatory experience. Just that it's a rush of adrenaline

FWIW, I did have a revelatory experience in a rollercoaster. The only reason I can see why you couldn't have a revelatory experience in a rollercoaster is because you believe that rollercoasters are not supposed to provide revelatory experiences.

The point is that some people seem to believe that, while rollercoasters have a "fun" and "meaningless" connotation, drugs must have a "deep" or "dangerous" connotation. But as far as I'm concerned that's just framing and narration. There is nothing inherently deep or dangerous about drugs and there is nothing inherently meaningless about adrenaline rushes. For better or for worse, it's rollercoasters all the way down.
posted by eeeeeez at 11:18 PM on July 6, 2011

It's reductio ad absurdum all the way down.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 11:28 PM on July 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

And: what exactly was I supposed to google? No matter what data you bring up, I still insist that heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are so different that it's pointless to lump them together, much less something even more different like LSD or mushrooms. And I have a hard time imagining data that's supposed to prove that they're all somehow the same.

Your problem here is because -- as with most people who get their information about drugs and drug use from propagandists, you believe that the problem with addiction lies primarily in the pharmaceutical properties of the drug, rather than in the particular configuration of genetics, psychology and environment of the addict. Just as a tiny minority of people who try alcohol go on to become alcoholics, so a tiny proportion of people who try heroin/crack.meth go on to become heroin addicts.

Any basic textbook on addiction will disabuse you of these notions, as will any basic study on the prevalence of addiction among people who have 'ever tried'. The literature tends to put this rate at about 10%. Yes, it differs slightly study by study, and I don't have access to a meta-analysis across drugs, but the variation between drugs tends to be rather small. If you think about it, this makes absolute sense. Single substance addiction is increasingly phenomenally rare, these days. Most addicts tend to be poly-drug addicts, using combinations like heroin and crack, cocaine and alcohol, heroin, cocaine and benzos, etc.

Not to say that pharmacology doesn't have an effect. It impacts on things like the speed with which people's lives fall apart, and the relative speed of recovery -- but it isn't the pharmacology that makes addicts -- addiction is way more complicated than that.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:30 PM on July 6, 2011

I'm not belittling NA

I'm not belittling it either, but if you had a heart condition, would you go to a coronary specialist whose model of heart disease froze in the 1930's and hasn't changed since?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:35 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

It was taking LSD that changed my life forever for the better.

BTW, I've related this story before here, so sorry if this is repetitive to some. But I'll keep repeating it whenever someone says there's no life changing benefit. I'm living proof.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:50 PM on July 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

The point is that some people seem to believe that, while rollercoasters have a "fun" and "meaningless" connotation, drugs must have a "deep" or "dangerous" connotation. But as far as I'm concerned that's just framing and narration. There is nothing inherently deep or dangerous about drugs and there is nothing inherently meaningless about adrenaline rushes. For better or for worse, it's rollercoasters all the way down.

Nobody ever traveled to India to go on a spiritual journey and become a Sadhu because of a ride on The Titan at Six Flags. Or if they have it's not something they promote on the commercials.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:55 PM on July 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

eeeeeez: ”As for "spiritual journeys": I took ages to get a driving license and when I finally got one I discovered for the first time the meaning of journey, as in GO SOME PLACE, rather than veg out in front of a game console with an ashtray full of filter tips, endlessly rehashing the same tired threads with your stoner companions.”

Yet, one could easily argue that getting in a car and going for a drive is simply another form of escapism. If you really want to go on a spiritual journey, then why not try sitting in the lotus position before moving on to more complex methods? Of course, if going for a drive works for you, then that’s good.


Decani: ”Harris is a cool guy. He made me want to try meditation again. I did. I failed, again.”

How many years did you practice for? What group of teacher did you study under? I could be wrong here, but it seems that many people either don't understand what they’re trying to do, or they don’t give it long enough.
posted by Soupisgoodfood at 12:50 AM on July 7, 2011

Dayum Smedleyman you making a whole lot of sense
posted by midnightbarber at 3:44 AM on July 7, 2011

I don't know. The way Maias, and for no one, and Smedley describe the differences between "normal" cognition vs. LSD makes me feel more than usually crazy.

People fear mental illness in others, and especially in themselves.
Hallucinogens produce temporary symptoms of mental illness.

This boggles me. Fears of mental illness are quite reasonable. They require lots of work over a long period of time, they create tons of self doubt, and they destroy lives and families. I'll certainly agree that there are advantages to being able to boot up my own perception of reality from my imagination, but a grandparent died howling in a delusional world of fear and betrayal. The fact that it wears off is a huge luxury.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:39 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Bad news for you man, your body ..operates on drugs!!!!! Your brain produces them! Sorry to bring you down. I hope you can survive this state of fucked-upness.

All the more reason not to mess with it.
posted by gjc at 7:06 AM on July 7, 2011

Would anyone have an example of an assumption about reality that psychedelics led them to question and that they have since decided should in fact be rejected?
posted by straight at 6:43 PM on July 6 [1 favorite +] [!]

Eponypsychedelical.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:38 AM on July 7, 2011

"But isn't that the height of ego/arrogance/hubris? Assuming that you know what everyone else thinks and feels? Simply because you ingested some neat molecules?"

Perhaps you could say that such an experience is delusion, but I don't see how it's egotistical.

Besides, what you said can be read many ways, so it not necessarily delusion, either.
posted by Soupisgoodfood at 8:17 AM on July 7, 2011

Bad news for you man, your body ..operates on drugs!!!!! Your brain produces them! Sorry to bring you down. I hope you can survive this state of fucked-upness.

All the more reason not to mess with it.


...or all the more reason to experiment with it.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:22 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hallucinogens produce temporary symptoms of mental illness.

This boggles me. Fears of mental illness are quite reasonable.

Fortunately, it isn't actually true.

