/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7177298
depends.

>>7177298
Depends what you mean by destroy. If you don't want to risk becoming a retarded New Age hippy then the evidence points pretty heavily to not taking them.

It depends on what you mean when you say "mind".

>>7177298
no, but it can make people insufferable

There are countless drugs out there each with different effects. Not only that but the long term effects felt by recreational use depend largely on the amount of use, the circumstance of use, and the individual biochemistry of the user.

>>7177321
Those people were already insufferable before they used drugs.

>>7177298
define recreational drug use

Quite the opposite, op. Cannabis use, which i started to do 'recreationaly' helped me restore my mind after a severe depression.

>>7177394
how long did it take you?

>>7177298
I used a wide variety of recreational drugs (so far AMT, LSD, Ethylphenidate, DXM, weed, Salvia Divinorum, 5-MeO-DiPT, mushrooms; wanna try DMT/5-MeO-DMT and MDMA)

I'd say they have been a pretty positive influence on my life, shown me things I wouldn't otherwise ever be able to experience no matter how many centuries I'd live.

They certainly did not fuck up my mind; at the moment I'm attending one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the world and have good grades. You have to be VERY careful, though.

Here's a quote from Mr. Terence McKenna:
“Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong.”

>>7177424
nicetroll m9
you don't need psychedelics to become descartes

>>7177416
about 3 months to start noticing i was feeling better, 6 months to really feel good and act different, become more social. this was after going through numerous depressive episodes over a 8 year period. i feel so 'normal' now i haven't even smoked since january.

i would say it as about as effective as an SSRI (inb4 placebo, no its not. they saved my life) but weed has no nasty side effects and no ugly withdrawal. (my brain felt tingly for weeks after stopping effexor)

>>7177428
You don't "need" psychedelics, period. Plus, why the fuck would I want to become Descartes, he's the greatest faggot and most insufferable autist in the history of philosophy. Have great respect for Wittgenstein though.

>>7177298
Getting high every weekend is not recreational drug use. Recreational drug use is getting high/drunk less than 5 times a year.

Taking drugs and being an addict is not "cool".

>>7177298
>the mind
What's this "the mind"? Where is it? Why is there only one?

>>7177445
"Recreational" has nothing to do with the frequency of usage; just the intended purpose.

>>7177429
Yeah, no nasty side effects except chronic depersonalization disorder.

>>7177445
So nearly every single person in the UK is an alcoholic?

I guess it does, as you make errors in such an easy sentence.

>>7177298
Partially, yes.

>>7177456
>depersonalization
in 2 years of smoking, i have never had any experience of depersonalization

>>7177472
It's an integral part of being stoned for me, along with derealization, and both linger afterwards. There's a hint of it now. How about derealization? Do you get that? What is being stoned even like for you?

I've seen a few DP threads on 4chan and a large proportion of people who suffer it constantly say it began with weed, which is no surprise to me.

>>7177424
>not brain damaged
>quoting McKenna unironically
pick one.

>>7177307
You never had the thought that maybe the retarded new age hippies were like that before they tried recreational drugs?

>>7177424
I think that the idea that the government has banned certain substances because they are afraid of people becoming "enlightened" and resisting their power is pretty simplistic. I don't think the people crafting these policies are saying to themselves, "better keep LSD off the streets, we don't want any of these kids achieving nirvana and dissolving the power structures we've set up!"

They are no more beyond culture and socialization than citizens are. They ban drugs for numerous reasons. They have moralistic reasons, like the sincere belief that illegal drugs are actually somehow different from legal ones and are unconditionally bad for you. There are instrumental reasons, like the U.S. justifying intervention in Latin America with "we have to get rid of the drug gangs" (pretty much the equivalent for terrorism as a justification for intervention in the Middle East). There are class reasons, like the fact that the poor are more likely to use illegal drugs, so this is a way to criminalize them and round them up (not that this is a conscious conspiratorial ploy to oppress the poor; it has more to do with unconscious social dispositions toward the poor).

Yeah, the government sucks, but they aren't fucking Ingsoc or the Sith Empire or whatever. They are just a bunch of people, many of whom are stupid and/or selfish.

>>7177428
I don't get this "WHY DO YOU NEED DRUGS TO DO X" response to people who sometimes use illegal drugs to do X. If somebody decides to take asprin for a headache, it's understood as a tool to relieve a headache that one may legitimately choose to use. Nobody goes "WHY ARE YOU SO RELIANT ON DRUGS CAN'T YOU DEAL WITH HEADACHES WITHOUT THEM?" Yeah, I can, and sometimes I don't choose to take a substance to deal with a headache. But sometimes I do.

Same with creativity or recreation. Sometimes I use drugs to facilitate them, sometimes I don't.

>>7177477
derealization, yes, but only while high, it never lingers once i sober up. and i don't mind it, i find it to be pleasant, almost fun, for lack of a better word.

>>7177480
You come off as the kind of person who would blame most unique thoughts on "probably because of brain damage".

>>7177494
riiiiight. You're just too "unique" for me I guess.

>>7177494

No not the unique thoughts as much as

> Oh no!? This guy is not receptive to my favorite harassment method! Must be Brain Damage or Autism or SOMETHING.

>>7177494
You are certainly the kind of person who would confuse criticism of someone's ideas because they are retarded for criticism of someone's ideas because they are novel.

i think weed is bad just because of the fact that you're inhaling irritants. but shrooms is pretty low in toxicity from what most chemistry data have told me.

with that said, i'm pretty sure that alcohol will fuck you up way more than any rec drug, hell even the harder drugs probably wouldn't ruin you as hard as alcohol would, mainly due to how it just ruins your motor skills and sense of judgement.

>>7177499
>Oh no, someone is criticizing me for quoting a silly New Age quack! Harasment!

>>7177500
Most people can't spot the difference between retarded and novel anyway, so...

>>7177505
Ehm, no.. I wasn't even the guy who quoted him.

>>7177488
>fun
>for lack of of a better word

>>7177505
dude stop caring

>>7177505
the only quack here is you. get bent.

>>7177487
The danger is if the enforcers really think they are doing the right thing when arresting 15 yo kids who have smoked their first joint and put them in police register to a future of never be able to get a job or appartment because they are now DRUG criminals.

>>7177507
Tell me which of McKenna's ideas you are having trouble realizing are retarded:

>psychedlics literally allow inter-dimensional travel and communication with higher-dimensional beings
>Homo Erectus evolved into homo-sapiens because they ate magic mushrooms (false), increasing visual acuity (false) and reproduction (false)
>Novelty Theory, barely decipherable pseudoscience babble derived from Chinese numerology and badly translated Mayan mythology, which led retards to believe the world was ending or whatever in 2012

>>7177510
So how was I harassing him?

>>7177518
Dude get off the science board

>>7177520
So butthurt. Don't be embarrassed of someone pointing out who you are, New Age wackdoodle.

>>7177487
You are right about that; I don't believe in some jew reptilian overlord 1984 tier stuff. It's just that people are scared of psychedelic substances because of the potential they hold. If you used any psychedelics you'd know what I meant by seeing things from perspectives otherwise not possible. I think that's obscured to the greatest extent possible and there's a very real and successful attempt to shape public opinion to equate all drugs; obviously meth is NOTHING like LSD but ask the average joe and that's what he'd tell you. I just think that effort is not without ulterior motives-LSD, DMT and cannabis have been time and time again demonstrated to be less harmful than alcohol yet they are illegal. Surely the concern here is not public health. There's indeed an element of irrational fear (i.e aversion without motivation) but I think there's certainly an attempt to suppress the ideas that can come out of psychedelic use.

>>7177528
Ok so we should think all drugs are bad because some joker who is claimed to have used drugs is nuts?

>>7177535
>muh secret drug knowledge is being suppressed!
No, YOU'RE is the real reason people are afraid of psychedelics. Get over yourself, asshole.

>>7177556
Yep. We should stop drinking beer too, because once a whacko drank beer and said stupid stuff.

>>7177556
What? You're either avoiding the point or didn't read the conversation.

>>7177528
>increasing visual acuity (false)
What?

>>7177535
It's entirely a case of "drugs just must not be allowed because it's just not a done thing". There's no reasoning behind it. It's well beyond "they're harmful and we must protect you from your own decisions" and "it's immoral to do drugs because we say so".

The UK's drug council, for example, are quick to point out that they don't classify drugs based on harm whenever someone criticises them for banning this or that without any evidence to justify doing so (such as khat or most of the drugs in PIHKAL and TIHKAL which get banned en masse). They don't ban for any particular reason other than they are tasked with banning drugs and that's what they'll do.

can you drink alcohol with lemsip max?

>>7177566
McKenna believed (or maybe he didn't, I find it hard to believe he actually believed most of the crap he spewed out) that magic mushrooms increased visual acuity, based on a faulty understanding of a paper which showed that medium doses of psilocybin alters perception.

>>7177453
>"Recreational" has nothing to do with the frequency of usage

It has very much to do with the frequency when it comes to drinking and drugs, since there is no such thing as a "professional drug user".

>>7177456
>So nearly every single person in the UK is an alcoholic?

You'd be surprised how few normal people actually get drunk, dear college freshman.

>>7177573
Recreational as opposed to medical I suppose.

It's good to keep in mind that a fair share of drugs are repackaged into pills, patented and sold by charismatic men in suits. Then they're no longer dangerous drugs, but important medicines.

>>7177573
No it literally has nothing to do with it. If you use a drug for recreation (i.e. for fun), then you are a recreational drug user. Another obvious reason to use drugs would be for medicinal reason.

>>7177570
Psychedelics and nonpsychedelic phenethylamines and tryptamines can improve visual acuity while in effect.

>>7177573
>since there is no such thing as a "professional drug user"
What?

>>7177429
I can vouch for this via a friend of mine.

She had bipolar, was on a bunch of meds, got obese and found comfort in veganism and Tumblr activism.

