DMT- HOW COULD ANYONE HAVE MISSED THIS?

[PeacefulWarrior]

RollingBear-

You know, it's hard to get under my skin, but you have officially succeeded.  Please never mis-quote me again.  If you don't know, the acronym JK stands for "just kidding", that is what I wrote after I jokingly called McKenna a "crackhead".  While Imight have been over doing it a little by calling him that, when you quote me and then leave out the other part it simply makes me look ignorant and mean....and then you took it further by stating, in your own words, that I had done exactly that...

TO make things worse, in your quote you also make it sound like I used DMT, and from my postyou can see that I was quoting someone else.

Please don't let your passion for illegal drugs cloud your mind so much that you twist other peoples words.  


fides quaerens intellectum

[Rolling Bear]

Peaceful Warrior, take responsibility for your own muddled post. Don't assume that every Internet user knows every acronym; it's arrogant. Also, the meaning of your first paragraph is unclear, for it seems to indicate that you've used DMT. Reread it and see for yourself. Further, I didn't intentionally change the meaning of your post, I used ellipses to shorten it, keeping the meaning intact as far as I understood it from the way in which you constructed your sentences. Your final statement is absurd, because I have never demonstrated on this bbs a passion for drugs, legal or otherwise. While I have experience with psychotropic substances, I haven't used any recently, and don't need to, having learned what I need from them. Rather, I merely seek a fair appraisal of their benefits as spiritual aids, without the sort of reactionary rhetoric inculcated by generations of robot-producing disinformation. Your piece is charged, filled with condescending absolutes and naive simplifications. Also, it is nowhere clear that anyone is being quoted. Traditionally, quotation marks or some other means of identification are used to designate a quoted passage. Also, it is customary to include the name of the source. Perhaps you should reconsider the substance and presentation of your essay, and seek to recast it in a more friendly and fathomable manner.

"Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. And reality is composed, not of things nor processes nor wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts, holons." --Ken Wilber

[Jacara]

I[/i[ understood what PeacefulWarrior meant when he put "JK" after his statement, he meant "ha ha, not literally of course" - if you didn't understand that it's your problem.  I noticed right away that you edited the "JK" out when you quoted him, then accused him of meaning it literally.  Now that you know he was kidding, I would've thought you might want to apologise, but you just ignore it.
Regardless of what you might know on this or other topics, your behavior makes it hard to take you seriously.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Bear-
First of all, I apologize for being contentious as it never acheives anything, however I stand by the fact that you misquoted me.  Secondly, I did add a reference to the quote from erowid that I posted.

Just for your information, I am not spitting out disinformation.  I have used psylocibin a few times and I must admit that this plant based psychoactive substance did actually teach me something: not to abuse drugs.  

You would be lying to yourself to say that you are not passionate about some of these chemicals:

"Asstray, DMT and beta-carboline compounds (such as in Syrian rue and passionflower) can indeed be useful tools when used in the proper safe, comfortable set and setting, and with the help of experienced human guides. When combined (as in ayahuasca), the DMT and beta-carboline containing plants can produce amazing results..."

or

"There are compelling reasons to believe that mushrooms are "alien" in nature and intelligence. For one thing, they give us an experience of something so completely other that, once you've taken them a few times, you understand what McKenna and others meant by this assertion."

I think there is something to be said for McKennas work, but no one doubts who was passionate about "drugs"...and you seem to know quite a lot about him and you state yourself that you agree with much of what he claimed.  

I think your ideas are interesting...but as you can see, most of the people in here are more interested in more self-sufficient means to gain transcendental experiences.

-Daniel


fides quaerens intellectum

[Frank]

Funny how this drugs debate often crops up.

I suppose, ultimately, the point that stands out in my mind (as the analogy of the pen demonstrates) intaking potentially harmful substances... not only that, many of these substances are highly illegal class-A drugs... to induce astral projection is, to my way of thinking, using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Also, I happened to be reading a report the other week which gave the official figure of 3.5 million people in the UK (pop. 59 million) who regularly take hard, i.e. class A drugs. I suspect the true figure is even higher.