Initially, some of the psychedelics were named 'psychotomimetics' because researchers believed that they invoked states that were similar to psychosis.

Although they produce hallucinations, people invariably know that they're having hallucinations because they're under the influence of the drug -- a key difference with real psychosis, in which people believe that the hallucinations that they're experiencing are actually reality.

That said, when you're experiencing very deep, very profound hallucinations in which you have lost the ego, become one with the universe which is immediately available at both the micro and macro levels, while time has slowed down to the extent that it seems to have been stopped for the last two or three eternities -- when your trip is at it's peak like that, and the dose is adequate to transform the base level of everyday lived experience, to the gold of the spiritual/mystical revelation -- some people might imbue such a psychic state with a negative value -- indeed, it might well seem as though one is in the process of 'losing my mind'

(That's a pretty good description of the process from from a certain perspective. Whether it's the 'my' that's being lost, or the 'mind' -- it's bound to provoke a certain sense of trepidation. It's quite literally, the end of the world as you know it. )

And because of the tricks that LSD plays with perceptions of time, it's quite common to feel that you've spent an infinite period waiting for the decision to be expressed between the time that the synapse fired, and the time that it took to express your view on the page. That really can feel like a mental illness if you don't know what mental illness is actually like -- but it's not really.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:36 AM on July 7, 2011

PeterMcDermott: Could you please not mash up quotes from two different sources as if they come from the same place? I'm not entirely certain who you're arguing against here.

Although they produce hallucinations, people invariably know that they're having hallucinations because they're under the influence of the drug -- a key difference with real psychosis, in which people believe that the hallucinations that they're experiencing are actually reality.

I'm convinced it's not that simple. The whole point of cognitive-behavioral therapy for example is recognizing the flaws in disordered perceptions of reality. It's entirely possible to both have the metacognitive awareness that the sensation of ants under the skin is psychosomatic and delusional, while still having the sensation. Contrary to pop-psychology, metacognitive awareness of a delusion doesn't always make it vanish. Just as we can walk and chew gum at the same time, the brain can argue both for and against a delusional sensation. It's a theme that comes up in discussions of Buddhist mindfulness as well. Understanding is not the same as dismissal.

And on the flip side, it's how I suspect most spiritual experiences are understood. When we call them "visions," "numinous," or "dream-like" we're categorizing them as having subjective but not physical reality. Or at least that's what I think is going on. (It's one reason why Schermer and Harris have a better understanding of religion than Dawkins. Dawkins just doesn't seem to grasp the idea of numinous experiences having a powerful subjective reality.)

I've just taken it for granted that everyone naturally experiences those timeless burning-bush moments, if not the harmful delusions.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:40 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Mefi doesn't do drug discussions particularly well, I suspect because too many people have first hand experience with the subject, and those experiences fall on a continuum of good and bad. Many people have positive, life-altering experiences on psychedelics. Many people have extreme negative reactions that in a small number of cases trigger episodes of mental illness.

Many people have positive, life-altering experiences with religion, too, but Mefi doesn't seem to recommend religion as highly as illegal drugs.

As a possibly illustrative data-point, my husband had very negative experiences with all forms of psychodelics. When we watched the movie Pi, he turned to me and said, "That's exactly what it was like when I tripped." Which would be enough to make anyone avoid doing it again. (Although he did try it several times with different substances.)
posted by threeturtles at 10:37 AM on July 7, 2011

Although they produce hallucinations, people invariably know that they're having hallucinations because they're under the influence of the drug -- a key difference with real psychosis, in which people believe that the hallucinations that they're experiencing are actually reality.

This is absolutely untrue. Various substances produce a range of reactions to hallucination in which some people know their hallucinations are not real and some do not and this VARIES.

Also, people with mental illness that produces hallucinations or other psychotic symptoms can, in fact, be aware that these are symptoms of their illness and not real. Usually these people have been struggling with their illness for a long time and have had help to identify their symptoms and learn what they are. In a total psychotic break that usually occurs at first onset of the illness or after months of stopping anti-psychotic medication, yes typically the person doesn't realize what's happening to them. But I've known many schizophrenics who are aware that various feelings, hallucinations, or experiences aren't real, but still experience them.
posted by threeturtles at 10:45 AM on July 7, 2011

Nobody ever traveled to India to go on a spiritual journey and become a Sadhu because of a ride on The Titan at Six Flags.

And I would add that not every spiritual journey to India was launched with chemicals.

But, this thread is only to discuss drugs/chemicals?



Did Sam Harris write wikipedia articles on psychedelic drugs, LSD, DMT - or just quote from them a lot?
posted by Surfurrus at 11:38 AM on July 7, 2011

KirkJobSluder:

Could you please not mash up quotes from two different sources as if they come from the same place? I'm not entirely certain who you're arguing against here.

OK, the point below, which I'm responding to, doesn't make any sense without the point above. But I should have done something to indicate that B is citing A. I assumed anyone who cared about it would check the original quote though.

Also, I'm not actually arguing against anybody. Somebody was making the point that what psychedelics do is mimic psychosis. I was simply pointing out that that's an extremely early characterisation of what psychedelics do, and it really wasn't long before most scientists who study the issue recognized that the term 'psychotomimetic' really wasn't a helpful characterisation of the actions of these drugs -- for the reasons I outline.

It isn't a personal viewpoint -- it's a description of the history of science of these substances.

I'm convinced it's not that simple. The whole point of cognitive-behavioral therapy for example is recognizing the flaws in disordered perceptions of reality. It's entirely possible to both have the metacognitive awareness that the sensation of ants under the skin is psychosomatic and delusional, while still having the sensation.

Here: Wikipedia's summary of this particular issue -- presumably also drawn from the same sources that I'm referring to.

threeturtles:

Various substances produce a range of reactions to hallucination in which some people know their hallucinations are not real and some do not and this VARIES.