She got back on pot after a long hiatus since high school, got her mind back on track, hasn't had an anxiety episode or manic/depressive episode for years, lost 50kg, got into university studying engineering (she does like dick I guess), and has made a bunch of new friends who she can socialise with without any problems.

I'm not one of those "big pharma!" screechers, but pot got her to a point the meds didn't.

>>7177573
>frequency
>recreational

Lol. once = sub-recreational. twice = pseudo-recreational. thrice = near - recreational. >4 times = recreational

>>7177592
>Psychedelics and nonpsychedelic phenethylamines and tryptamines can improve visual acuity while in effect.
citation needed

>>7177598
Enhanced visual acuity is known as one of the primary visual artifacts of psychedelic drugs. As for your guaranteed response of "oh but you only THOUGHT you were able to see more clearly because you were trippin' balls maaan", nah, fuck off. The difference between being unable to read 12pt text that is 30cm from your face (it's a blurry mess and quite uncomfortable to look at) and being able to read it from several meters away is obvious.

>>7177487
You make a good point, but I think there is something you oversaw: People don't want to speak out against criminalized behaviour, out of fear being branded a criminal by others.

There are a lot of politicians and wealthy people who take/took drugs, yet nobody speaks up publicly for it out of fear of being branded. Same with sex with a minor - it's perfectly legal in most countries. Homosexuality acceptance went down a similar path. People need courage to say what they think.

>>7177598
>peer-reviewed study please
>oh wait, scaremongering mongoloids like me made such studies impossible

>>7177618
Yeah, it is primarily the marginalized who get in trouble for doing drugs, even though the well-to-do also do them (in the U.S., crack carries a higher penalty than pure coke, probably because rich people can afford coke, and it's not rich people that the prison-industrial complex is aimed at locking up). Fear and policing of thought are a big part, just as they were during McCarthyism. You can't express thoughts when you're not sure if you'll be punished for them, even when a lot of people share those thoughts, because they are similarly held back by fear.

I'll have to disagree with you on sex with a minor, but I'll grant that it's a fuzzy concept and that there is no magic age at which one suddenly becomes competent enough to consent. Still, it makes sense to have some proscriptions on that.

>If you used any psychedelics you'd know what I meant by seeing things from perspectives otherwise not possible.

I can't say my experience is representative of most users, but I don't get any profound thoughts or modes of thinking from LSD. I just get really faint visuals, seem to find everything hilarious, and lose my train of thought a lot (so much so that I go, "what the fuck was I just thinking about a second ago for the past 15 minutes? What the fuck am I thinking now?")

Also, some colors look more vibrant to me. Fuck, first time I tripped, toward the end of it, I found myself staring out the window at that shade of green the grass and leaves take on after a rain. I still can't get over how beautiful that shade is and I pause whenever I see it again.

But yeah, it's altered my thoughts and perceptions obviously, but nothing profound that made me, like, see the universe in a new way or something. Just a little fun messing with my brain chemistry is all. Nothing spiritual.

>>7177656
>Still, it makes sense to have some proscriptions on that.

I absolutely agree, but 18 is bullshit, because sexual maturity comes not later than 13. 14 would be a realistic age, it's what biology intended.

>>7177670
Here in Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there are "close in age laws" for people below that, so that a 17-year-old won't get in trouble for fooling around with a 15-year-old or something.

I don't know if reproductive maturity is an indicator of informed consent, though. I think you also have to take into account the decision-making ability of a minor, and the probability that they will make decisions that will put them in positions of exploitation.

But yeah, no mathematical formula can determine the age at which every human suddenly becomes able to make those choices. And even if we could somehow determine that for each individual, a standardized blanket age would be less burdensome to tangle with than individualized standards. I don't know, I'm fine with the laws in my country as they are. Probably because I personally don't think I will ever be very interested in being involved with someone much younger than I am, anyway.

>>7177680
>I don't know if reproductive maturity is an indicator of informed consent, though. I think you also have to take into account the decision-making ability of a minor, and the probability that they will make decisions that will put them in positions of exploitation.

What does informed consent even mean? Nobody has perfectly informed consent. Even a child knows whether it wants something or not. You get sex-ed in schools with 10, I'm absolutely sure that with 14 everyone non-retarded knows what sex implies and whether he/she wants to engage in it with someone else. As for the exploitation, there are already laws against sex-work with minors.

Those are not issues. It is the pathological need of society to pair people up in "same-age" and "opposite-sex" pairs (couples).

>>7177670
>I absolutely agree, but 18 is bullshit, because sexual maturity comes not later than 13. 14 would be a realistic age, it's what biology intended.

Biology doesn't "intend" anything, and if it did, that still wouldn't be a meaningful argument.

>>7177727
Biology intends a lot, and it intends to start reproduction as soon as sexual maturity is reached. That's how tribes in Africa do it, that's how animals do it, and that's how the whole of humanity did it until recently.

And is a perfectly meaningful argument, because that is what we are, products of Evolution, not more, not less.

>>7177736
>Biology intends a lot,

No it doesn't you idiot.

>That's how tribes in Africa do it, that's how animals do it, and that's how the whole of humanity did it until recently.

And you don't think maybe we've improved our situation since then?

>And is a perfectly meaningful argument, because that is what we are, products of Evolution, not more, not less.

No, it's not. It's called the Naturalistic Fallacy, and it has no place on /sci/. It is absolutely not an argument for how things ought to be done.

>>7177736
>Appeal to nature and appeal to tradition

Biology cannot "intend" anything. It's not a person with motivations and intents.

Children are perfectly capable of doing intense manual labour for sixteen hours of the day in factories. We did that during the Industrial Revolution. So, why shouldn't we do it now, if their bodies' morphologies are compatible with it?

>>7177329
i know plenty of people that used to be pretty normal dudes. after a few months of regular blazing they turned into obnoxious '420 smoke erryday xD' faggots.

>>7177800
Because people persecuted for consuming drugs feel a need for camaraderie and spreading their interest to make it more socially accepted, understandably.

>>7177812
>damn, smoking is illegal and people think stoners are retarded. how do we fix this?
>SMOKE WEED ERRYDAY! 420 blaze it faggot! lol snoop dogg is hilarious! wear dreadlocks and rasta fashion! one love!

great idea

>>7177817
I think it achieves all the goals.

>>7177812
well, kind of, but I think most of the people who subscribe to the weed "culture" are just as obnoxious and stupid as people who put Miller Light stickers on their pickup trucks and get tattoos of Marlboro packages.

Or even dumb bitches who talk incessantly about their cats. It's mostly immature people who weren't told to think before they speak.

Most party-types/stoners I meet just have a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth.

>>7177750
Biology, or more accurately Evolution is an algorithm to create life that is capable of reproducing the best. That's the intent of Biology, because that is how the rules are set mathematically. If you find it relevant to argue that Biology isn't a conscious entity, then you are not very intelligent.

I don't see how this has anything to do with "Naturalistic Fallacy". Maybe you should read up terms first before you use them.

Fact of the matter is, our bodies are the same as they were a thousand years ago, or the same as those people in Africa. So arguing we should outlaw things because "time has passed", is the worst argument ever. If you are a sexually mature person, it does not matter what the age of your sexual partner is - the reproductive organs stay the same. Furthermore, if somebody treats you well or not, does not correlate with age. Your entire reasoning is based on village mentality that wants to meddle with other people's lives.

You are right, this entire thread does not belong /sci/. If OP wants to know the effects of drug use on the brain, there are numerous studies, and it is seen as evident that regular drug use "destroys the mind".

>>7177752
>So, why shouldn't we do it now, if their bodies' morphologies are compatible with it?

But they already do! There are plenty of people that work with 14, even today. If you were to outlaw that, it would leave people starving and on the streets. Criminalizing sex is much easier.

Doesn't pot kill off your motivation to do anything while you're on it?

I feel like I would get destroyed at uni if I tried it to manage my depression.

>>7177831
Don't do it, I had a girlfriend who used pot to cure her depression. It absolutely fucked her over at uni.

>>7177824
There are two huge positives that have come from the efforts of the DUDE WEED IS INFALLIBLE crowd:
>research into the antinflammatory, analgesic, and tumor-destroying effects of cannabinoids has been able to begin
>the first dominoes in the war on drugs have fallen
so all is forgiven.

>>7177829
>Evolution is an algorithm

>>7177834
>>Evolution is an algorithm

Kill off what's unfit;
Reproduce and mutate what's fit;
Repeat;

Welcome to /sci/

>>7177832
Does the therapeutic value last after you stop taking it? Like if I tried it over the summer, would the positive effects last into the schoolyear without all the demotivation?

>>7177837
Nope. She had to taken even stronger anti-depressants after she got off the pot.

>>7177839
Well shit.

>>7177610
>>7177635
So you don't have a citation and were just making shit up? That's what I thought.

>>7177844
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=psychedelic+visual+acuity

>>7177849
So you don't have a citation and were just making shit up? That's what I thought.

>>7177857
Do you want to allow studies on the subject?

>>7177829
hey man, sex with 16 year olds sounds pretty cool, but you're coming across as less-than-informed

>I don't see how this has anything to do with "Naturalistic Fallacy"

I don't see how you don't see what he's talking about. Yes, he gave it the wrong name, but you know he's talking about the argumentative use of "appeal to nature" wherein one argues that something is good because it is natural.

You are essentially saying that sex with 14 year olds would be good because it is natural.

There are many issues for your argument.

Here are two big ones:
1) You are assuming that, somehow, what humans did thousands of years ago is "natural"

Given that we are conscious beings capable of self awareness and creating culture, the kind of "nature" you ascribe to humanity is not up to par with our mental complexities.