It's nice to dream of some rosy picture of Shamans in days of old; or talking about taking these susbtances only where they are legal (someone tell me a place any sane person would want to live where hard drugs are legal) and taken in the company of responsible, knowledgeable people. But there is no such reality.

The hard fact of the matter is these substances are dangerously addictive and can have disastrous consequences. Consider that well over half of all street-crime and burglary in the UK is committed by addicts stealing money for their next fix. Which is just one example of the destruction and devastation they bring to people.  

Yours,
Frank

[Rolling Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Jacara:
I[/i[ understood what PeacefulWarrior meant when he put "JK" after his statement, he meant "ha ha, not literally of course" - if you didn't understand that it's your problem.  I noticed right away that you edited the "JK" out when you quoted him, then accused him of meaning it literally.  Now that you know he was kidding, I would've thought you might want to apologise, but you just ignore it.
Regardless of what you might know on this or other topics, your behavior makes it hard to take you seriously.

Why is it my problem if I didn't understand him? Since when is the burden of comprehension entirely the reader's? If this were universally the case, then incomprehensibility would be the norm for both writing and reading, and no one would understand anything. No, Jacara, PW was not communicating well. Perhaps by the arcane standards of some slang-talking Internet in-group, of which you seem to be a member, but not by what normally passes for written conversation among a courteous, serious group.

Furthermore, I don't believe PW when he says he was "just kidding." If so, why did he mount in the first place what seems to be a nasty ad hominem attack on McKenna? And if he wanted me to know that he hasn't used DMT, then why did he discuss DMT use in the very sentence in which he admits to using and studying psychedlics? Another thing: Where were the quotation marks and reference? Without attribution, we can only assume PW is speaking of his own experiences.

I see that he has made what amount to slanderous remarks. He accuses me of lying to myself about not possessing a "passion for drugs." Not only did I repeatedly state that my interests lie with plants -- not drugs -- but I pointed out to him that my interest in the matter is one of considering plant-aids impartially instead of with the typical witch-burning mentality so prevalent in a society conditioned to accept the legislation of consciousness.

Finally, I care not whether you take me seriously; you will dispense your opinions as is your whim, and that is of little concern to me. As to PW's contention that I shouldn't air my thoughts in an environment stacked against them, I find this dangerously totalitarian and conformist, and note that the belief of a majority does not by default equal a correct belief.


"Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. And reality is composed, not of things nor processes nor wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts, holons." --Ken Wilber

[Rolling Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Frank:

The hard fact of the matter is these substances are dangerously addictive and can have disastrous consequences. Consider that well over half of all street-crime and burglary in the UK is committed by addicts stealing money for their next fix. Which is just one example of the destruction and devastation they bring to people.

Frank, do your homework before you speak. There is no "fact" that psychotropic drugs are addictive. The fact is that they are the least addictive of all known drugs and plants; in fact, they are completely non-addicting. Mostly, too, they aren't even habit-forming. Sugar, coffee, tea, alcohol, refined cocaine products, refined and synthetic opiates -- these are the substances to pay attention to if addiction is your concern. Regarding psychotropics, shamanic practitioners tend to use them only very infrequently, as religious sacraments, and in ritual settings. Furthermore, some psychedelics are physically safer than aspirin: pure LSD-25, for example. As references for the above statements I cite Wasson, Lilly, Weil, Grof, Tart, Ring, Krippner, Bakalar & Grimspoon, and McKenna. Several of these individuals hold Ph.Ds in their respective fields, and are experts whereof they speak. Please do not pontificate on the subject of the sacramental and shamanic use of psychotropics before you have thoroughly explored the issue.



"Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. And reality is composed, not of things nor processes nor wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts, holons." --Ken Wilber

[Tisha]

I must concur with Rolling Bear on the non-addicting nature of the plants being discussed.  I don't, however, concur with the crankiness of some of these posts. What a waste of energy!  Everyone hold hands, take a deep cleansing breath . . . . there.  