Sure. I've seen people having those experiences. But they're an extreme and unusual reaction and aren't the norm.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:03 PM on July 7, 2011

Excerpt from Dr. Rick Strassman's
"Adverse Reactions to Psychedelic Drugs: a Review of the Literature"
posted by Bonzai at 12:06 PM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Many people have positive, life-altering experiences with religion, too, but Mefi doesn't seem to recommend religion as highly as illegal drugs."

Setting is a key concept here as others have mentioned. Oddly, the support system for someone who has taken LSD (given the givens) seem to be on the whole more nurturing and less interested in domination and control than the support system for someone interested in pursuing a religious experience.

It's tough to be vulnerable and then have someone take advantage of that vulnerability.

And religions tend to take rationalizations of experience more seriously and with greater reverence than the experience itself. But that's a hazard with any systemic approach. It can be avoided, but y'know.

Perhaps the advantage of LSD (in itself, adherents, and indeed even my own illustration, aside) is that there's no attendant reverent description and that, at least in part, what there is is too goofy to take seriously when described - even if the experience itself has been meaningful and self-revelatory.

And LSD (again, itself) is an experience (whether one agrees it's worth having or not) whereas theory is not and the descriptive words are not the thing itself. So there may be an appreciation for "cutting to the chase" as it were.
I think the person I was needed it. I wish I didn't. But there's that tendency to look at one's own experience a certain way - some folks think a hitch in the service or doing time in prison is a good experience but wouldn't want their kid to have it and it seems like exceptionalism.
I think there's grounds to argue that this exists with LSD but I think a bunch of MeFites here have taken pains to distance that from what they're saying (successful in the attempt or not).

The Universe loves to throw a monkey-wrench into my perceptions with burning-bush moments. But I'd prefer more days that taste like Rumi than Poe.

"When a mother cries to her sucking babe
'Come, O son, I am thy mother!' does the child answer,
'O mother, show a proof
That I shall find comfort in taking thy milk'"? - Rumi

But yeah, agreed. Were I to say otherwise I'd be in a sort of exeptionalist camp there -"Hey, you need to take a good asskicking now and then to give you perspective" sort of thing (although I can think of one asskicking I did need).

Y'know part of the problem (beyond the assholes marketing them) is that anyone needs shortcuts.
We should have big complex support systems that deal with life changes and dealing with deep meaningful expressive experiences.
As it is you have to have a bake sale to fund bus service for basic education.
So yeah, risks. Scary stuff.

"I'll certainly agree that there are advantages to being able to boot up my own perception of reality from my imagination, but a grandparent died howling in a delusional
world of fear and betrayal. The fact that it wears off is a huge luxury."

That's the thing - practice leads to greater control.
And changes in perspective tend to lead to greater empathy.

So, perhaps where I'm not clear is that LSD is a potential, but not necessary (and possibly dangerous) option. The differences are more highly illustrated/contrasted if one takes LSD while not pursuing any path.
Whereas the benefits of attaining that state are greater given the greater degree of control and experience one has in reaching it (through meditation, etc).

"...some people might imbue such a psychic state with a negative value -- indeed, it might well seem as though one is in the process of 'losing my mind'"

And some people have been nailed to trees as a result.

This is not to gainsay the danger. I think there should be recognition that 'sainthood' or 'enlightenment' where you lose the ego and everyone is your brother and sister because you see them as simply different aspects of you and your desire and selfishness is gone - is a really dangerous mental state to be in - and most particularly when you're SUDDENLY THERE because of LSD.

But the danger, I suspect, comes from the social demands and what we think of initially
as sane.
I strongly suspect the reason I get away with being such a bleeding heart in my personal life is because I'm so fantastically dangerous otherwise.

I mean I watch people do charity work and there's still this sort of left handed thing going on where it's grudging. I listen to some of the noble sentiments - for example - 'we protect the weak.'
Well that's great but shit man if you think of them as 'weak' off the bat there's going to be some condescension in there no matter how good hearted your intent.

And this concept chunk there does, I'd concede, exist in many people and in some folks who feel strongly about LSD or whatever has been a positive experience for them.

The key is to absorb what's useful for you, understand what's useful for someone else and respect the difference.
Respect it not as weakness or flaw but as a different variety/aspect of something you have too. (From there it's just a matter of doing the work. But what the hell else did we have to do today? Stay in bed?)

And on that point I think humans are more 'sane' than we were in the past.
And I think that this is due to the discipline of reason tempering naked intuition.
What makes the latter most dangerous though is when it's used as a pretext for control or supplantation of the former.
The varieties of that kind of thing there are endless.
And in our society we cherish opinions deeply. And we're taught to. And marketed to that way...

So in not prejudging reality, in taking away those filters (by whatever means), and determining experience only by experience - yeah, people think you're nuts and they've put software in you so you think you're nuts too.
(Everyone's playing a video game and you go "aww, the hell with chasing these worthless coins" "Dude, what's wrong? Keep moving! You're going to get killed!" "Yeah, so I die? I'll just come back again. Or play a different character. No big." "uh whut?")

But it's the opposite. They're in the dream, locked in nonsense, illusory pleasures. That's why a different state looks like psychosis.
Stop taking life so seriously and take an interest in more ephemeral ideals and while people might admire you if they don't try to jail or commit you they will try to subvert you or kill you if you can't be subverted.

I have to go with Milton (from Comus, probably appropriate
to this kind of discussion) describing heavenly music:
"But such a sacred and home-felt delight,
Such sober certainty of waking bliss,"

So once we transcend what we think of as the "everyday lived experience" what's so damn scary is that it's only as the light of waking bliss grows that we see the extent to which we are blind and ragged, filthy with misconception and beguiled by illusions.
So we're filled with horror to see we're worse off than we thought because of the growing light. Not because those things were not otherwise there.