2) You draw parallels between human sexuality and the sexuality of other animals as if they are analogous. The selection pressures on humans and other animals may be the similar, but our unique adaptations to these pressures have made us into creatures that do not necessarily need to breed at the earliest possibility. Most animal sex is purely for reproductive purposes, but the presence of emotions in humans makes sexual intercourse a very different activity for us.

There is more to sexual readiness than the first sloughing of the uteran lining - the mind continues to develop throughout our lives

>>7177424
Are you that autist who said there were little eyes that helped him watch acid alter their DNA a while back?

>>7177487
>Nobody goes "WHY ARE YOU SO RELIANT ON DRUGS CAN'T YOU DEAL WITH HEADACHES WITHOUT THEM?"
I do

>>7177869
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Genis_Ona/publication/261913441_AEDMP_Bibliography_of_Psilocybin/links/00463535ec0cdacacc000000.pdf

Now why would you make the claim if you think there is no scientific evidence to back it up? Did you forget this is the science board? Do you think I'm stupid and gullible? You realize this is not helping your case at all.

>>7177876
did someone actually say this?

>hurr drown The Maker
>use your Bene Gesserit training to alter chemicals with your own mind

>>7177880
Do you want to allow studies on the subject?

>>7177873
>Human exceptionalism, the post.

>>7177486
Haven't met any retarde new age hippies who haven't tried recreational drugs so on the weight of probabilities I'm going to have to assume that your hypothesis is incorrect.

>there will never be a drug to turn you into a sociable, happy normie

>>7177885
There are numerous studies, including contemporary ones, on the effects of psilocybin. None of them have evidence of increased visual acuity. This is simply a meme created by McKenna, fundamentally misrepresenting the research that existed, and then repeated by his followers. Ironically, you have repeated this mistake in order to defend it. Why?

>>7177882
Yes, in a drug thread a few weeks ago. I hope it was bait but I'm not sure

>>7177899
The thing is, right, that like, if you were the norm, like completely average in every way (because everyone shifted to around your level) then you'd probably be happy as fuck.

>>7177890
>categorizing a post and then leaving it at that

ok, you can call it human exceptionalism

Note that I made no mention of superiority of our species and that I was simply highlighting the difference between humans and other animals for the very specific case of sexual maturity.

But feel free to project whatever you can imagine onto me.

It's only human to do so

>>7177918
>human exceptionalism
You seem to think that human exceptionalism implies superiority, when in fact it only signifies the belief in a categorical difference between us and other animals, which is the only thing that justifies any of the arguments in the post I initially replied to.

I mean, you said that the presence of emotions in humans makes sex different for us. This is retarded; other animals experience emotions, you human exceptionalist asshole.

>>7177535
Okay. I've been around the block and used the major drugs from every class and a bunch of RCs and I feel compelled to confront some of the proponents of psychedelics in this thread.

> people are scared of psychedelic substances because of the potential they hold

Psychedelics don't hold any unique innate potential - they don't have the ability to induce in you any insight you do not naturally possess the ability to articulate.

I will, however, tell you something that psychedelics do possess the ability to invoke, viz. the heightened perception of the ostensibly profound. Spiritual or otherwise.

There is a barrage of chemical action in your brain during the usage of psychedelics, and this conveys greater impact and levity to the thoughts and ideas that you have under the influence, ergo you will impart far more weight and value onto paradigms which possess value quantitatively no greater than paradigms you develop while sober.

The great sense of 'realness' and 'spirituality' observed during these experiences is solely a material, chemical reaction of your body to the stimuli it's been subjected to.

You aren't going to see the double helix. If you were a wanker before you took psychedelics, you're still going to be a wanker on psychedelics. The only problem is that while some wankers gain a certain level of insight and try to correct their wankery, psychedelics will lull you into a false sense of significance and you will think that you aren't a wanker, and will endeavour to find other wankers like you to congregate in great wanking circles. These are called 'music festivals'.

> obviously meth is NOTHING like LSD but ask the average joe and that's what he'd tell you.

What an arbitrary thing to say. There are plenty of things that aren't like other things. I know life-long amphetamine users who are doctors. I've never met a regular psychedelic user who hasn't been drawing social welfare or doing a liberal arts degree.

>>7177899
Heroin.

>>7177926
/thread

>>7177926
>I've never met a regular psychedelic user who hasn't been drawing social welfare or doing a liberal arts degree.
Pure anecdote but I know one who's doing a BSci in physics but that's pretty much the same thing anyway, right?

>>7177930
Why not just go all the way and do bath salts while you're at it?

>>7177836
I don't think you can describe natural processes as "algorithms" any more than you can describe grass as "carpet."

>Rain is an algorithm. Evaporate water when clouds unsaturated, release water when clouds saturated, repeat

>>7177923
>You seem to think that human exceptionalism implies superiority, when in fact it only signifies the belief in a categorical difference between us and other animals

Humans are exceptional.

Every species is exceptional.

That's what makes them distinct species.

>>7177923
>You seem to think that human exceptionalism implies superiority, when in fact it only signifies the belief in a categorical difference between us and other animals, which is the only thing that justifies any of the arguments in the post I initially replied to.
No, that's a complete non-sequitur. If other animals had the intellectual ability to create culture and discuss these issues, they would be having the same conversation. But they don't so they simply do it. Animals also kill and rape naturally, does this mean humans should too? Humans obviously are different from animals in the way we behave. Creating culture and laws is part of that.

LSD and shrooms are good for you.

>tfw its shroom season now

>>7177939
:^) Well meme'd friend.

The two things aren't comparable. Heroin is a specific chemical compound (diacetylmorphine). Bath salts is a preperation that can refer to any number of substances or combinations thereof, principally methcathinones or pyrovalerones, viz. a stimulant.

Moreover, seeing as how opioids and stimulants are separate classes vastly incongruous in their effects, I don't see logically how you can contend that someone will go 'all the way' from heroin to bath salts. If we talking about gradations in potency, heroin to fentanyl or hydromorphone would make more sense.

If we were talking about a gradation in health risk, heroin to alcohol would make more sense. ;^) ;^)

>>7177923
Oh, I see the mis-communication here

I was only stating that we are different from all other animals, not that all other animals are the same.

No two animals are /the same/, which is why the original poster I was replying to made a fallacious argument

i found the mathematical proof for god when i was high, drug = intellect

>>7177941
The laws of a successful society generally subsidise those behaviours which benefit the group and penalise those which harm the group. Those behaviours which harm the group are basically defined as those that make your group less likely to win a war, and those that benefit are those which render your group more likely to win a war. This is necessary because behaviours which benefit individuals (the only ones they are normally liable to pursue) don't always benefit the group, and often actively harm it; so an incentive is needed to encourage behaviour you/everyone want/s.

Anyway, you're clearly a moralfag who identifies strongly with christian notions of good and evil and all that, though probably differing on the specifics. It's cool, I don't mind, but our opinions are quite divergent.

See, you think that there are things one should do and things one shouldn't do, without specifying a goal. To me, should or should not only make sense within the context of a goal, so your understanding is nonsensical imo.

>does this mean humans should [kill and rape] too?
This question to me, in itself, is as meaningful as asking 'is red less than or more than blue?'

use != abuse. abuse destroys brain cells, some of which can grow back over time, but use, especially rare use, will cause minimal/negligible damage. noopept was invented to repair brain damage from alcohol so dog bless russia for having such a depressing society.

>>7177959
>Anyway, you're clearly a moralfag who identifies strongly with christian notions of good and evil and all that, though probably differing on the specifics.
lol you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a moral nihilist.

>See, you think that there are things one should do and things one shouldn't do, without specifying a goal. To me, should or should not only make sense within the context of a goal, so your understanding is nonsensical imo.
What is the goal of following a goal? Implicit in the utilitarian perspective is that the goal, whatever that happens to be, is worthwhile and good. This is no more rational than stating certain moral principles are worthwhile and good.

>>7177970
>utilitarian
>moral nihilist

Pick one, and only one.

>>7177974
moral nihilist

Either you don't understand the meme or you didn't understand my post.

>>7177977
Oh, I must have misunderstood then.

>>7177873
>You are essentially saying that sex with 14 year olds would be good because it is natural.

No, no. The reason I think it is good is because I like younger girls (and some younger girls like me). The reason I think it can't be bad, is because we have many hundreds of thousands of years of "data" that there are no harmful side-effects. There is no logical fallacy in hard facts.

If I allege that human and animal sexuality are analogous, it is because humans and animals are analogous! We are not so different as you think. The social behaviour of gorillas or chimps is very similar to that of humans, it's fascinating. But as mentioned above, we have all the data in the world from humans alone. It's just nice to mention.

>There is more to sexual readiness than the first sloughing of the uteran lining.

No, there's not! That is, if you want a meaningful definition of sexual readiness. Other than that you can set the age arbitrarily, and no age is better than the other.

You people need to realize that sex has no meaning, no purpose, no gravity. It doesn't lead to reproduction anymore, it's just a leisure time physical activity that involves almost no mental complexity. So why on earth, given all the argument I listed, would a sane person want to restrict it? Actually, there is a lot of reason not to restrict it: People who repress their sexuality and live by "the rules of society" end up becoming pedophiles, rapists, molesters, etc. It is usually the uncle who's married for 10 years that ends up molesting his niece, not the cool guy who has a vibrant sex life and fuck 16 year olds.

>>7177986
There are pretty good reasons to restrict sex as well though; more sexual partners increases likelihood of divorce, children of divorce are generally fucked. Also earlier sex leads to less educational success, mostly because you have to prolong adolescence indefinitely to succeed in academic roles and having lots of sex contradicts that.

>>7177986
There's also plenty of evidence that shows children don't have intellectual or emotional maturity and that they can be taken advantage of by predatory adults and harmed. It's fallacious to argue that there is no practical reasoning for why pedophilia is outlawed.

>>7177997
Those arguments are Bible-camp bullshit.

>>7178001
"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger."

14 year olds are not children, they are biological adults.