Perhaps we could create a Myths and Facts sheet for the website, or provide an educational link.  The "drug topic" comes up often on this site and I'd hate to go round and round on this issue with the newcomers every 3 months . . .  


Tisha

"As Above, So Below"

[Tom]

I still think I had an interesting point about using lucid dreams and / or astral projection to simulate taking drugs. It worked for me when I tried it, although the opportunities do not come along very often for me. Doesn't anyone have something to say on this variation on using drugs without ingesting them?

[asstray85]

Hey Tom
I usually smoke marijuana on a regular basis and its the only drug ive ever used and i notice that if i dont smoke for a week or so i start having extremely vivid dreams where i feel like i just smoked a hella lot.  Even after the dream ends i wake up feeling high.  Ive read that it is common but my judgement tells me it is the thc being brought back into my blood stream while i burn fat in my sleep.  Since thc attatches to fat cells that is the only reasonable conclusion to why that might happen.

-Steve

[Tom]

That still does not explain the really interesting LSD experience I dreamed about having before I'd even ever been drunk in waking life. It was better than any actual drug could have been and I felt really good for a few days. Actual drugs would have been easier, but dreaming about being high did not have the same sorts of side effects.

[Rolling Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Tom:
That still does not explain the really interesting LSD experience I dreamed about having before I'd even ever been drunk in waking life. It was better than any actual drug could have been and I felt really good for a few days. Actual drugs would have been easier, but dreaming about being high did not have the same sorts of side effects.

Fascinating, Tom. I too have had tremendously powerful dream-psychedelic experiences, which is one of the things that convinced me the experience is "in me", not in a drug or plant -- the drug is just a trigger. One theory about how LSD affects us says that the chemical leaves the system within about fifteen minutes, having triggered our brain's own DMT. I think that, as Steve suggests, actions of the pineal gland may be one of the keys linking dreaming, OBEs, and psychedelic experiences of various sorts. Years ago I had a dream-psychedelic experience not unlike the one you've mentioned: I dreamed I was in the Sonoran desert eating peyote, and Mescalito came hopping up to me. He said, "I am the original ancient alien hippy, and I bring you this gift." With that, he bestowed on me a strange instrument that was rather like an accordian, but with more facets; it operated directly on the energy of my chakras, translating it into exquisite music more comlex than any earthly orchestra could play. I awoke, realizing I'd been given a dream of power...a shamanic dream. Yet at that time I'd never eaten peyote!

"Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. And reality is composed, not of things nor processes nor wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts, holons." --Ken Wilber

[Frank]

quote:Originally posted by Tisha:
I must concur with Rolling Bear on the non-addicting nature of the plants being discussed.  I don't, however, concur with the crankiness of some of these posts. What a waste of energy!  Everyone hold hands, take a deep cleansing breath . . . . there.  

Problem is, Tisha, we are talking here about psychotropic drugs and psychotropic plants. The two are *very* different. It may well be that plants containing psychotropic agents would be non-addictive. They'd more than likely make you very sick after the first few leaves and branch.

But to quote Dave, he said: "There is no "fact" that psychotropic drugs are addictive."

The unfortunate fact is that psychotropic drugs are highly addictive. Not only that, given incorrect doseage they can be potentially fatal. Hence the reason why all psychotropic drugs are strictly controlled world-wide.

Dave further went on to say, and I quote, "The fact is that they are the least addictive of all known drugs and plants; in fact, they are completely non-addicting."

Again, I ask are we talking here about psychotropic drugs or merely plants that contain psychotropic agents?