It is tempting to retreat. (I used to force myself to watch game shows to sort of reconnect with consensual "reality." Even after just spending long hours in the wilderness - you look at the moon rise with awe after nights spent in darkness and come home and watch people looking instead at a little box with dead records of people laughing at something else grafted on to whatever (and it is called t.v. "programming" after all) eating pre-chewed, chemical soaked meat flavored hamburger sandwiches, and man, those people do look as f'ing crazy as I must look to them toting around a big hunk of raw meat off something I stalked and killed myself, dressed in rags stinking of animal urine and covered in mud and leaves.)

But so long as there is no change we're unaware that we're in a state of blind presumption and hardness, prey to self-delusion.
I'm borrowing from Francois Fenelon: "While we go with the stream, we are unconscious of its rapid course; but when we begin to stem it ever so little, it makes itself felt."

Probably why it's so damn hard. (I fail and fall back in all the time myself. mmmm meat flavored hamburger sammich.) Doesn't mean there's no "there" there.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:28 PM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

As a possibly illustrative data-point, my husband had very negative experiences with all forms of psychodelics. When we watched the movie Pi, he turned to me and said, "That's exactly what it was like when I tripped." Which would be enough to make anyone avoid doing it again. (Although he did try it several times with different substances.)

Doing the journey with an experienced guide can help considerably. Negative experiences can teach you a lot, but it's not good to be trapped in them. As some people say there is no such thing as a bad trip, only difficult ones, but those are also the experiences which tend to help people work through deep-seated problems. Again, having a guide around if that should happen will help ensure that the tripper knows they're in a safe environment and can trust someone to get them through. Most of the time it may not be necessary even though I'd still recommend it, but for spiritual benefit it can help.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:40 PM on July 7, 2011

Although they produce hallucinations, people invariably know that they're having hallucinations because they're under the influence of the drug -- a key difference with real psychosis, in which people believe that the hallucinations that they're experiencing are actually reality.

Hmm. My long-ago experiences with LSD do not jibe with this, but perhaps I am an outlier. The experiences would not have been as memorable and transformative had I known while having them that they were hallucinations, actually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:39 PM on July 7, 2011

There are hallucinations and there are different ways of integrating visual and auditory sensory input. The latter are much more interesting and definitely a hallmark of a good LSD experience.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 6:46 PM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, the only full-on hallucination (where I saw something that was not there, but I actually thought it was real) that I had out of my dozen trips or so was the very first time I tripped. A few friends and I were all just coming up, and we were listening to my dad's albums while sitting on the back porch of my house. The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles -- the usual ones. I was starting to think the drugs were fake, but I kind of looked at the picture of my Jemi Hendrix on my friend's shirt and giggled, and he just says "what are you laughing at?" I said, "Nothing, just the Hendrix picture on your shirt is kind of tripping me out." He looked at me for a second, then said "I'm just wearing a plain white shirt." Then he looked down and said, "HOLY SHIT. The spirit of Jimi is on me man. I can fucking see it. I can fucking SEE it!" Then he ran inside to look at himself in the mirror. That was how I realized that I was reaaaally fucking high. It can be kind of subtle when it first starts.
posted by empath at 8:49 PM on July 7, 2011

Drugs are for recreation and rollercoasters are sometimes scary.

Oh dear lord. You've been making assertion after assertion like this and it ain't getting any truer the more you repeat it. An endogenous brain chemical - DMT - is for recreation? Go ahead and believe that, just don't expect that assertion to be anything but ridiculous. Anyone using DMT for kicks has not studied up on DMT before deciding to take it and won't make that mistake again.

Then there is the issue of all the posters here who've mentioned how LSD or psilocybin has gotten them out of crippling depression, with two of them crediting psychedelics with preventing suicide. Yup, kicks.

Then there's me with several grams of Tabernanthe iboga sitting on my desk for the right setting to take it to get out of the depression I've been in the grips of for several years. You think I want to take it for kicks? If so, you obviously know zero about iboga.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 5:11 PM on July 8, 2011 [4 favorites]

A bad trip leaves a hole in you. It is a place in your life experience that you will likely dread and is a source of disturbing imagery and sensation for decades.

The resonance of both good and bad trips are almost as hard to hang on to as dreams, I find. I can only dimly grasp, in this case, the horror. Intellectually, I understand why it was nightmarish, and there's some realization that yes, I experienced this, but I don't feel it, can't feel it, anymore. That's me, anyway.

I meant to say though, on this subject, that the article got this so right, and I'm really grateful to have read it for that reason. It's also convinced me that this experience (in wholly inadequate shorthand, the timeless ego-death) is a major destination, maybe the destination, down this highway, rather than a twisty-side road I might (perhaps gratefully) never experience again. Fills me with some trepidation, but then I wonder if, knowing this, I might handle it better next time.

That sensation, though -- it has always been this -- it's a hard thing to handle.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:16 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

A bad trip leaves a hole in you.

This has definitely not been my experience. All my bad trips have been serious opportunities for growth: looking at what went wrong, how I got stuck thinking certain things, why I got stuck thinking those things, etc. I value my bad trips as much or more than my fantastic ones. YMMV.
posted by neuromodulator at 8:07 PM on July 8, 2011 [3 favorites]

Who the hell is Sam Harris, and why do I agree with him?

I meant to say though, on this subject, that the article got this so right, and I'm really grateful to have read it for that reason. It's also convinced me that this experience (in wholly inadequate shorthand, the timeless ego-death) is a major destination, maybe the destination, down this highway, rather than a twisty-side road I might (perhaps gratefully) never experience again. Fills me with some trepidation, but then I wonder if, knowing this, I might handle it better next time.

Ditto. I don't know if this is a good post or not, but I liked the article.

Still singing the praises of hallucinogens twenty years after someone's started doing them, smacks of arrested development to me.

And to me, your statement smacks of someone who hasn't dropped acid. Nobody waxing about their first experience with Proust gets pegged as "developmentally arrested" ...

There were a lot of lines I liked in the article, but this one is probably my favorite:

"Psychedelics do not guarantee wisdom. They merely guarantee more content."

