im currently having a great time, its been a wonderful ride.

"the key is to make sure such experimentation doesnt extend too deep or long and is done in a safe manner"

Oh is that all. Well. This week on How to Do It...

i think everyone should try cannabis once and some sort of hallucinogen once. its an amazing feeling.

I think everyone should take nasal snuff once.

So, Hamilton, let's have the de-brief. What was it like? What did you experience? Was the come-down ok? How do you feel now?

(Oh sorry I misread the times on his posts - he's probably still under the influence of the drug) Sorry. Tell us later.

I think everyone should do a line of cocaine, smoke crack, and shoot up heroine all at the same time once.

Thanks, I'll pass on any drugs. I don't even get drunk. Why would I want to kill braincells on pot or fuck up my perception of reality and risk flashbacks from LSD. To fucking stupid.

Yeah. I'm with Draug. I don't even drink. And I'm in college, lol.

I drink. The occassional vodka martini, single malt scotch, Curacao martini, Cosmopolitan, Sea Breeze, or Corona are great with a meal or a relaxing pipe or cigar, but never to excess. In my entire life, I have never had an illicit drug, or drunk underage. I've been drunk twice: on my 21st birthday and after a particularly rough 360/370 Assembly language final.

I keep my vices simple: women, fast cars, and poker. And you need your wits about you to handle all three.

@sayjo...

Perhaps you can let us know just how successful you have been in your career then?

As for broad spectrum of users? I certainly do know (did in some cases by now). I am rather older than most on here, have lived half a life out in the Far East and been connected with education the whole time - London and HK. I can count my own students in the thousands and have, obviously, been in contact with a good number I did not teach as well. And that's just the students. I know of not one who became a roaring success or fulfilled his/her potential after doing halucinogenics.

I do know a few who boasted of their tolerance and self control. They called me sad. Now? Well, some of them can't call anyone anything now.

@draugnar -the women dont cause you to drink to excess or do drugs?:p

i would love to try LSD. I hope it causes the effects shown in the "Altered States" movie but i strongly doubt it. I don't really think you can find LSD anywhere anymore. Maybe Draugnar can send some. I'm sure it will enhance my performance in TGM Master's Trophy.

@flashman what about all the great bands which if we are being honest would not have been half as good if they didnt take drugs. Drugs helped them to fulfil their potential

@hellalt: You're getting better at trolling. Keep up the (good?) work.

@Flashman - I am a single father who is 23 and still in school, so relative to my age I am exceedingly successful. I am gaining liscensure in the field of Sign Language Interpreting and my daughter who is only 3 has a vocabulary that far exceeds 8 years olds I meet on regular occasion.

Success is relative you old sob ^_^ Who are you to judge an individual's level of success, happiness is the only goal in life, not money, fame, or ego.

Who is to say the ones who didn't give a shit about you and didn't contact you made something of themselves but find it more comfortable to keep out of the circle you associate with, friends, media, and all. Also, regarding the students who did keep contact, you have no way of knowing if they every did a "hallucinogen"

You seem to be insinuating a hallucinogen causes lifetime degeneration. It makes me think of the old people who see youngesters and think, oh what is the world coming to. While yes it changes and not always for the "better" (it's all relative now isn't it) as a society we are always advancing so silly old people who are grasping to the life they had and fear death can roll over and rot.

*disclaimer - I love you all and never have malicious intent, language and communication are my passion and while I make it awkward it is all with the intent of enjoyment.

It wasn't what I expected at all. I spent most of the time in a kind of euphoric state, and I apparently spent a lot of time writhing in joy. I didn't have visions or anything like that, which was a disappointment, but I did have a great time.

@ Hamilton - the type of Hallucinations you were looking for isn't in LSD. Salvia will will you conscious hallucinations, mescaline will give you very fun visual excitement, nutmeg will actually give you auditory and visuals a lot more like LSD is portrayed, most others are just sensation toys.

I'm glad you had a good time ^_^

Hamilton, sorry I couldn't be here before you tried it, but I've just moved into my apartment and don't have internet. I'm in a cafe every day. =)

Sounds like you had a good time, and the fun thing about hallucinogenics is that you never really get what you expect unless you've become a regular user. It doesn't sound like you took a very large dose if you didn't really get visions, but setting also has a lot to do with it. You're much more likely to get visions if you're chilling out in a dark room listening to music than if you're going for a walk. Otherwise, it's good to feel it out sometimes.