Yours,
Frank

[Tom]

One of the things about LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin is that as pure chemicals or impure mixtures they quickly cause a tolerance to build up and even a cross-tolerance. Mescaline use can cause psilocybin to be less effective. Fortunately, the tolerance goes away as quickly as it develops if the drug use is not sustained pas the point where the dosages are ridiculous. Even so, I have only heard about one over-dose: the elephant that was given LSD based on total body mass. It is probably possible to develop a psychological addiction to hallucinogenic drugs as pure compounds or from plants. It is even possible to get psychologically hooked on meditative or trance states and to cause energy imbalances, though. Anything taken to excess is bad and what constitutes excess will vary from person to person. Some people are really sensitive to even minor drugs like caffeine to the point where they have an allergic reaction from decaffeinated coffee (which still has a small amount left). The arguments that it is not possible to get hooked on hallucinogens are based on the idea that it usually takes a lot more work than with other drugs like marijuana, alcohol, and caffeine to sustain their use over time. What I want to see here is a discussion based not on whether it is ethical to take drugs or on why most people should not take them because of the few who are not equipped for whatever reason. Please talk about how to go about using drugs like DMT correctly and about what sorts of goals might be accomplished under their influence.

[Rolling Bear]

FRANK, psychotropic drugs and plants are non-addictive, and mostly non-habit-forming. They are not illegal because of addiction concerns; the reasons for their illegality are far more complex, but have to do essentially with ways of controlling our states of mind. Psychedelics are powerful disinhibiting agents; they often trigger in the user a sense of the illusory nature of things, including ideas closely held by society, such as "being a consumer is good," "everyone should be a wage-earner," and "don't question your government." When people were using these substances in the 1960s, on a wide scale and with group support instead of group reprobation, people were becoming empowered, realizing that they didn't need to be puppets of government, religion, and industry. This was unacceptable to the powers, who need a stable work-force of mind-slaves to make the economy function. So the US Government, at least, came down heavy on the psychedelics, creating lies about the substances, many of which they later retracted when science exposed them as disinformation. There are other reasons why psychedelics are outlawed, but it's a complex subject, something I don't have time to go into, but I can assure you, Frank, that addiction had nothing to do with it. Heroin and cocaine are addicting. Coffee and sugar even more so, but you don't see their use attached to heavy prison sentences, do you? That's because they are societally-sanctioned as good robot drugs: they keep us working, consuming, and not questioning the basic order.

TOM, I couldn't agree more with your excellent point. I believe the Church of the Tree of Life has made some significant advances into this area (proper use), and of course there are many native traditions, but mostly in our society there is such a gulf between the spiritualist and drug communities that little meaningful dialogue ever takes place. The spiritualists tend toward Emerson's notion of "doing it without wine," whereas the drug and plant users often feel that, "if it ain't illegal, it don't work." Extremism on both sides, fueled by the propogandists running our "war on drugs." They couldn't be happier that we have such splits, or that we argue about these subjects. Their agenda is to control us through division and fear.

If used correctly, in the proper setting, with guidance, preparation, and the support of the local community, many psychotropic plants and drugs are nothing to fear, and have much to teach us about spirit, no-time, love, and the interconnectedness of life. Those of us who know are aware that the experiences tend to be so powerful that they take time to be integrated, and leave little desire for immediate repetition.

"Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. And reality is composed, not of things nor processes nor wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts, holons." --Ken Wilber

[Tisha]

Excuse me . . . did I just read that someone gave LSD to an elephant?  Now THAT should be illegal.

[Tom]

Tisha, are you telling me that you have not heard about the experiments which were done on LSD? People were given the drug, too, without their informed consent. A certain government had a certain military type organization who wanted to know how soldiers would react to LSD, and if the experiment had gone well the idea was to use it on enemy soldiers. Yes, the elephant died. It seems that it was the elephant's brain which should have been taken into consideration rather than just the weight of the whole body.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Rolling Bear-
I just want to say one last thing to you regarding this topic.  First of all, I didn't mean to come off the way you thought I did.  I meant the whole "crackhead" thing to be taken lightly.  Obviously you took it very seriously, and I apologize that I didn't realize how serious you take this topic.

Second, while psychotropic plants can indeed be fascinating in their own right, I concur with the cliche that they are "a dead end".  Study, meditation and prayer are the only true ways to open the doors to truth.  As I admitted earlier, I have studied and expiremented with plant based ethogens and I declare that lucid dreaming and astral projection are SO MUCH more fun and enlightening than any of the experiences I had with mushrooms or LSD.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that psychoactive drugs put me in the lower astral and the main thing they taught me was to stay away from them.