And that content is often life-changing. I fully recommend LSD to almost everyone I meet. Take the money you'd spend on that first therapy session, and buy some acid instead. And since you won't find any acid, get some mushrooms, which approximates the central feeling of ego-death.

I've had bad shroom trips. More like "mildly uncomfortable" trips. The last couple I've had have let me know that my time w/them is done (at least, unless I got healthier, but I have a bad feeling that that's not going to happen ;_;)

Ditto, and it's why I don't have any trips anymore. For some reason, psilocybin always makes me very, very sad about the state of the world. Which is understandable, but not so much fun.

Mushrooms were always great, the stomach ache I got every time for the first 30 minutes or so, not so much.

That's what marijuana is for (and for the coming down from LSD). It's fantastic for nausea (in the right dosage, which can be tricky).
posted by mrgrimm at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

Seriously, I don't know why people encourage this stuff openly like this.

Ego death is not something a drug can give you; this is almost by definition. The body is an essential extension of the ego. If you experience ego death through the body, it's not ego death.

...

I think it's funny that you think you can know objectively that I don't know what I'm talking about simply because I haven't used mushrooms or LSD. I obviously believe ego death is a real thing; else I wouldn't have mentioned the point.

k, it is funny that we (all) could tell from those 3 sentences that you certainly hadn't ever dropped acid? because then you would know?

or: "Choosing not to take psychedelics is fine, but to choose not to do so and then claim you know better than those who have what the subjective experience is like is unreasonable."

It's cruel and heartless to act as though those who aren't prepared – people like me, for example – deserve whatever pain and mental and spiritual suffering they get when they take these drugs.

I think what some of us think is that it's cruel and heartless for some people to scare people into thinking these substances are harmful, which is why some people likely think they are unprepared to take them or unsuited to the experience.

I don't know you personally, but I don't honestly know *anyone* who couldn't handle an acid trip, and I'm honestly curious why you think you are. It's obviously a personal issue--but if anyone wants to volunteer ... all I've seen is people saying that they are worried about "bad trips" as if their minds would send them to hell.

I've seen people have really bad trips. Mostly they just freak out about tripping and spiral. Or (in my case) someone who is not tripping is fucking with them. Still, I haven't seen anybody feel worse than getting dumped by your girlfriend/boyfriend, etc. Bad trips just aren't a big deal *unless* you are in a dangerous situation (cars, bars, house on fire, etc.)

Why is it that lots of people who seem otherwise liberal are so closed-minded and prejudicial when it comes to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, people who haven't touched psychedelics are capable of leading full spiritual lives and encountering important spiritual moments?

There are a lot of comments here, and some are probably holier than thou, but you're not describing what I've experienced among users and non-users at all. Using psychedelics is a personal choice--no one is better than anyone else--and I know personally that some of the psychological effects of psychedelics can be replicated without any substances, but still ... I think it's more of "look at what you're missing!" than "look at what you are missing, you fucking idiot!" - some of my best friends have never done any drugs (except for the perfectly legal caffeine and alcohol, of course). and they are likely just as spiritually satisfied as I am. That does not mean I don't think they could use a good trip, though.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:58 PM on July 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

What makes religious expression favored speech?
There is recognition of the link between an altered state of consciousness and religious expression. Indeed, one is allowed to take peyote in certain Native American churches.

A good friend of mine is a criminal defense laywer--he's one of the laywers working on the recent marijuana rescheduling petition (just denied last Friday)--he and I have agreed for years that drug use is a free-speech issue. It's a non-starter legally, though ...

I suspect I would have reached the same realization without LSD. Might have taken a bit more time. I don't know that it's analogous to taking a cycle of steroids in a weightlifting routine, but it was a shortcut.
Like any shortcut it can be abused or used.

I like to say it's like riding a bicycle instead of walking.

A religion that says, "If it doesn't work for you, it's not for you?" Which religion would that be?

Buddhism? IANAB, but I thought Buddhists could burn their bridges once they cross.

I realize a psychedelic circle jerk (while fun) wouldn't accomplish much, but I'm always boggled by the seeming vehemence of some people against certain activities that they've never tried.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:18 PM on July 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's probably not a good idea for everyone everywhere to be taking them all the time, but that's true of any other drug.

Not to monopolize the end of the thread, but for me, I can't really trip but every week or so. I've tried to trip the day or two after a previous trip, and had almost zero response. It seems like psychedelics (specifically LSD) have a very long refractory period.

Is it just me?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:20 PM on July 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

Now I could start in on a long essay beginning with the Eleusinian mystery cult in ancient Greece, but readers might like to consider the significance of the communion wafer and wine in Christian religious practice, and in turn the significance of 'manna' in both the old and new testaments.

Wasn't there a cult who believed that Jesus ingested psychedelics and his followers drank his urine (which was also psychedelic)? I lost that fucking book in my apartment fire, and I've never been able to replace it ... ah, here it is:

"'Muscimol, the psychoactive element of Amanita muscaria, remains active in urine for up to seven re-ingestions'"

- Amanita muscaria and Cannabis Sativa - Keys to Christianity?

I'm partial to the theory that most of the major advances in human evolution and civilization were due to narcotics, so I'm pretty confident that Christianity, Islam, Judaism (i.e. the burning bush), Buddhism, etc. all stem from psychedelic visions....
posted by mrgrimm at 2:59 PM on July 11, 2011 [2 favorites]

I think it's possible to do quite a lot with lucid dreaming. Having never taken hallucinogens, I can't really compare. Still, I think there are other avenues available. Some require a bit more work (lucid dreaming takes practice before it becomes meaningful and interactive more more than a few seconds at a time).

...

From my experience I can say hallucinations, altered states, euphoria, the good and the bad (and all the rest) were quite accessible without any drugs.