I haven't actually tried LSD before, but I'm aiming to sometime this year. I've done magic mushrooms a couple of times, and Salvia a few times, and I've been told that LSD is similar in effect to magic mushrooms. I actually recommend that many of you try LSD or magic mushrooms at least once in your life, because it really is an eye-opening experience. My first time certainly stayed with me as one of the most positive and intense experiences of my life. You don't really understand how subjective your perception is until you've had it blown out of the water or how arbitrary the meaning humans place on everything until you've had it all stripped away. Some people claim they know... but it's like trying to explain the colour orange to someone who's never seen it before.

Hallucinogenics are certainly not for everyone, and I would highly discourage it's use if you have a family history of mental illness, but otherwise, most are incredibly physically safe... you cannot overdose on LSD or magic mushrooms. There's no possibility of physical dependency, and though I've heard a couple outliers of psychological dependency, hallucinogenics aren't really necessarily a "fun" drug. You can't really use them to escape any problems you have in reality. If you go in with a bad mindset and the idea that a hallucinogenic will make you feel better, you're in for a shatteringly terrible experience. This is why compared to more fun drugs like cocaine or ecstasy there's not nearly as much potential for psychological dependency, not to mention they're quite a bit safer.

I'll just say that I can respect the decisions of those who do not use drugs because I know from my personal research into the subject that for many drugs the long term effects on your health and mental state have not been well researched or documented. Though it certainly seems like most people who reject drugs do it out of a default position ingrained in them by their cultural upbringing and not out of a knowledge of the subject. Unfortunately, it's also this social stigma that often prevents scientists from thoroughly understanding the mechanisms and effects of a drug through research. The biggest mistake you can make is to lump all illicit drugs in the same pile, because drugs, as with everything, vary a lot in their mechanisms and effects and it's an awful fallacy to pretend otherwise. Sobriety is not without it's altered states of mind either.

@Chrisp - I'm afraid my sense of right and wrong (it's against the law, you know) and my desire to not fuck up my brain means I will have to ignore your ill-founded recommendation. You would be called a "pusher" here in the states for encouraging someone to try illicit drugs. And you would be charged as an accessory if something went tits-to-the-wall while the person was high for encouraging them to try it. God help you if they died because you could be tried as an accessory to manslaughter and serve some serious time.

Things aren't bad because they are against the law, they should be against the law if they are bad. American legislation against drugs is horribly obsolete and damaging to society. Do you really think it would do society any good if I were put in jail and given a criminal record for "pushing" drugs (as if I'm selling them at the same time)? I wouldn't be treated so bad if I was pushing skydiving, a fad diet, or indoctrinating you into a cult, and I would argue that all of those can be much more dangerous than doing drugs.

...Must...Not...Go...On...Objectivist...Tirade...

Ahh, I'll succumb anyway. I don't have anything better to do.

Chrisp, it's almost glaringly evident that your logical fallacy (And I'm addressing specifically your claim that (and I'm paraphrasing (And using way too many parenthesis)) everyone should try hallucinogens because they will gain more insight into the world) emanates from the violation of the law of identity. A is A. A can not be B, because A is A. Existence exists, and nothing else exists. Similarly, you can't gain insight into reality by having an experience outside the realm of reality. You may learn more about hallucinogens, sure, but you do not gain more knowledge about the real world, because definitionally, you are not perceiving the real world.

On the broader subject of drugs, I consider drugs (Of all kinds, and I AM generalizing, and would say this of a drug that created pure happiness with absolutely no side effects) to be evil because they, in one way or another, alter your reality, by creating artificial happiness, sadness, numbness, etc. The defining charcteristic of mankind is their ability to think logically. Since a drug alters that ability, the use of a drug, at least temporarily, makes you less human.

If it were possible (And I will discuss this later) I suppose a drug that made you think more logically wouldn't be evil, as it enhances your human qualities, as opposed to diminishes them, however this is relatively impossible, since there are no degrees of logic. Logic is not a quantitative variable, but rather a qualitative variable. Either a statement is logical, or it isn't. I suppose it would be theoretically possible for a drug to cause someone to think logically a higher proportion of the time, but I'm on a huge tangent as it is anyway.

