What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What do you think?

  • #21
I'm remembering why I usually try to bite my tongue in drug convos. But there is one thing I feel I should bring up.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I don't think I started living until I experimented. I was always a goody-two-shoes sheep who followed the crowd. I'm much happier without the wool pulled over my eyes. I've seen and heard things beyond my own comprehension. Hell, once I lost my ego, my EGO for three days straight. Drugs can be life changing. Positive or negative.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Shamans, NA's, hippies, psychonauts ; just because they aren't everywhere doesn't mean their beliefs are any less credible than yours or mine. There are far more modern "shamans" than you'd expect.

The spiritual disciplines I mentioned look down on drugs not because they don't understand altered states, but because there are better ways to achieve them.

I mentioned in a thread on depression which I think you posted in too that most medications are extremely imprecise. Side effects are common and expected because medicine is basically a carpet bomb. When working properly the body can send the right compounds exactly where they need to go in exactly the right dosages, whereas medicine usually just sends them everywhere in a flood. For example a medication meant to encourage healthy production of a neurotransmitter in one place might create a side effect by interfering with the production of that neurotransmitter somewhere else (which was being produced perfectly before the medication showed up). When the side effects typically make you much less ill than the original disease does, the medicine becomes a "success". This isn't meant to bash modern medicine, which has made amazing leaps... just to be realistic about how it currently measures up to the body's own systems.

I'm mentioning this because it's the same with drugs. They're a flood of foreign chemicals that impede the body's ability to give you the perspective you desire, not enhance it. One doesn't need psychedelics to reach useful states in spiritual work. With practice and training and discipline someone can learn to experience things that can't be achieved with drugs nearly as effectively. The difference between the two is like the difference between noise and music.

So those disciplines reject drugs because they see them as a sloppy, primitive, and inferior way to achieve a goal. They would tell you that you're missing out on genuine, natural, mind-blowing experiences of transcendence by taking the shortcut that drugs appear to offer. Taking the easy road and "following the crowd" are essentially synonymous... in this case I agree that it's something you should avoid doing.

Unfortunately drug culture has latched on to the stories of shamans using peyote and ayahuasca and such and spun them in their quests for justification. They fancy themselves to be keeping traditions alive, but your average tribal shaman would see these pop-shamans as oblivious tourists. Hallucinating regularly does not a shaman make, no matter how philosophical one gets about it. Shamanic journeys usually involve decades of training and include hardships that appear so masochistic they'd make us sick to our stomachs.

Incidentally there's no such thing as a modern shaman. "Shaman" is an anthropological label describing a person filling a certain role within a "primitive" tribal structure (which might be Native American, Australian Aborigine, whatever). Shamans don't call themselves that... they are called that. So there are shamans alive today, but they aren't "modern." Yeah, it's a nitpick... just another reason the pop-shamans need to find another name for themselves.
 
  • #22
No reason to bit your tongue man, I'm not mad or anything lol.

I agree with you that yes there are better, natural ways to achieve altered states. Drugs are a shortcut. That's why they are recreational.

the shaman thing was just an example, And I guess maybe a bad one. These days "pop-shamans" call themselves psychonauts.

"I'm mentioning this because it's the same with drugs. They're a flood of foreign chemicals that impede the body's ability to give you the perspective you desire, not enhance it. One doesn't need psychedelics to reach useful states in spiritual work. With practice and training and discipline someone can learn to experience things that can't be achieved with drugs nearly as effectively. The difference between the two is like the difference between noise and music."

I agree with that 150%

I've had the natural altered states and the artificial. I used to practice astral projection and the effects of it were just the same a full blown-trip, but more exciting. I just don't feel like meditation for 2 hours in hopes that i'll achieve an astral projection, which for me is like a 1 is 50 chance. Is it more rewarding? IMO, yes, and the more you practice it the better it gets and the longer you are out. Is it easy? Nope. I suppose looking for instant gratification is part of the western culture.

Lol, please don't get the wrong Idea that i'm mad or don't like you or anything. I enjoy these discussions and think your opinion is valuable and you are a great person!
 
  • #23
Endparenthases.  Have you had an anatomy course?  Do you know how the body moves things and communicates?  Because your explanation about the body being able to target and meds being more of a carpet bomb affect is a little off.  True the body is the ultimate at targeting certain areas, but it still uses the carpet bomb affect drugs use to work and communicate.

See the body uses hormones and other compounds to communicate.  These hormones and compounds are folded in a certain molecular way to fit into a certain receptor on certain cells.  The reason drugs are not as precise yet is because the chemicals molecular folding fits into many different receptors.  The body still floods itself with the chemical messenger it is using.  Unless it is hard wired in with a nerve.  Then it uses electric pulses.