Zen meditation has helped me approach (barely, compared with LSD) ego loss, but for altered states, hallucinations, etc, hypnogogia seems similar to psychedelic drug use in terms of perceptions and brain activity, in my opinion. Before I was a parent (and so sleep deprived that I fall into a deep sleep in a few minutes), hypnogogic sleep (and lucid dreaming) was my THING. Ever since puberty, I could use hypnogogia to experience hallucinations and even out-of-body experiences. Luckily, no night terrors. ;)

Dayum Smedleyman you making a whole lot of sense

AMEN. I was gonna say damn, I love and miss Smedleyman (quoting Comus! dude can be my spiritual guide anyday), but I think he's been here all the while. It was me who was the missing one.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:15 PM on July 11, 2011

mrgrimm: I don't know you personally, but I don't honestly know *anyone* who couldn't handle an acid trip, and I'm honestly curious why you think you are. It's obviously a personal issue--but if anyone wants to volunteer ... all I've seen is people saying that they are worried about "bad trips" as if their minds would send them to hell.

I've been advised that since I've experienced one self-destructive psychotic episode that I'd be at high risk of another one while under the influence. Since that advice has come from fairly experienced people, I give it a fair bit of weight.

That said, I was talking about this the other day, and was reminded that I did try some mushrooms once upon a time. So I am mulling this over.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:23 PM on July 11, 2011

Why the fuck would I want to destroy my ego? It's the only thing keeping me alive.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:00 PM on July 11, 2011

Well, that's the thing, see. You think your ego is really important, and then you experience something that suggests that it's not. And you actually feel better because of it.
posted by neuromodulator at 5:11 PM on July 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

When police from around the country swooped before dawn one morning in 1977, dozens of the 800 officers working the case looked like unshaven, long-haired hippies plucked from the audience of a Pink Floyd gig.

And the vast LSD co-operative they were targeting was, if anything, even more unconventional. Its leading members included doctors, scientists and university graduates - motivated, they insisted, by an evangelical drive to transform human consciousness itself.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 3:32 AM on July 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh hey, I just left this comment sitting here for 16 hours, but that's probably a good thing.

I've been advised that since I've experienced one self-destructive psychotic episode that I'd be at high risk of another one while under the influence. Since that advice has come from fairly experienced people, I give it a fair bit of weight.

Thanks, KJS. Granted, with that previous psychotic episode (though I don't know the details) I would obviously agree you should be very careful with any sort of psychic exploration. I am curious who gave you that advice and why you trust it. I would take the time to talk to someone experienced (if available) and even certified.

Honestly, I can't say that I wouldn't recommend it though. I have seen too many psychologically therapeutic benefits occur with myself and others not to say "well, ask an expert, because I am not one." Also, as many above noted, there seem to be some demonstrated benefits to psychedelic therapy. (Psychedelic Medicine: New Evidence for Hallucinogenic Substances As Treatments)

It exposed the gears of group social interaction and helped me both not flail so much and also not be such an asshole.

Huh. I always wondered why some of my friends became less assholish and others didn't ... ;)

Final comment (I promise): The social dynamic perception has been one of the most amazing aspects of the LSD trip for me (aside from looking in the mirror and seeing your death mask). Maybe my perceptions are skewed (of course they are), but it seems like I can read people's nonverbal queues so much better while tripping (and possibly after). It really almost feels like mind reading.

My first acid trip ever--22, the day before college graduation, the day lots of parents (not mine ... i hoped!) arriving on campus, leading to the only fuckery of the trip ("Hey, isn't that your mom over there?")--a lot (or maybe just 5 minutes) of the first-half post-peak of it was spent thinking about the dynamics of our group and the "roles" that we all played with each other, and how those roles changed from group to group. (The other half was spent reading "Fox in Socks" - I found Slow Joe Crow to be terrifying.)

Maybe it's not mind blowing to anyone else, but there's something about the visual details of people's bodies that is so illuminating while tripping on LSD. It's like I could almost feel the pain and love and thousands of conflicting emotions of my friend when the subject of her mom came up.

Another time I was tripping with my girlfriend/wife at a public event and a guy came up to us and starting talking for a while, and as soon as he walked up I thought, "This guy is a swinger and he wants us to join him and his wife/partner." Sure enough, about 5 minutes of conversation later, "So ...." (which is interesting, because I think it's the only time I've ever been hit on by a straight guy, so I likely noticed a behavior in him that was similar to me when I approach women).

That's probably not a very impressive example, but the impressive ones are probably less interesting. It does seem like I can read people's minds, perhaps because of a heightened attention to other's emotions. I dunno. The whole thing is fascinating to me, obviously.

Why the fuck would I want to destroy my ego? It's the only thing keeping me alive.

That would be your medulla oblongata. Not to blow your mind or anything, but there really is no such thing as "you." You just think there is. WHOA.

The biggest "problem" with LSD (or ecstasy, or cocaine and heroin, probably) is impurity, dosage, and contaminants. Legalize it all, and everyone would be safer. I realize that some people want to protect other people from themselves, but jeez, take a look at your local liquor store tonight. If the need for altered perceptions is not innate, it's something close to it.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:55 AM on July 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

The other most excellent thing about that first trip (in which we took one dose, then waited 45 minutes and took another, of course) was that we were sitting outside on a balcony in the late afternoon when it came on, and, no lie, my first indication that something was happening was that the walls were melting.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:07 AM on July 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

The case of U.S. v. Pickard is just the latest, and perhaps final, chapter in the strange and often fantastic tale of William Leonard Pickard and his journey from a privileged boyhood in Atlanta, through the manic, hallucinogenic heart of the 1960s, to the forefront of social drugs research in the 1990s, conducted at some of the nation's most prestigious universities. Along the way, under various aliases - he crossed paths with such rock stars as Sting, and befriended members of the British House of Lords, State Department officials and the district attorney of San Francisco, Terence Hallinan.