</objectivist>

My final objection to drug use is on the grounds of the relative depression theory of psychology, in which I am a big believer. For those of you that don't know, relative depression essentially states that you evaluate the happiness of every experience relative to your other experiences, ie if I go to a theme park one day, I will not be as happy the next, since I did not go to a theme park. Ultimately, I think this is what addiction comes from (And the science supports this). When your brain is overloaded with endorphins, it begins to think that any less than that level of endorphins is sadness.

At any rate, I've made my points. And this is a rather abrupt ending, but I don't really care. :-)

Sorry, post lag.

"@Chrisp - I'm afraid my sense of right and wrong (it's against the law, you know) and my desire to not fuck up my brain means I will have to ignore your ill-founded recommendation. You would be called a "pusher" here in the states for encouraging someone to try illicit drugs. And you would be charged as an accessory if something went tits-to-the-wall while the person was high for encouraging them to try it. God help you if they died because you could be tried as an accessory to manslaughter and serve some serious time."

Your point ultimately assumes that one of the two causes (the two causes being Chrisp pushing and the law, and the one being Chrisp pushing) causes the outcome, and that the other is not to blame. I argue that Chrisp pushing drugs (If you want to call it that) is fine. He should make his argument, and others can evaluate the argument on its merits. The problem in your example is in the law holding someone responsible for an action they were not responsible for themselves. The choice to use drugs was not Chrisps (Well it is, but you get my point) but rather the guy he suggested it to. If the person he suggested it to made that decision, he should be held to the full responsibility of that decision. And if that means death, thats fine by me.

"Things aren't bad because they are against the law, they should be against the law if they are bad. American legislation against drugs is horribly obsolete and damaging to society."

QFT. I don't think Draug meant to imply that drugs were bad because they were against the law, but seriously, QFT.

"You may learn more about hallucinogens, sure, but you do not gain more knowledge about the real world, because definitionally, you are not perceiving the real world."

I'm not saying you are gaining knowledge about the world in the positive sense. I'm saying you're learning how little knowledge you have about the world. It's a learning experience of the negative sense, and one that is all too often looked over. It doesn't show you truth, it shows you how untruthful reality might be. Does this address my apparent fallacy?

"My final objection to drug use is on the grounds of the relative depression theory of psychology, in which I am a big believer. For those of you that don't know, relative depression essentially states that you evaluate the happiness of every experience relative to your other experiences, ie if I go to a theme park one day, I will not be as happy the next, since I did not go to a theme park. Ultimately, I think this is what addiction comes from (And the science supports this). When your brain is overloaded with endorphins, it begins to think that any less than that level of endorphins is sadness."

Yes, this is true, but again, you cannot lump all drugs into the same category. Hallucinogenics often do not make you feel "good" as much as they make you feel different, as long as a you exists in your mind that is. =P

You should know if you have a psychological background that the relative depression is very dependant on the length of term. If you've had one amazing experience once in your life, it doesn't automatically diminish the quality of other experiences in your life, especially not in the long term. Most research as shown that humans quite reliably return to a baseline level of happiness say... after a year of winning the lottery or becoming a paraplegic. Yes, there are short term effects of the comedown from a more euphoric drug such as cocaine, ecstasy, or amphetamines, but these dissipate over time, and it's important that you do not mistake hallucinogenics for the happier drugs. I probably felt better in the weeks following my use of magic mushrooms than I actually did on the drug because I felt I had a new lease on life, whereas the drug experience was a little too intense to be enjoyable in any classical sense of the word. It's a learning experience.

@Draugnar - I'm going to ignore your blatant conflation of legality and morality as a justification for only engaging in potentially life-destroying and addictive activities that are legal (thrill-seeking through driving fast, gambling...) and focus on your misconceptions about LSD:

There is no such thing as an LSD flash-back. Acid does not stay in your spine, or wherever you heard it does, forever. The molecule is so unstable that exposure to sunlight for half a minute will kill an active dose before being taken, and it expires on its own in about a year - much less in your body.