I do agree that you should have been punished for allowing them to smoke at you mothers house.  No matter how much I am for legalized pot.  The fact still remains pot is illegal.  It is one thing to jeopardize your criminal record.  It is another to unwillingly jeopardize your mothers criminal history.  I am not sure the severity of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".  Regardless it is not a good one to have on the record.  Now had you asked and she said yes then to me that would have been fine.  I don't think it is child abuse to allow it.  I am not sure the ages, but I feel 17/18 years of age to be the min.

I am not going to go into how it was made illegal here.  Even though I will say it was racial and job security motivated.  IIRC
 
  • #24
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JB_OrchidGuy @ Dec. 05 2006,12:44)]Endparenthases. Have you had an anatomy course? Do you know how the body moves things and communicates? Because your explanation about the body being able to target and meds being more of a carpet bomb affect is a little off. True the body is the ultimate at targeting certain areas, but it still uses the carpet bomb affect drugs use to work and communicate.

See the body uses hormones and other compounds to communicate. These hormones and compounds are folded in a certain molecular way to fit into a certain receptor on certain cells. The reason drugs are not as precise yet is because the chemicals molecular folding fits into many different receptors. The body still floods itself with the chemical messenger it is using. Unless it is hard wired in with a nerve. Then it uses electric pulses.
I had to do a couple papers on mind/body medicine, so my information might automatically be suspect to many people (and I'm rusty on the details now), but there was much said about the level of sophistication in targeting problem areas very specifically in ways people are still trying to understand, sometimes even to the extent that some cells outside the problem area with the exact same receptors went somehow uneffected (implying that the messenger never made it there). But again, I'm extremely fuzzy on the specifics. A lot of the info came from Deepak Chopra, who people have very mixed feelings on, but whatever people think of him he is a trained endocrinologist, so he knows a bit about hormones. Way more than I do of course.
smile.gif


You're right, I misspoke and don't mean to imply that "flooding" is never used by the body... just that the effects themselves are usually impressively localized. Thank you for adding the extra detail.
 
  • #25
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ Dec. 05 2006,9:24)]Lol, please don't get the wrong Idea that i'm mad or don't like you or anything. I enjoy these discussions and think your opinion is valuable and you are a great person!
I don't bite my tongue because people get mad, but because I usually get arguments in response that have a tinge of selfishness and nihilism to them, and I never seem to be able to find a way to mirror that back to people. Someday I'll find the right response but I obviously don't have it yet.
smile.gif


My main question is, how do you really know you aren't hurting anyone? The chain of causality in this sort of thing isn't usually transparent. For example, when you buy pot, do you know exactly where it came from? Does some neighborhood kid grow it in his basement or is it from a dealer somewhere? What did that dealer do to get it? I don't think people on the end of this chain are totally free of responsibility for the things that happen in the middle of it.

If we buy cigarettes we aren't just hurting ourselves. We're enabling the cigarette companies to make more cigarettes and affect more lives. They're using our money to hook more and more people. They're doing something deplorable, but every smoker on the planet is an accomplice in it. The same must be true of illegal drugs, and obviously in the chain of drugs like cocaine and heroin, unspeakable horrors happen that I can't fathom any caring person contributing a cent to.

In this case I think "it's a personal choice" is an illusion. To be a personal choice, it must also have personal consequences. But the consequences aren't limited to the individual.

I guess I just don't see it as an issue of freedom, so the legality of drugs isn't my primary focus. I see it as an issue of self-restraint and concern for the rest of humanity. The lack of this is the self-absorption I'm talking about. There are a lot of things we can do that we shouldn't... because we care we don't do them. Even when a specific event seems harmless, it's all part of a bigger picture.

Because I feel this way, the line between "use" and "abuse" is thin (or with most drugs, nonexistent) in my mind.

Anyway, thanks for the gesture. I apologize if I've gotten overly aggressive as I often do on forums.
smile.gif
 
  • #26
No bro your cool. I was just reminding you the body uses the circulatory system just like drugs do is all.

The fact that pot is illegal brings about the criminal side of things. People wouldn't have to support the dealer/smugglers if the stuff was legal. They could grow their own. That is besides the point though. The topic on hand was about Nepenthes getting in trouble.

So to get back on topic He should have gotten in trouble because as it stands now it is illegal and his mother doesn't feel the need to be involved with it. Since you live there it is her rules.
 
  • #27
It's interesting that you mention nihilism after I talked about lack of purpose lol.