>>7177986
>there are no harmful side-effects

I'm not understanding how you could know this. How are you defining "harmful" or "side-effect"?

> The social behaviour of gorillas or chimps is very similar to that of humans

But also different enough to recognize that we inhabit totally different mental worlds than they do.

>That is, if you want a meaningful definition of sexual readiness.

I think we're missing some common ground here. My contention is that despite physiological development, not all persons are mentally prepared to have sex without adverse consequences. Not just moral conundrums, but but lifelong psychological "damage".

(Damage here meaning harm to the emotional state and cognitive processes associated with emotions)

You could argue that the real damage comes from the psychological affects of society's moral sensitivities and reactions to large age-gap relationships, but there is an innate fragility to the adolescent mind. This fragility can allow an abusive, older person to betray the trust of a younger person who does not yet have the faculty to make well-guided decisions about sex.

I am not making an axiomatic statement here. I have no doubt that, in past and present, there are 14 year olds, male and female, that would not be irreversibly damaged by sex, but there are many cases where this is not true.

We must also consider that this is not just an argument about sex, but what the implications of a low age of consent are, culturally.

Are you a proponent of:
>arranged marriages
>child brides
>spousal abuse
>the violation of individual liberties?

I know, it seems like I'm jumping to a conclusion here that relies too heavily on morality. However, this is an appeal to the idea of individual rights. Sure, rights are only mental abstractions, but this is also makes humans unique from animals.

>You people need to realize that sex has no meaning, no purpose, no gravity.

Nothing has a purpose. Purpose is a construction of your imagination.

>>7178014
>14 year olds are not children, they are biological adults.
But they aren't even close to being psychological adults, and that's the point.

>>7178019
>Nothing has a purpose. Purpose is a construction of your imagination.

Ok, I got a little heavy-handed with this statement.

But sex certainly has "meaning and purpose" for humans.

>>7177986
>we have many hundreds of thousands of years of "data" that there are no harmful side-effects
that's wrong though.
one of the main parts of psychohistory is how awful we treated the children of society and how it fucked them up

>>7178019
>How are you defining "harmful" or "side-effect"?

harmful: inhibiting normal function
side-effect: unintended effect

>but but lifelong psychological "damage".

No +14yo person has ever experienced psychological damage from consensual sex!

>>7178042
But no 14yo person can consent to sex with an adult so that's meaningless.

>>7178042
They can only consent to someone their own age diddling them.

>>7177595
>smoking pot
>losing weight

>>7177298
There are so many drugs we have access too, legal and illegal, that the vast majority do partake in recreational use of at least one of them, even if it is caffeine. There is evidence supporting that humans were able to take the next step to becoming more than instinctual animals because we started consuming some type of drug. Because drugs effect your mind, they have the ability to "open the door" to new ways of thinking, allowing people to solve problems a different way than they would have before. They become a problem when you depend on them to function properly. You are essentially allowing the drug to secure more space in your limited amount of brain space, taking away resources that could be helping other areas of your brain develop or function. Your mind isn't destroyed, but it is fundamentally altered, and there is no evidence to suggest it can be recovered back to the state it was before prolonged drug use. So if you do drugs, do them only occasionally, and mix up which drugs you use so that you are stimulating different areas of your brain.

>>7178023
>But they aren't even close to being psychological adults, and that's the point.

How do you know that? There are plenty of people who are adults with 14, and those will want to have sex. Those who aren't won't. It's not like anybody is forcing them to get laid.

>>7178041
That's just psychology bla bla. Psychologists like to brand everyone as "fucked up".

>>7178044
>>7178046
>But no 14yo person can consent to sex with an adult so that's meaningless.

This is just uneducated shitposting now.

>>7178054
What the fuck, Spain?

>>7177298
I think that recreational use of weed (and a few harder psychedelics) really helped to expand my mind in ways that I never expected. It led me to certain realizations about the assumptions I carry with me in my day-to-day approach to reality.

But at the same time, it was also important to grow away from weed. I loved the drug, but my interest with it came and went.

I'd recommend becoming a pot-head to everyone, but I wouldn't recommend staying one for very long.

Also, I wouldn't recommend anyone start smoking weed when they are really young. I'd wait until adulthood.

>>7178054
Implying any of the countries with < 15 aren't shitholes nobody would want to live in anyway.

>>7178055
Apparently spain's changing it to 16 soon

>>7178051
You can make children do many things without "forcing" them to. That's the fucking point.

>>7178054
All of those countries have laws that keep adults from having sex with young teens. The age of consent for 13-15 year olds only applies to people of the same age.

>>7178051
>That's just psychology bla bla

Looks like someone had a bad experience with a shrink

I know it's a really fun maymay to call psychology a soft science, but it is a useful tool for categorizing the huge breadth of mental states, processes, and diseases that we can experience

>>7178059
>only applies to people of the same age

The typical age of consent in America is 18 (some places are 16), bu that doesn't mean it's illegal for two 17 year-olds to bone

>>7178065
How does that respond to my post?

>>7177926
>I know life-long amphetamine users who are doctors
literally how?

doesn't long term amphetamine (ab)use induce muscle catabolism? also, what about the neurotoxicity?

>>7178059
>You can make children do many things without "forcing" them to.

Yeah, you're retarded, we already established that.

>All of those countries have laws that keep adults from having sex with young teens. The age of consent for 13-15 year olds only applies to people of the same age.

No it doesn't! I live in Austria so I know it for a fact. 14 is the general age of consent, provided the person is "mentally mature enough". So a 14yo can legally fuck a 30yo. Same goes for all the other countries on the map - it's general age of consent (not close-in-age special case).

>>7177899
Cocaine nigga

enjoy your $100/hour redosing

>>7178071
>No it doesn't! I live in Austria so I know it for a fact. 14 is the general age of consent, provided the person is "mentally mature enough". So a 14yo can legally fuck a 30yo.
Oh, so you do understand that mental maturity is important. Thanks for conceding that. By the way, how many of those 14 year olds are actually mentally mature enough to have sex with 30 year olds?

>>7178065
it's usually still illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws

Consistent weed smoker and occasional hard drug user here. I'm a senior at uni studying chemistry and started smoking pretty regularly during my junior year. My grades haven't suffered since smoking and doing other stuff but my memory has. I feel like I used to remember everything, the fine details of any event or assignment or conversation, now I sometimes walk into the kitchen for a glass of water and forget why I'm there when I get there.

It's fun, but not really worth it, especially if you get too acclimated to the pot. If you're going to smoke regularly, try to limit yourself to certain times or days, i.e. Friday nights only, but that's just my advice.

>>7178077
>By the way, how many of those 14 year olds are actually mentally mature enough to have sex with 30 year olds?

Shitloads. I see pleb tier 14yo sluts getting fucked by 30yo dudes all the time.

Do you know what mental maturity means? That she consents to sex and you don't trick her. Do you know what happens when she isn't sexually mature? You get a fine or a year max.

You live in retarded Burgerland, so you don't understand how relaxed people are with sex in civilized places.

>>7178088
>Do you know what happens when she isn't sexually mature?

*Meant mentally mature.

>>7178090
And i agree. A 14 year old is not mentally mature enough to deal with the emotional changes or the hormonal/dopamine releases.

What this means is that development is retarded and you end up with a fucked up adult.

Now as an adult (theoretically), the rest of you advocating sex with 14 year old girls should know this, you choose to ignore it, a 14 year olds body is NOT mature enough to deal with pregnancy, thus you are all also reckless, imho, paedos should be charged with attempted manslaughter too.

>>7178070
Low to medium dosage doesn't lead to any noticable neurotoxicity in the majority of cases. Meth addicts generally take monstrous dosages because of their tolerances.

On muscle catabolism, it's neglible if you eat and take care of yourself. The doctor I know, I remember in med school I used to be amazed at how he could knock back a full meal while loaded on ritalin and speed. I'd be on a smaller dosage than him and the thought of eating would make my stomach flip. He was just prudent and self-disciplined enough to force himself to eat.

>>7178194
Wow. You sure told him!

Yep. Everyone who didn't take their chances in their teens should know damn well that they'd be crucified (or worse) for being with someone that young.

That would make them much more well functioning adults and not prone to anger issues at all.

>>7177899
>turn yourself into a normie
who the fuck who isn't a normie finds that good a good thing?

as for the happy/sociable part, cannabis works well in the short term, while a good LSD can trip can act like a month worth of therapy. I known some shy, depressed people who have truly opened up vastly after their first experience.
It's not that it makes you happy, rather that it make you ready to be happy.

>>7178194
>And i agree.

What do you agree with you tard? The worst you can get for DECEIVING a 14yo into sex in Austria is a fine or a year - that's nothing, lmao. The laws in Europe are as lax as is gets when it comes to sex with 13/14/15yo.

>A 14 year old is not mentally mature enough to deal with the emotional changes or the hormonal/dopamine releases.

Please don't talk out of your ass.

>a 14 year olds body is NOT mature enough to deal with pregnancy

Tell that to millions of 14yo mothers worldwide.

>paedos

Pedophiles are people attracted to prepubescent children up to the age of 11. Clearly someone who is attracted menstruating WOMEN who are 14yo and above, cannot be a pedophile by any definition.

>>7178087
>I sometimes walk into the kitchen for a glass of water and forget why I'm there when I get there.

I'm 19, never took drugs and I get that too, don't worry I think it's normal.

>>7178255
> implying I can afford any of that when I'm too anti-social to even talk to my family

The fact is that if you're a very experienced drug user (as in, you've taken a wide variety of drugs, including and especially psychedelics, in large amounts) you've pushed the limits of conciousness and experienced things that most people can't even imagine.

It doesn't "destroy the mind". Some (not all) of those drugs might give you temporary brain damage, but you're still a fully functioning human being who can still do difficult mental tasks, so it's not much of a concern.