What's referred to as a "flashback" is an instance of post-traumatic stress disorder - the same sort experienced by veterans of wars, rape victims, etc. If an LSD trip goes really, really poorly there is some chance you could suffer PTSD - although such cases outside of regular, heavy users aren't anything I've heard of. Luckily, if you're super-afraid of such consequences, you can prepare in advance to make sure your trip is stress-free and will not lead to serious mental affliction after the fact. In fact, such planning is even easier than, say, planning to avoid crashing your fast car head-on into a divider, or making sure you don't lose it all on what you thought was a really great poker hand.

Also, @flashman - would Steven Jobs be someone you'd say has fulfilled their potential? Albert Hoffman? Bill Gates? Any of the members of The Beatles?

@ lulzworth - lol Albert Hoffman ^_^ I read his "My Problem Child" back in the day, it was a quick read and it gave me some perspective of the times.

@ Chripsminis - Using your analogy, "it's like trying to explain the colour orange to someone who's never seen it before." is why I don't have these types of conversations with people who are so vehemently against drugs. I'm aware information is power and needs to be shared but it's not the lack of information that's driving the cause, it's ingrained ideology and most people have more pertinent ideology to sift through.
I will comment on the "it is impossible to overdose on LSD or magic mushrooms", the comment is well that is a lie. LSD and Mushrooms are absurd to overdose on for sure, it'd be much easier to overdose and die from too much vitamin A but you don't want to spread that claim when people can react differently. Rats are very tolerant of psilocybin but in a study wtih rabbits they are shown to be very intolerant. Regardless of the average physical harm being low, as with any drug you need to know yourself and your body. Always build up to a comfortable dose and please ensure you are in a good state of mind so that you truly gain benefits (Not specifically towards you Chrisp since I feel you know what I am referring to but as a side comment to you statements.)

@rlumley - If I had time I'd attack everything you said but I'm in a hurry so I'll come back later if you don't mind lol Only thing I will add is a quick comment on, Relative Depression Theory. The more self aware you are of this aspect of human psychology would in my opinion diminish its truth. Psychology isn't a science that shows if you jump off a cliff you'll die, it's a sociological/neurological/(etc) discipline that is relative to the culture more than the species. You make it sound like we aren't sentient beings and have no control over our actions, if that were the case, is your reality an organization of anarchy? Side note, if one devotes his life to getting to know his subconscious like the most intimate of lovers, are you saying he is restricted to current psychological trends?

"I'm not saying you are gaining knowledge about the world in the positive sense. I'm saying you're learning how little knowledge you have about the world. It's a learning experience of the negative sense, and one that is all too often looked over. It doesn't show you truth, it shows you how untruthful reality might be. Does this address my apparent fallacy?"

Quite frankly, no. :-P

I can see why you think that, but this is why you are wrong. A good operational definition of reality is what normal people see on an every day basis (Basically, I'm saying this to preempt the argument that drug use can be your "reality" and if you want to argue that, then that's just sad...) Once we define reality this way, your fallacy becomes clear. Your argument, as I understand it, is that an acid trip deceiving ones senses means that life could simply be a hallucination and an elaborate hoax. Your argument rests on the crux that our senses can be deceived, and you are correct. But where you go astray is assuming that it is commonplace for us to be deceived. It is not. It is abnormal, and an oddity. The fact that we are not deceived on a regular basis relies on our observations of the laws of physics. Force will always equal mass times accelleration (I swear if you go relativity on me I will bust a cap in your buttocks). Electromagnetic force will always be proportional to the charge on one atom times the charge on another atom divided by the radius squared. It is these consistencies that give life its meaning. And while it's possible that we could all wake up tomorrow and have been in the matrix, until we do, it is reasonable and logical to operate under the assumption that we live in reality.

Sayjo, I have no idea what you were trying to say in what you just posted...

Are you high? :-P

@Draugnar. If you're 45+ as you claim and you don't (have never?) use any drugs at all(weed and alcohol included) that does explain your cheerful attitude :)

Maybe you should try something for a change - surely what grows from the ground cannot be that much worse than whatever pills you're taking.

@Hamilton - strange that noone asked you about age. Huge difference if you're 14 or 24 or 34...

@rlumley - I've been drug free (more so than you I'm sure) for quite some time ^_^

I do have a bad habit however of going on tangents and using self context. I still think it was clear regardless of how flowery it can be.