In some ways, the story of Leonard Pickard and Todd Skinner is a story about the collision of Sixties idealism with the materialism and pragmatism of the nineties -Timothy Leary's America versus Bill Clinton's, if you will. And its moral will be clear even before the Judge calls the court to order; The sweet but easily corruptible dream of the flower-power generation never really stood a chance - but It was fun while it lasted.

- The Acid King, Peter Wilkinson, Rolling Stone #582
posted by mrgrimm at 8:44 AM on July 12, 2011

my first indication that something was happening was that the walls were melting.

For my second trip, we were sitting in lawn chairs with a couple beers on my friend's roof. It was night, and we were pretty sure the acid wasn't going to work (it was kind of old, and hadn't been kept out of the sun or anything). An hour later, we looked up and I swear to god it looked like we were being invaded. I could see thousands of stars that I'd never noticed, and I'm pretty sure we saw some shooting stars that weren't even there. It was hard to pry ourselves away from the roof, but the mosquitos started creeping us out.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 9:08 AM on July 12, 2011

I'm partial to the theory that most of the major advances in human evolution and civilization were due to narcotics, so I'm pretty confident that Christianity, Islam, Judaism (i.e. the burning bush), Buddhism, etc. all stem from psychedelic visions....

Except that visions (psychedelic or otherwise) and other "religious experiences" play a fairly minor role in a lot of those religions.
posted by straight at 9:17 AM on July 12, 2011

I am curious who gave you that advice and why you trust it.

Well, Harris among others. It's really interesting to me that people are rather willfully grabbing onto his "drugs are good" and not the "drugs are not for everyone" and "there are other ways to get the same kind of insights."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:53 AM on July 12, 2011

Except that visions (psychedelic or otherwise) and other "religious experiences" play a fairly minor role in a lot of those religions.

Are you sure about that? Paul on the road to Damascus? The pentacost? Christ in the desert? Mohammad's 'flight' to Jerusalem? The book of revelation? The book of Ezekial? Jacob wresting with the angels? I could go on.
posted by empath at 11:07 AM on July 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

nthing pretty much everything mrgrimm has had to say in this thread. But in particular:

Is it just me?

Not just you.

The social dynamic perception has been one of the most amazing aspects of the LSD trip for me (aside from looking in the mirror and seeing your death mask). Maybe my perceptions are skewed (of course they are), but it seems like I can read people's nonverbal queues so much better while tripping (and possibly after). It really almost feels like mind reading.

Again, only speaking about psilocybin here, I find that it magnifies social interactions almost ridiculously, so that every hint and nuance becomes blunt. Which is why I alluded to discovering your friends are assholes, because if they are, you’re going to find them unbearable on shrooms. It’s fascinating, but it’s also a primary reason why I’ve tended to do these things solo (which carries its own considerable drawbacks), because tripping casually with a near-stranger would feel a bit naked for me, and if it’s a budding friendship, well, not every friendship that can’t take the crucible of enhanced personal interaction through psychedelics necessarily deserves to die.

Never had the walls melt, though that takes me back to my instant reaction to Neo’s red pill moment in the Matrix – greatly foreshadowed by all the Alice talk, of course.

And to quote myself from a previous thread indicating just how bad a “bad” trip can get, when I came (relatively) back to my senses come morning light – me still existing, my life not having been a dream (so far as I know, heh) – I felt content enough to lie back in my bed of gently writhing snakes and breathe easy.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:57 AM on July 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Except that visions (psychedelic or otherwise) and other "religious experiences" play a fairly minor role in a lot of those religions.

...

Are you sure about that? Paul on the road to Damascus? The pentacost? Christ in the desert?

Q: What was Jesus doing for 40 days in the desert?
A: Tripping balls.

Also: Daniel's ram or he-goat, Ezekiel's "man of fire," David's angel (well, lots of angels, of course), Elisha's "chariots of fire" ...

Also: God spoke to Moses using a burning bush. C'mon. Dude dropped some acacia, climbed a mountain, and came down with some basic religious rules that fit the zeitgeist of human belief at the time.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:00 PM on July 12, 2011

The problem with the entheogens as source for major religions theories is that there is no evidence for this other than superficial links. Keep in mind that the corpus of what we call religions that binds their followers was always established in the generations that came after the central figure. Sure, each had their revelatory experiences, but there's no positive link to any sort of psychoactive substances.

It's a fun theory, though. However, humans are able to have those sorts of experiences without ingesting plants. I also find such notions as much if not more reductive than anthropological explanations of religious rulings, and equally as spurious.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 1:21 PM on July 12, 2011

It's a fun theory, though. However, humans are able to have those sorts of experiences without ingesting plants. I also find such notions as much if not more reductive than anthropological explanations of religious rulings, and equally as spurious.

My big take-away from this thread is that not everyone has these burning-bush moments, which I just sort of assumed given that most of my friends and family have all described them without the influence of entheogens.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:33 PM on July 12, 2011

The problem with the entheogens as source for major religions theories is that there is no evidence for this other than superficial links.

Yeah, I tend to think more temporal lobe epilepsy, but he said that 'visions' full-stop weren't a major part of religions, and that's simply not true. They'r eat the core of all the major scriptures, and have been part of religious practice, also. Religion without meditation and ecstasy is pretty hollow.
posted by empath at 2:42 PM on July 12, 2011

Empath, to take Judaism and Christianity for exampse, yes, those traditions have stories about visions, but they really aren't central to either the beliefs or practices of these religions. Judaism is not founded on the burning bush or the visions of Daniel, but on the exodus from Egypt, the public worship at the temple, the communal study of Torah, and a communal life ordered around the Law.

Similarly, Christianity focus is not Paul's visions or Jesus' experiences in the wilderness. Christianity focuses on the public teaching and miracles of Jesus, his public execution, and his resurrection appearance to groups of his disciples. It's ordered around baptism, Eucharist, sharing with one's neighbors and with the poor, evangelism, personal holiness, public preaching and Bible study, most of which are not visionary or ecstatic experiences for most Christians.