The only issue is that it changes people, which isn't necessarily bad. Just like if you take a normal human being and make them fight in a war, there's a good chance they won't be the same when they come home. Similarly, if you take a normal human being and give them large doses of LSD, MDMA, 2C-B, an IM injection of ketamine and edible cannabis at the same time, they'll probably never be the same after that experience. Some people become pseudo-intellectual hippies like Terrance McKenna (who was admittedly a smart guy, even though a lot of his ideas were dumb, but most of his followers are insufferable though) others become fucking legendary people like Feynman. It just depends on you.

>>7178070
Have you ever heard of Erdos?

>>7177939
LOAL DA EBIN YOUTUBE BATH SALTS

>>7177573
>no such thing as a "professional drug user"
Yes, there are. They're called addicts. They have a clear, quantifiable, physical and mental reaction to the absence of a compound in their system, which is called withdrawal.

>>7178327
LSD isn't that expensive. And I highly recommend experiencing it at least once in your life. Just make sure that you have some sort of baby sitter while you're high to make sure you don goof. They mainly just change what's on TV and play music for you to experience.

>>7178087
>walk into the kitchen for a glass of water and forget why I'm there
That's a very common occurrence. It has to do with how your brain organizes and associates action and space with memory. Once you enter a new space, the brain adjusts, and you may find yourself forgetting what you wanted to do.

>>7178503
Although there are mind tricks you can do on yourself to overcome that.

>>7177487
intelligent post

>>7178501
>Just make sure that you have some sort of baby sitter
Or just don't be silly; keep the dose low.

Well it makes people jack off endlessly about how it totally opens their mind, dude.

>>7177836
Evolution is not as simple as a Markov process. That algorithm fails to take into account random environmental events and gene flow.

>>7178521
Those cunts are annoying, but it does entail a sort of different mode of experience, somewhat akin to gaining a new perspective on life in your home country by travelling overseas.

>>7178519
Now what's the point of that?

Shrooms basically build new neural networks in your brain.

Terence Kemp McKenna (November 16, 1946 – April 3, 2000) was an American psychonaut, ethnobotanist, lecturer, and author. He spoke and wrote about a variety of subjects, including psychedelic drugs, plant-based entheogens, shamanism, metaphysics, alchemy, language, culture, technology, and the theoretical origins of human consciousness. He was called the "Timothy Leary of the 90s",[1][2] "one of the leading authorities on the ontological foundations of shamanism",[3] and the "intellectual voice of Rave culture".[4]

McKenna formulated a concept about the nature of time based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, which he called novelty theory,[3][5] proposing this predicted the end of time in the year 2012.[5][6][7][8] His promotion of novelty theory and its connection to the Mayan calendar is credited as one of the factors leading to the widespread beliefs about 2012 eschatology.[9] Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience.[10][11]


OH GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS REAL

>>7178973
>Psychonaut
>wrote on alchemy, shamanism theoretical origins of human consciousness
>"intellectual voice of Rave culture"
> formulated a concept about the nature of time based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching
>predicted the end of time in the year 2012

And it only gets worse the deeper you go in the article.

>>7178567
For enjoyment. Not everyone who takes psychedelics wants to become a professional bullshit shaman after having a 3-day psychotic break.

>>7178973
Don't expect a bloke who absolutely hammered the hallucinogens to make sense in trying to describe his ineffable experiences. You might consider yourself le ebin /sci/ rational mind, but - just like anyone else - you'd be questioning your position on the very basics of existence and perception if you had blasted off into DMT space and experienced an environment and thoughts and feelings that seemed much more real and significant than anything you have experienced in reality, only to have the details slip from your mind five minutes later like sand through fingers.

You'd feel the need to share it. You'd feel the need to rave about the profundity and reconcile it with reality somehow.

I wish more psychedelic figureheads were more like Shulgin and less like "shamans".

>>7177298
It depends on many different things.
>Frequency of use.
>Drug of choice.
>Is the user taking any perscription drugs?
>Does the user have a history of mental illness or any preexisting chemical imbalances or health problems?
>Age, weight, sex, other physiological differences.
>Socioeconomic position & living environment.

Your question is way too broad and sweeping to answer. Though generally from my own experiences and from what I've learned about it in college level courses, I'd say yes.

What does /sci/ think about piracetam? Does it work? How are the sideaffects? Is it even legal in the US, and if so, how do you get it?

>>7177487
>Same with creativity or recreation. Sometimes I use drugs to facilitate them, sometimes I don't.
I agree anon. I was a hardcore drug user in my teens. I used alot of pills and harder drugs then. Now my version of a good time is a bottle of wine, 8th of shrooms and a cute girl in a sun dress to dance with at a summer concert.

heroin,meth and other hard drugs should be done in a way like those buildings you hear about that gives the users a room and a hit. it would solve a lot of crime

>>7177502
I agree most people with use rec weed/shrooms use it in a much better way. Booze fucks my shit up more than any of the drugs I use now mostly just smoke a hit or a 8th of boomers. Granted a hit from a pipe will get me high. but most people get black out drunk so faster. I think this is mostly due to how common drinking is in youth sorry I just got off a long 13 hour shift and my english may represent that.

>>7178054
vatican city was 12 until I think 2013.

This is now a nootropics thread.

>>7177298
Yes. Everything has an associated cost.

>>7177513

Effects are often mistaken for "side-effects", getting high does make reality seem different but the effects go away, as long as you ease up before entering psychosis or something youll be fine, most smokers dont experience psychosis at all.
If you cant handle a bit of weed you probably have a predisposition (or youre a pussy)

>>7178905
So does everything you dumb hippy.

>>7177298
I wouldn't say "destroy" but they definitely alter the mind

Drinking and smoking after high school has really made me a happier person, I feel like I have more moxie than at any other time of my life.

I feel dumber, but I think my 3 year vacation from college is more to blame than the modest amount of booze and weed I've consumed

>>7179683
Based Vatican.

>>7177926
>Music festivals are wanker circles for wankers and not festivals for people who goes to enjoy music.
Nice wank bro

>>7177298
Drugs can fuck your brain up, I've seen this happen to close friends several times, but that was mostly because of heavy abuse. There are unique cases where one time use can leave mental scars, but those odds are very small.

I do hard drugs about one time every three months (lsd or mdma). It's a small risk I take, but it's so much fun to dance at a rave while high. I haven't had any mental issues so far.

Does using a motorcycle to commute destroy your life? You'll have a bigger chance to die/get crippled opposed to using other means of travel.

tldr:
>Do recreational drug use destroy the mind?
Sometimes.

>>7180357
Media and especially social media can fuck you up big time too. The problem is that everyone partakes so there is little to none control group. And the control group is in minority so easy to claim to be "quacker" or "conspiretard".

>>7180731
>Media and especially social media can fuck you up big time too.
This has nothing to do with drugs. you can't compare it with someone who's fucked up by drugs. The latter often has problems in their ability to talk, finding a partner, dress properly, finding a job and many more.

If you don't like media, don't watch it like I do. I've got no facebook/twitter/myspace etc. Media is mostly made by reporters, so ofcourse it's subjective since reporters can't document all aspects of certain situations/conflicts. But I don't see how this can fuck you up.

>>7180357
Since when are LSD and MDMA "hard drugs"? I thought the term was reserved for drugs of addiction and drugs with a small therapeutic index.

>>7179878
The body's not a closed system.

>>7180287
>(or youre a pussy)
Great attitude.

>>7179645
>heroin,meth and other hard drugs should be done in a way like those buildings you hear about that gives the users a room and a hit. it would solve a lot of crime
Or just let them buy the drugs affordably (or prescribe maintenance doses) and use them in their own home instead of trying to funnel them into ghettoes.

>>7178049
Formulated better, it would've been a coherent and informed post.
But in the manner you've presented your idea to us, no one can take you for anything else but a junkie.

>>7181166
>Since when are LSD and MDMA "hard drugs"?
In my country they're called hard drugs.

>>7177477
I was smoking weed consistently for about a year and a half, and this started happening to me.
I didn't like it, decided to stop smoking, and honestly I feel better now than I have in a long time.

I feel much more motivated in my life now than I was when I smoked a lot.

I have derealization from smoking weed, and I only did it a few times. I know it sounds stupid but I've considered trying LSD or shrooms because I've heard stories of it curing DR/DP, but I'm afraid it will fuck me up even more.

>>7177394

Samez, albeit I didn't suffer depression. I had pretty bad anger issues, and getting drunk just made it worse. My gf legit said she was scared of me and it made me angry with myself. Sophomore year in college I started smoking dat kush and I must say, I mellowed out. Gf says she likes the new me and I don't get pissed off at the dumbest minute details. I support legalization of cannabis, but just like any other drug, you gotta use in moderation.

I hate the stupid #YOLOSWAG420BLAZEITJESUS culture.

>>7178527
This. It's pretty fucking shameful that so many people on /sci/ still think evolution boils down to survival of the fittest.

>>7177900
Let's wait and see :)

https://walacea.com/campaigns/lsd/

Why are psychedelic drugs often labelled "recreational" drugs in this discussion when they're primarily not recreational drugs? Don't you know what a recreational drug is, /sci/?

Gandalf was sucking on that mad herb his whole life. I'm pretty sure it's not going to kill my brain if I toke the reefer here and there.

>>7177900
>There are numerous studies, including contemporary ones, on the effects of psilocybin. None of them have evidence of increased visual acuity.
>etc.
Why don't you take psychedelics to experience the enhanced visual acuity yourself? Just what is wrong with these people? There won't be studies available on every specific phenomenon associated with the psychedelic experience of all things. Is that a reason to aggressively deny a commonly accepted effect that you'd hear about from anyone who's taken psychedelics?
And it's obvious that McKenna didn't have to gleam it off some paper that psychedelics increase visual acuity, it's not like he didn't see it himself.