I don't look at it that way. I mean, I do not believe supporting the drug industry by buying makes you any more responsible of the people who may or may not have been hurt in the procurring of those drugs. It's like if you buy a 3 carat flawless diamond, you'r not responsible for the people who may or may not have suffered to get it and who may have died in the process (sierra leone). I realize some people may not agree with me on this but it's just me. If you disagree that's totally cool, too. Ever seen the poor children who mine Tanzanite (excluding the Tanzanite one company)? The drug cartels who kill over emeralds? KILL over emeralds.... People aren't responsible for that crap. My mother isn't, and hell she collects faceted gems.



Psh, agressive? you? Nah, you'r always cool.




Sure, i'll agree that using drugs and alcohol is a selfish thing to do for the purposes of pleasure (atleast in the beginning in some cases), But I don't believe in activist abstainence. To be perfectly honest, i don't care. humans are a violent, selfish species and look out for #1 as a whole. If you see someone in a car accident, you feel bad for them and a minute later you start thinking about pie or britney spears or whatever. You don't care REALLY. You don't go to their funeral. You are glad it's not you, that's what you are. By the way, by you I mean anyone, not YOU lol.
 
  • #28
The only thing that matters is that you put your parents in a precarious position.  Luckily, nothing bad happened.
 
  • #29
I don't want to wade in too deep here, but people always try to make the drug issue much simpler than it is. It's not simple, and there is no single approach.

First, there aren't too many people clamoring to go back to the days of prohibition. There are a few, but not too many. Yet alcohol is not only a drug, but in the grand scheme of things, a very dangerous drug. In induces violence, drunk driving, and is relatively high-impact on the body and ones health. Yet people treat it like it's no big deal, but then go into spasms of outrage when someone discusses pot, a drug that is milder and safer in virtually every respect than alcohol.

Likewise, people don't even consider coffee a drug, but it most certainly is - and one that is both psychoactive and physically addicting. Coca-Cola is a drug delivery system for children. Deal with it.

So, it's very complex and it's difficult to have a reasonable policy for drugs that applies to everything. There is very little evidence that there can be a socially acceptable recreational use of crystal meth, for example, that isn't ruinous to individuals and communities, but again, by every measure pot should be legal before alcohol is. (I've been to pro sporting events where the beer-fueled fans are violent and boorish, and to 3-day reggae festivals with the air thick with cannabis, but no violence or trouble of any kind.)

And yet, despite all these social injustices and hypocritical attitudes, the fact remains that people should take care of themselves and maintain healthy lifestyles, and you want to encourage that. Personally, I'm a social libertarian (small L) and feel that people should be given the widest possible berth to make their own decisions and chart their own courses (AFTER achieving the age where they are capable of such decisions - commonly agreed to be 18). Whatever policies people support - they should be well-reasoned, researched, and not a one-size-fits-all policy for all drugs, lest aspirin be prohibited.

In the case in this thread, while I have sympathy with helping out friends and keeping them out of trouble, the house belongs to mom and dad, and you can't use their assets and put them at risk to help your friends out.

Capslock, babbling away, but NOT stoned.
 
  • #30
VERY well said!

I just love those "San Francisco Values"!
 
  • #31
Very good post Caps!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

It all goes back to the perceived threat of the drug. Heck there are some perscrition drugs that have HORIBLE side effects and this that and the other, but they are not stigmatized as being bad because they are prescrition. We have a mentality in this country to see scripts as ok, but they are the most widely abused drugs out there. They are just "legal" because of the script and they are prescribed.

Cannabis has a bad rap because of propoganda after prohabition ended and something about the lazy mexican. The DEA needed something to go after so they stigmatized pot since alcohol was legal again.

I agree that there cannot be a one blanket answer to the issue because it is WAY more complex than that.
 
  • #32
I NEVER understood how people could say Mexicans are lazy. They are the hardest working people I know! I could NEVER work as hard as they do!
 
  • #33
If people didn't say Mexicans (or blacks or . . .) are lazy, they might have to acknowledge they didn't reach their own higher status just because of their own hard work.
 
  • #35
I'm not lazy.....I just procrastinate a lot.
tounge.gif
 
  • #36
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BigCarnivourKid @ Dec. 08 2006,7:39)]I'm not lazy.....I just procrastinate a lot.
tounge.gif
Why put off till tomorrow what you'll never do anyway?

xvart.
 
  • #38
I did, but the "I'm a Heinz 57" joke I was gonna relpy with could have been taken too many ways.
nononono.gif
 
  • #39
I get it lol.

You like mencia? blah.... I love it when he makes fun of white people.. i must be racist.
 
Back
Top