(You can argue about whether these supposedly historical events actually happened, but the point is that the Christian story is not "Paul had a vision and therefore we believe X" but rather "Jesus did X and lots of people saw it.")

There are mystics like Teresa of Avila, but these are marginal figures. Private prayer is solidly mainstream, but meditation and ecstatic religious experiences are seen as exceptional, the vocation of people with a peculiar calling, not as normative for all Christians.

A lot of this is what people dismissively call "organized religion," but those practices make up the bulk of religious practice for the majority of Jews and Christians, many (most?) of whom see them as being as much or more meaningful than visions and ecstatic experiences.
posted by straight at 4:41 PM on July 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Why the fuck would I want to destroy my ego? It's the only thing keeping me alive."

The ego is a cognitive technology that is not without its costs. Others have seen through theirs and lived to tell the tale. I've come very close on cannabis, but haven't used anything stronger than cannabis and sativa. Granted sativa is strong in its own way, but ego death did not occur. It just transported me into another world with another identity (ego). What was interesting was that I fully accepted this identity as being my own with only the vaguest remembrance of my real-world self and history as if my life was a half-remembered dream. As the sativa wore off, which it does rapidly, the entity I had become continued on and I was shed off like the skin of a molting snake. What I experienced was myself dying in that world. I objected to this death insisting to other entities there that I had this whole back story (my real-world life). They insisted that I was nothing more than shed skin that that I should stay down and behave like shed skin: Dead. The experience for me wasn't pleasant, but wasn't terrifying like one might expect. It did give a preview of death.

If you are going to take sativa, you absolutely must have a trusted sitter to watch over you and keep you physically safe.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 8:33 AM on July 13, 2011

My big take-away from this thread is that not everyone has these burning-bush moments, which I just sort of assumed given that most of my friends and family have all described them without the influence of entheogens.

The entheogens ... they're in my brain!

Dodecademaldenticles, do you mean salvia when you write sativa? I only know sativa as a species of cannabis...

The experience for me wasn't pleasant, but wasn't terrifying like one might expect. It did give a preview of death.

Because that describes one of my very few experiences with salvia. That stuff is a serious trip, and weird. Fast and yeah, not terrifying, but definitely not pleasant in a mostly sad way for me.

The walls, furniture, people, and objects in the room turned into Muppets in a wave of transmigration rolling toward me and I was frozen and unable to avoid it as it took my over and in. As you say, it was as if I was leaving my old life behind and beginning a new one, but strongly against my will. I agree it seemed very much like a preview of death.

Facing death is part of the appeal of the psychedelic experience for me. Not that I think that psychedelics are physically dangerous, but that ego-loss involved in the "drop" does seem related to the process of dying.

I think most people are terrified to die. There was a time in my life when I certainly was (most of my childhood). Psychedelics and meditation have honestly helped me internalize and accept my inevitable yet unknown death.

So I got that going for me, which is nice.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:24 AM on July 13, 2011

A lot of this is what people dismissively call "organized religion," but those practices make up the bulk of religious practice for the majority of Jews and Christians, many (most?) of whom see them as being as much or more meaningful than visions and ecstatic experiences.

Maybe it's my experience as a Catholic who spent 8 years being taught by nuns who prayed the rosary and regularly entered meditative states and talked to us about having direct experiences of the divine through prayer, but ecstatic experiences and visions are very much part of the mainstream of Catholicism, especially in the non-English speaking parts of the world and were in no way marginalized.
posted by empath at 11:01 AM on July 13, 2011

(and that's not even getting into pentacostals and shakers, etc.... If a church is centered around speaking in tongues or dancing and music, you're talking about a religion for which altered states of consciousness are part of practice)
posted by empath at 11:03 AM on July 13, 2011

The Electric Dock Ellis Acid Test: An Attempt To Recreate His Drug-Addled No-Hitter, On Xbox
posted by homunculus at 3:38 PM on July 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

My god, that's perfect, and I don't know why nobody else has done that before.
posted by empath at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

mrgrimm, I do indeed mean salvia. I don't know what got into my fingers.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 4:54 AM on July 14, 2011

Also, with salvia, I was OUT. It ripped me so hard out of regular consciousness that I literally saw the stitching of the fabric of reality being pulled apart as I went to salivaland for a nice picnic (nice until I died, that is).
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 5:19 AM on July 14, 2011

Bob Jesse left his VP post at Oracle in 1994 to form the Council on Spiritual Practices.

"CSP's efforts and those of Prof. Roland Griffiths at the Johns Hopkins Medical School lead to the formation of a controlled study, conducted by Hopkins and CSP staff, of the psychological and spiritual effects of psilocybin in healthy volunteers"

Bob will be posting at Mark Kleiman's blog about the psilocybin studies and responding to the common critiques such as

" 1. “I took mushrooms, and my experience was neither ‘spiritual’ nor life-changing. So what’s the big deal?”

2. The studies used volunteers with a spiritual orientation, so of course they reported spiritual experiences, and so the studies prove nothing.

3. Hallucinogens cause hallucinations; hallucinations cannot be a source of learning, healing, or betterment.

4. Psilocybin may cause people to adopt untrue beliefs (e.g., about the nature of ultimate reality).

5. The substance may harm some people or cause them to harm themselves or others.

6. An enlightening experience doesn’t necessarily lead to an enlightened life."
posted by daksya at 9:29 PM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I wasn't aware of that John Hopkins study. Thanks, daksya.

Here's a Q&A with the lead researcher, Roland Griffiths, from the Johns Hopkins site.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2011

Guy ‘Forgot’ He Had Shrooms, Is Acquitted of Drug Possession
posted by homunculus at 12:44 PM on July 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

How the drugs of the 60s changed art
posted by homunculus at 11:22 AM on July 18, 2011 [1 favorite]