>>7182434
Cannabis is fairly "dirty" in its acute and long-term effects and I'd say it's more likely to get paranoid, anxious, etc, while high on it than during psychedelic intoxication.

>>7184984
I have taken mushrooms you asshat. There is nothing magical or vision-enhancing about them. Get over yourself you fucking wacko.

>And it's obvious that McKenna didn't have to gleam it off some paper that psychedelics increase visual acuity, it's not like he didn't see it himself.
Right, it's not like he cited one of the papers I posted as evidence that low doses of psilocybin increases visual acuity, even though the paper doesn't actually say that. Oh wait he did do that in order to support his retarded stoned ape hypothesis. The only reason people repeat this is because of McKenna lying about it. If it actually did increase visual acuity this would be mentioned in all those papers listing the reported effects of psilocybin.

>>7177900
Which of these studies tested visual acuity?

Taking psychedelics and nonpsychedelic phenethylamines and no longer needing your glasses to see distant objects (for the duration of the drug's effect) is not uncommon.

Most of these compounds have vascular effects, usually vasoconstriction. Is it so far-fetched that they may affect intraocular pressure in various ways too?

>>7184995
They don't increase pattern recognition either, right?

>>7177900
Whilst it may not strictly be "visual acuity", when I tried LSD the input of light became more raw. There was a time lag between me moving and observing the outcome. I could notice the way we only focus on a small proportion of our vision with extreme clarity and everything around this appeared to be unstable. I'm a very introverted person, so my thoughts are mainly inward based; after taking LSD, there was an extreme acuteness and clearness to my perception of the external world.

The way our brains process vision is already carried out via chemical and electrical signals, so why would it be illogical for another chemical substance to potentially improve the process?

There are so many variables to this that you might as well rephrase the question entirely. The only drug I've ever used recreationally is marijuana and it certainly did not negatively affect my academic pursuit and I even managed to pass suma cum laude with some incredibly hard work on my part.

Had to give a speech and everything which was mighty embarrassing to say the least.

>>7184995
>implying the experience isn't subjective

>>7182434
I found modest doses of LSD to dim DR permanently. High doses would probably go in the opposite direction, though I don't really know

>>7178501
>Just make sure that you have some sort of baby sitter while you're high to make sure you don goof. They mainly just change what's on TV and play music for you to experience.
Is this a joke? I hope it is.

>>7184999
>Which of these studies tested visual acuity?
Which of these studies tested for the ability to fly? There's no evidence for it increasing visual acuity despite numerous studies on its effects. Deal with it.

>Taking psychedelics and nonpsychedelic phenethylamines and no longer needing your glasses to see distant objects (for the duration of the drug's effect) is not uncommon.
If it's not uncommon why isn't it reported? (except by people on the internet who are just repeating memes started by McKenna).

>>7185001
Irrelevant

>>7185002
>Whilst it may not strictly be "visual acuity", when I tried LSD the input of light became more raw. There was a time lag between me moving and observing the outcome. I could notice the way we only focus on a small proportion of our vision with extreme clarity and everything around this appeared to be unstable. I'm a very introverted person, so my thoughts are mainly inward based; after taking LSD, there was an extreme acuteness and clearness to my perception of the external world.
Hallucinogens tend to make your perceptions seem much more profound than they actually are, which is one reason why there are so many people who treat it as a religious experience.

>>7185005
If it's so subjective, how would does the hypothesis that psilocybin's effects influenced evolution work?

>>7185022
>how would does the hypothesis that psilocybin's effects influenced evolution work
kek, strawman much. I wasn't even the one that suggested this.

>>7185022
>If it's not uncommon why isn't it reported?
It when people relate their subjective experiences.

The reason you haven't found it in the paper you've thrown around is that none of the subjects commented on it, because perhaps they didn't notice such a phenomenon. That does not mean it does not and cannot happen to anyone.

Only on /sci/ would you find someone telling others that their subjective experiences with some of the most subjective and unpredictable substances on earth doesn't count at all because none of the precious few studies on those substances mentions it.

I wasn't even aware of McKenna claiming increased visual acuity while on psychedelics, by the way.

>>7185022
>Hallucinogens tend to make your perceptions seem much more profound

Have you ever taken any form of psychedelic drug? Whilst I know they can cause stuff to seem more profound, that's not a valid reason to completely disregard every part of the experience.

The general consensus is that psychedelics can allow you to experience more introspective thinking.

>>7185051

>The general consensus is that psychedelics can allow you to experience more introspective thinking.

The problem with this is that it CAN allow, not that it will.. There are too many drawbacks with hallucinogens for people not stable enough to handle the change in perception.

Does anyone have any insight on a substance with similar effects, but no visual hallucinogenic effects?

Use of Psycadelics is good imo because the changes in how you experience the world for a short period of time kinda are a catylist for evaluating your life

The same thing happens on an overseas trip, you see things from a different perspective and it allows you to think about what you want to change in your life or if you are really happy with everything thats happening when youre back home. It breaks the rutine

>>7177487
agreed anon

>>7185074
But it's entirely dependent on the thought processes that you have yourself.

It's not some DVD that you can insert into your brain that gives a universal experience.

>>7185074
>for people not stable enough to handle the change in perception.
I would think the psychological effects would be what's primarily too much to handle for some people.

>>7177926
I agree with most of what you're saying other than the last part. I use Magic Mushrooms and Weed fairly regularly along with Peyote and occasionally LSD. I am not a liberal arts major (double majoring in Mathematical Finance and Physics with a specialization in Particle Physics) and go to a reputable university (University of Chicago)

>>7185074
It seems like you are inexperienced and are way overestimating the visual hallucinations associated with psychedelics.

There are some weird research chemicals that give you visuals at a low dose, and shrooms can get visually pretty intense.

But LSD has little to no visual hallucinations at a normal 1-2 tab dose, colors will look prettier, you might notice faces or patterns on things, but you won't be seeing fractals, the walls won't be melting, and you certainly won't be hallucinating a dancing pink elephant or whatever ridiculous stupid shit they portray in media depictions of drug trips. Yes, high doses of acid cause some pretty intense visual hallucinations but at that level of dosage you generally have more important things going on, like going through a complete ego death, which is some really intense mindfuckery that most people probably can't handle, in contrast to the empathy and expanded perception you get with a more moderate dose.

Ketamine is a bit different as it's a dissociative psychedelic but it has no visual hallucinations, unless you count tracers which are really completely different.

Even with shrooms, though, a small 1.5-2g dose of shrooms is enough to get you really trippy and introspective without triggering visual hallucinations at all.

Visual hallucinogenic effects of psychedelics are typically only associated with very high doses that only experienced trippers are interested in taking, their frequency and association with drug trips in general is way overblown, if you're a non-drug-user just looking to expand your mind they shouldn't even be a consideration. Well...unless you do salvia, fuck that shit.

>>7185159
correct

>>7185159
>regretamine

I did a fat line of ket, then smoked a bong. That was the strangest experience and I don't recommend it.

from my personal experience, if you have no motivation for life, drugs will amp that lack of motivation to go to certain extremes. if you're a lazy depressed person only willing to be happy, doing drugs won't help in the long run. it does get you the immediate high (and therefore happiness due to endorphins), but it doesn't solve whatever it was that was causing the depression or anxiety in the first place. in other words you need to deal with shit.
basically I use drugs to help me meditate things out. they help me be mindful and not spiral down into things that aren't that important in the long run. I could cry for hours, but getting high stops me from doing that and getting some work done.

>>7185215
regretabis

>>7185159
One of the few correct posts in this thread. I am seriously dissapointed by the lack of knowledge considering psychedelics portrayed by most of the posters in this thread.

>>7185015
>wondering why it's a good idea to keep a sober person around you when your ability to distinguish your imagination from reality is gone.

I don't care how self aware you think you are. If you're tripping absolute balls and you unknowingly find something sharp, you're going to hurt yourself. You are as careful as an infant after a certain point, it's generally a good idea unless you are outside and know how your body will react.

>>7185303
For me personally I would have appreciated some experienced user when I tripped for the first time last weekend. I could think clearly and knew very well what is real and what not, but I needed somebody to help me through the psychological events - losing sense of myself, derealization, ego death etc. I handled it pretty well and am a much better person for it now, but it would have helped definitely to have somebody around.

>>7185303
>They mainly just change what's on TV and play music for you to experience.
This was actually the part I was primarily referring to. Why would anyone watch TV during a psychedelic experience?

>>7185028
Then why are you butting into the conversation about it?

>The reason you haven't found it in the paper you've thrown around is that none of the subjects commented on it, because perhaps they didn't notice such a phenomenon. That does not mean it does not and cannot happen to anyone.
I didn't post one paper I posted every single paper on psilocybin ever published. Not one mention of visual acuity increasing. Isn't that odd? That would obviously be of interest to anyone studying psilocybin.

>I wasn't even aware of McKenna claiming increased visual acuity while on psychedelics, by the way.
Then why are you in this conversation?

>Have you ever taken any form of psychedelic drug?
Yes.

>The general consensus is that psychedelics can allow you to experience more introspective thinking.
you know what also allows you to experience introspective thinking? Introspective thinking. Try it some time. Hallucinogens do not "unlock" anything deeper than weird sensory perceptions and a false sense of profundity. Everything else is already there.

>learn several programming languages
>think I'm hot shit
>assembly teacher says if we don't have these big 3, we're shit:
>data structures
>systems programming
>discrete math
>don't even know what discrete math is
>only just started taking assembly aka 1st leg of systems programming coursework
>realize I'm hot shit, minus the hot
Cool I'm worthless

>>7185411
>i think i know everything but i actually know nothing

>>7185411
lol, yep just think hard enough thats the same as ego death

>>7185411
>Hallucinogens do not "unlock" anything deeper than weird sensory perceptions and a false sense of profundity. Everything else is already there.
I'm sure this is true to some extent at least when compared to how it is among many - there are multitudes of people who do fly on tangents of unreasonable thinking when exposed to psychedelic states. Again, it should be taken into account that those people can't have been all that rational to begin with. An actually rational person just won't just start believing in irrational things and if he/she does, there is some notable underlying cause either in the environment or mental health.
An intelligent person can also gain exponentially more worth from the psychedelic experience. For example, a mathematician observing many of the phenomena present during psychedelic states would know to see vastly more in what is happening perceptually than would someone who's not acquainted with even the (basic) concepts of (differential) geometry, topology, complex dynamics and fractal geometry. Actually, up to quite a degree, knowledge of the formalities of mathematics isn't even required for instant intuition to how some of the apparent concepts work - acutely, for any person, a strong enough psychedelic experience will induce such strong experiences of types of geometry that simply observing the phenomena at that time can seem just as intuitive as normal perception. We don't need to know (formal) descriptions of things we normally observe in order to understand their nature and the same applies to the psychedelic experience. Sadly, direct intuition to fractal geometry is lost when the experience wears off because no fractal geometry is being rendered anymore. Someone who already knows the concepts would be better off and would be able to gain more insight into them.
Out of the sciences, mathematics definitely has the easiest way to insights through psychedelia because it has lesser restrictions in what to describe.

>>7185443
hahaha, I was about to post something similar

>>7185411
Long story short, everyone has different experiences. Psychadelics can be incredibly therapeutic in that they can allow people to experience themselves in completely different ways.

>>7185443
Did you ever try?

>>7185411
>Then why are you in this conversation?
Because I've been in the conversation from the start. Because I have experienced increased visual acuity on each of LSD, MDMA, and 25I-NBOMe. I also experienced worse vision while on 25I-NBOMe early on. I put these effects down to a large change in heart rate at rest and vascular dilation & constriction, which affects intraocular pressure.

>you know what also...
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make now. Psychedelics have no effect?

>>7185443
It's entirely possible, though.

Bump.

>>7177298
webm related is obviously drug induced

i'd put my money on diphenhydramine as well

>>7185977
And?

>>7185977
It's actually salvia. It's on youtube I'm pretty sure.

As for what drugs do.. They provide you a different perspective on normal experience by providing contrast. Sort of like if you temporarily could see a new colour or something idk.

>>7186046
it was open to interpretation but if you decide you want to this could happen

>>7186212
What?

>>7177298
>Do recreational drug use destroy the mind?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you are asking if recreational drug use can irreversibly alter your brain's function.

For almost all drugs I can think of, the answer is no.

Most drugs mostly or only affect the CNS, most often acting as an agonist on some types of receptors located on neurons. The more of a specific type of drug you use, the less sensitive the receptors will become. In addition, the neurons will down-regulate the expression of said receptors so that fewer of those receptor types are available at the plasma membrane.

Both these phenomena will occur with heavy and long-time use. When you stop taking the drug, the neurons will slowly revert to their former conformation, with the same sensitivity and the same amount of receptors expressed on the plasma membrane.

There are some exceptions to this rule:

You may ingest too much of a drug, leading to an overdose. An overdose may cause neurons responsible for breathing and keeping the heart pumping to malfunction. You may also damage your liver and kidneys to various degrees, the liver especially due to toxic metabolite products from the breakdown of the drug.

You can also come across some really fucking dangerous drugs like krokodil, which will basically cause muscle necrosis, colloquially described as your meat rotting and sloughing off your bones.

A very small subgroup of the human population lack the enzymes necessary to metabolize MDMA (main ecstasy ingredient), and if you lack this enzyme your liver will be fucked.

Lastly, some people with defective CNS development, such as people who are prone to developing various mental illnesses, e.g. schizophrenia, are advised not to ingest any recreational drugs, as this may hasten the development of various mental conditions.

TL;DR: No, not if you don't OD, don't take really stupid drugs and aren't prone to developing mental illnesses.

>>7185159
champion post.
I love how you mentioned the research chemicals. 2c drugs should be avoided at all costs, literally DP/DR the drug. especially 2cp and 2ci

>>7186507
>2c drugs should be avoided at all costs
I think you're thinking of 25x-NBOMEs. There's nothing particularly off about most of the 2Cx series' drugs.

>>7186345
>You can also come across some really fucking dangerous drugs like krokodil
It's the impurities that make it so dangerous. The formulation you find in prescription desomorphine pills is extremely dangerous for IV administration. Strike another one up for drug prohibition.

>>7186507
>>7186695
I find them both lovely and I find derealization (let alone depersonalization) unbearable.

Maybe 2C-P and 2C-I do tend to cause DR. I don't know, I've never tried those ones.

>>7177535
Alcohol shouldn't be taken as a reference.

We have been brewing alcoholic beverages for literal centuries it's a cultural thing if alcohol and everything referring to it vanished one day nobody would ever go back to that shit, alcohol isn't even that good as a recreational drug.

Hangovers, liver damage, cost (both monetary and preparation), seriously there are dozens of better things out there

>>7178059
>All of those countries have laws that keep adults from having sex with young teens

No, or at least Spain doesn't.

What we do have are laws keeping persons with influence from having sex with young teens, if you have anything close to an authority relative to that teen then it's a no-go

For example, teachers or parents of friends.

I think siblings of friends are ok though, but don't quote me on that.

>>7186807
I don't understand what you're saying.

>>7177831

you need to have motivation before smoking pot or it will fuck you

>>7177832

your girlfriend was lazy before the fact and had no self control if pot is what fucked her over

Yes, go on, /sci/

Yes. It can and will destroy your brain and intelligence. Stop it and reverse the damage before it's too late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSnU_LKi5vs

>>7177298
Judging from your post OP, it seems so.

>>7177424

I used to smoke weed erryday, drop pills, eat lots of mushrooms, all over the course of about 3 years of solid drug use.

I can say without a doubt that its made me alot dumber, my mind just isn't as sharp as it used to be. I can still manage but i definately notice the difference. I've also become very forgetful about everyday things.

I also drink myself to oblivion every weekend so that probably compunds the problem, I dont use drugs anymore but i still drink, oh well what can ya do

>>7188920
I bet it's the drink making you stupid. Also, you didn't even say what was in the pills.

>>7188941
This. And yes, that person is clearly stupid.

>>7188920
you should take better care of yourself anon-kun

>>7188920
>I dont use drugs anymore but i still drink
>I dont use drugs anymore but i still use drugs

>>7189580
'drug' means dry, and alc is liquid

Some science by Dan Winter, PhD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2FZxbfF32s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPLGN0yIDTg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dy-C4yxkr0

>>7189622
no

>>7177722

the reason for informed consent laws that protect adolescents from mature adults is a bit complex.

1. neurological rewiring begins in adolescence and transforms child brains into adult brains over a messy 5-6 year period. because they're plastic and volatile, it's very easy for teens to be molded into having the attributes that an adult wants. (see: "grooming", pedophilia). it's clearly against the best interests of the teenager to get suckered into being sexually open, because being a sexy fucktoy is only a profitable life scheme for as long as their good looks and health last. what are they supposed to do when their 45 year old partner gets bored, stops spending money on them, and finds a new 15 year old?

2. according to OKCupid stats, men of all age groups will rate 16-20 year old women as the most appealing. however, women are almost exclusively attracted to their own age group. if it's not flat out illegal for every sexually potent male to compete for the right to fuck female adolescents, then the oldest and wealthiest men win the 16 year olds because they have the most resources to offer, not because the teen girls are genuinely attracted to them. 20+ women are considered fair game because by that point women are done with puberty and aren't susceptible to grooming (unless they have a history of abuse). old men are not the best mating partners from a genetic or biological perspective, but they have the resources to cheat the system and persuade females to mate with them regardless. preventing them from doing this is in the best interests of our species, as well as the personal interests of every younger male.

>>7189622
So if I dissolve my mescaline in tea, it's not a drug? If I inject my heroin, it's not a drug? if I drink my coffee it's not a drug?

>>7185395
one of the main things that makes LSD enjoyable is that in suppresses your brain's ability to rationalize if something is a big deal or not because it happened to you before.

to get back to the kid analogy, remember when you were younger? getting something like an ice cream felt like literally the best thing ever because you had nothing else to compare it to, while a jump scare from a guy wearing a silly mask could make you shit yourself.

It's the same on LSD. you enjoy the little things far more with almost childlike innocence, while uncomfortable environments can generate a "bad trip" because your brain can't rationalize that you aren't really in true danger.

>>7190152
Lol implying rich males of any age group don't get the most attention on okcupid-esque sites. It's as categorical as men rating 16-20 year old women as most attractive. Where are all the laws outlawing rich (desirable) men from the dating pool?

>>7189622
You know that when people smoke meth, it melts into a liquid and people inhale the vapours that comes from heating the liquid? When cooled, the puddle freezes back into a solid and you can judge the purity of meth based on the symmetry or "crackback" pattern of the crystals.

So is meth not a drug now?

>>7177298
>>7177424
>The psychedelic experience is a doorway which leads to a hallway which leads to only what you want to find within your self.

Had DP/DR for four months. Before that for a half a year.

It is the most terrible thing I experienced. Did not know the human mind was capable of such suffering.

Feynman used hallucinogens all the time and it didn't seem like he lost any edge. He was cautious of course, but that kinda goes without saying.

>DP/DR is bad

Isn't that the whole point of high dosages you flaming fags? Learn your psychedelics

>>7190542
How is partly wasting the experience on TV related to what you're saying? People need to have the TV on to be comfortable and avoid a "bad trip"? I think the "bad trip" might show those people some useful things.

>>7177298
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvcRF-6Eh0A

>>7191384
Ego death is different from depersonalization.

It's kind of the opposite, really. Ego death is the death of your ego so all that's left is an innocent consciousness free of identity or animal or rational desires that simply lives and perceives and <span class="math">feels.[/spoiler] Depersonalization involves a lack of feeling, it's more related to the sense that you're going through the motions of your life without truly emotionally feeling anything, like you're motivated purely by animal need for comfort and what meaningless rational concern you have for your own well being. Almost as if your sense of self is erased, and all that's left is your ego.

And AFAIK depersonalization is not really associated with the big three psychedelics (LSD/DMT/shrooms). Just too much weed, fucking around with research chemicals or, in my own experience, shitty drugs like DXM. You might end up stuck with it if you go way overboard with your dose but it is certainly not the intent.

>>7192131
Watching TV while tripping can actually be insanely useful for self-reflection and improvement. So long as the show or movie has some sort of moral to it or compelling plot, that is. I'm not talking super deep shows either, South Park episodes have helped me realize some really deep stuff while tripping, an episode of Boondocks during a shroom trip seriously changed my life. Just, there has to be some kind of a point to it, there is a difference between silly entertainment with some meaning to it, and stupid mindless shit to entertain the plebs like most of the shit on TV.

>>7192168
>Depersonalization involves a lack of feeling
I don't really agree with that. This is how I always put it:

In derealization it is as if an invisible barrier has been put between you and your environment, making it seem unreal and detached.
In depersonalization it is as if an invisible barrier has been put between you and your actions and memories (and identity), making them seem unreal and detached.
They tie together in a dysphoric, dreamlike way and can be hard to tell apart.

>>7192131
well yes and no.
If you don't prep right before had and have no idea how your body reacts, things can hit the fan real fast.
your emotions are also extremely impressionable to others you observe (part of the ego death effect). You don't want to get stuck watching something about negative things or you will become extreme shaken by it.

As for a bad trip being a good thing, that's all a matter of perspective. Most trips (good or bad) where you are allowed stimulus are insightful. It's good to have someone who can provide stimuli to you, and having it be a pleasant experience doesn't hurt either.

>>7185290
Source of pic?

>>7177394

Cannibis is a depressent. It isn't what got you out of depression. this is /sci/ don't present your opinions as fact.

>>7192539
You perfectly described how caffeine makes me feel. I wonder if a portion of DR/DP people get it from coffee without any clue.

>>7193048
>implicating that cannabis isn't just as much of a stimulant as it is a depressant

>>7193048

Are you implying that depressants cause depression?

>>7193268
The word you're looking for is
"implying". And yes, I am. Cannibis can only be a stimulant in large doses and even then it's miniscule and the depressant side will always be greater.

>>7193269
No.

Just that they do not work as an anti depressant.

The bloke I replied to may well have had depression, and may well have got out of it during his time of use of the drug. The drug however, is highly unlikely to have done this for him.

>>7193290
i remember reading on wikipedia about a fallacy where people would look at similarities in the sounds of words and then form an argument that relied on the meanings of the words also being similar

at the time i thought "wow there's no way anyone would be that dumb" but i see now that i was wrong

>>7185159
What do you mean by a 1-2 tab dose then?
Cause I've definitely seen 'holograms' of people on a 1.5 tab dose of lsd which were completely imagined.
Also morphing of objects into faces and general repeating pattern overlays in my vision.

Rather than saying people overestimate the visual aspect, I would argue that they underestimate the headspace.
But to say acid is not visual is kinda stupid.

>>7177298
Heavy long term marijuana abuse in my early teens dramatically destroyed my brain and reduced its capacity/output.
It has taken me many years to slowly build it all back up including concentration, memory, emotion, and just about everything else. But I have only got about 75% of my former brain power and I will probably never get the last quarter back.
I probably had some genetic predisposition to psychosis and what not but anybody could and not know it.

>>7190152
>preventing them from doing this is in the best interests of our species

why?
why do you think the genes of random young dudes are more worth passing on than the genes of accomplished and successful rich old dudes?

>>7193293

Concentrating on something irrelevant to an argument won't make your contention correct.

>>7193064
Yep, I also get it from caffeine.

>>7192539

I sometimes wake up and feel like Im not the person whose body im in, i cant identify that my wife is in fact the person next to me, or that life itself is possible. Its such an awful experience, and leaves me in a depressed state for a few hours.

Is this something similar? What can cause it? Ive never done illegal drugs before.

>>7177424
Do not try 5-MeO-DMT. There is nothing for you in there. The words 'intense compared to n,n-DMT' simply do not put it into perspective. Read this as it pretty much describes what's going to happen;

https://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=18198

>>7193290
>Cannibis can only be a stimulant in large doses and even then it's miniscule and the depressant side will always be greater.
You're wrong/"trolling"/both.
It depends entirely on how the individual's brain reacts to it. I get almost exclusively stimulating effects from cannabis and I use fairly small doses. Larger doses do this also. You're full of shit.

>>7193350
>why do you think the genes of random young dudes are more worth passing on than the genes of accomplished and successful rich old dudes?
its true, of course it isnt the same kind of drastic drop off as with women but male fertility declines with age as well.

>>7193448
Are you saying the effects of a psychedelic drug are going to be largely the same for different individuals in different environments?
Are you serious?

>>7193473
This is the most intense hallucinogenic drug in the world we're talking about here. If you read through most Erowid trip reports, they're dressed up in different manners but all describe an incomprehensibly overwhelming intensity which can not be controlled.

>>7193463

Do a quick google and check out wikipedia in regards to how cannibis works. From that you will see that your thoughts are those of the minority.

Once you've done that, go to google scholar and find some peer reviewed literature supporting your claims and report back.

Peoples brains are not different. We are all disgustingly similar. How chemicals effect the human brain are EXACTLY the same. Yes people have small variations, tollerances etc. But no one can change physical chemistry.

If you want to take drugs, go for it. Just stop trying to convince the rest of the populace to justify your habit a long with you.

Tldr: gtfo /sci/ence potheads

>>7193481
>all describe an incomprehensibly overwhelming intensity which can not be controlled.
Why are you advising against inducing such an experience?

>>7193484
What am I "justifying"? Are you deliberately trying to cause aggravation here?
And yes I'm in the minority with my stimulated cannabis experiences. Yes, experiences, not "thoughts". I don't need to refer to peer-reviewed studies, if I'm being stimulated then I am being stimulated. A situation where I'm only thinking I'm stimulated albeit actually being lethargic from depressant effects is laughable, are you seriously hinting it's like that?

>>7193485
Because it's not the same as being in an inescapable pyramid of colours like LSD, it's not the same as a breakthrough or even entering the void on n,n-DMT. Read the 25/30mg dosage reports written in TiHKAL:

https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal38.shtml

I'm just advising against having this experience, which is just too true for everyone I've known to try it;

"It is a complete annihalation of self, of any relevance. Its like having your brain wiped clean, and being left with only a vague memory of who you are/were"

>>7193438
That's it, yeah.

>>7193481
>This is the most intense hallucinogenic drug in the world
No it isn't.

>>7193497
>It is a complete annihalation of self, of any relevance. Its like having your brain wiped clean, and being left with only a vague memory of who you are/were
So it's mild compared to salvia divinorum. Sounds somewhat minor compared to a DMT breakthrough as well.

>>7193496

I'm not doubting your interpretation or experiences. Chemically, it's a depressant. The fact that you are unwilling to study or look further into your beliefs makes me wonder why you're in this board.

For some reason (now my beliefs / experiences are coming into it), any thread that mentions drugs has stoners coming to it like moths to a flame in order to declare their love for this wonderous drug.

Thats it for me. I leave this thread with a recommendation that anyone unaware of how drugs work chemically, to research via proper literature. Do not just participate in think tank conversations.

>>7193506
Enlighten me.

>>7193514
>Chemically, it's a depressant.
No drug is solely a depressant even if it's classified as such. Drugs aren't that black-and-white in how they work.
I never doubted that cannabis is a depressant. It's just that it doesn't display notable depressant effects for everyone and can actually cause stimulation.

>>7193514
>Chemically, it's a depressant.
No it's not; it's cannabinoids, which have effects ranging from stimulant to depressant to analgesic to anti-inflammatory to pychotomimetic to neuroprotective, sometimes all in the same compound.

>I leave this thread with a recommendation that anyone unaware of how drugs work chemically, to research via proper literature.
Says the chap who claimed that depressants cause depression.
>n-no I didn't!
Yes you did, in your first post.

>>7177298
yes
source: experience

>>7193552
Which drugs did you take? How did they affect you in the long term?

>>7193826
dissociatives, mid-high doses, once a week for... fuck if I know

cardio went to shit
muscles are twitchy
short term memory is horrible
depression and general lack of emotional stability
my speaking pattern is weird, sometimes feels like my tongue slips like when you're drunk, when writing I forget letters and fuck up those last syllables, whatever this shit is called in english

and overall, I don't feel so sharp and clever, it's really fucking depressing
I fucking struggle with calculus even though I didn't use to

and I'm afraid no amount of nootropics, diet, exercise and sobriety is going to fix this

>>7193858
>dissociatives, mid-high doses, once a week for... fuck if I know
Why did you do that to yourself? Were you incredibly bored?

>>7193484
>How chemicals effect the human brain are EXACTLY the same.
If that were the case, schizophrenia wouldn't exist and neither would the medication to treat it.

>>7193858
>and I'm afraid no amount of nootropics, diet, exercise and sobriety is going to fix this
Don't be afraid of that. Damage by dissociatives isn't usually permanent. You used them once a week, some people have used them with much higher frequency for long periods of time and have still restored over time.

>>7193858
Which dissociatives?

>>7177535
>>7177487
man this is my first time on /sci/ and it seems like a quality discussion board

>>7194681
used them for spiritual purposes, but it quickly spiraled out of control and I found myself doing it every week out of boredom
>>7194840
time will tell I guess
>>7194871
DXM and MXE mostly

You'll have a shitty personality when you get old. Probably.

>>7196041
When old, why?