In conclusion, I have no beef with you.  Please don't think I was or am personally attacking you.  You are obviously an intelligent and informed person, and the only thing that has upset me is your highly defensive online personality.

Oh, and by the way, at least you know what "JK" stands for...and I was familiar with this acronym long before I used the net, it's really fairly common.



fides quaerens intellectum

[alivie]

I've had excellent times with and without hallucinogenic substances, completely different experiences but equally brilliant nonetheless.
Everyone is different so there is no correct or incorrect way to gain access to higher realms, its just what works for the individual.

I also do not beleive that some of these substances are illegal because they are dangerous to us, the governments that ban these substances don't want the population finding too much out so ban them under the pretence that they are doing us a favour protecting us from these 'harmful' drugs, allowing drugs like alcohol to remain legal.

Find your own path!

[Rolling Bear]

PW, you've written a very clear post and a thoughtful, sincere apology, for which I respect you; you've lived up to your user name in an honorable fashion. I accept your apology, and I apologize for upsetting you.

May we agree to disagree about the use of certain drugs/plants as psychic triggers? For I believe that, used properly, they have much to teach us and can take us a long way. I agree that it is a good thing to learn to "do it" without them, but I also think that there's nothing wrong (aside from issues of legality) with continuing to use the plants all one's life in the appropriate social/religious context, as with ayahuasco or virola snuff among the Amazonian Indians, or peyote in the Native American Church, or mushrooms by Mexican shamans. I believe that the levels one may achieve with these methods may be every bit as profound as with means such as meditation, and that neither method is 'better" or "worse"; however, I do believe that it's very practical to learn to do it without external tiggers, simply because this frees one up from having to score, worry about the cops, dosages, etc. Both methods have benefits and drawbacks to my mind. So...may we agree to disagree?

Blessings,
Dave

"Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. And reality is composed, not of things nor processes nor wholes nor parts, but of whole/parts, holons." --Ken Wilber

[clandestino]

Hello Folks ! may I wade in to this entertaining debate.... There are a few points I'd like to summarise :

1) Peacefulwarrior's post detailing the diary of an individual who used drugs, with some quite bad effects.
2) The fact that these drugs are generally illegal. Hmmm...I wonder why.
3) The fact that using a drug TAKES AWAY SOME ASPECT OF THE CONTROL OF THE EXPERIENCE.

And BTW its nice to see someone with balls who isn't afraid of insulting other people on the boards ! Yes, I mean you Rolling bear ! Your posts have been quite entertaining ! : )

But surely, you don't actually believe that Terence McKenna stuff ?!! Its rubbish !

ps - I have a calender that is far more accurate than the Maya ever had - its at the bottom right corner of my screen. And you don't see me going around making predictions about the end of the world now do you ?!

Mark

[alivie]

quote:2) The fact that these drugs are generally illegal. Hmmm...I wonder why.

Why do you think they are illegal? Dangerous to us? Dangerous to society? Dangerous to the status quo?
Maybe our governments don't want us all getting enlightened.
Alcohol is legal and just as dangerous (probably more dangerous) than some of these banned substances.
As Bill Hicks once said:
" Go back to bed America, your government is in control, keep drinking beer, here's some American Gladiators for you!"

As far as I see it-
OBE - fantastic
mushroom experiences - fantastic
LSD - OK but not nearly as powerful.

Both OBE and mushroom journeys have left me with fantastic memories and the drive to find out more.

Oh and by the way, read McKenna's Food Of The Gods...surely it cannot be simply dismissed as rubbish??

[clandestino]

Hi Alivie, hows it going ? you asked :

"Why do you think they are illegal? Dangerous to us? Dangerous to society? Dangerous to the status quo?"

I think that you have answered your own question for me !!! I would have to say all 3, mixed together. But dangerous to Status Quo, that legendary '80's guitar outfit ?! surely not.

Seriously though, I tend not to subscribe to conspiracy-type views on subjects :
"Maybe our governments don't want us all getting enlightened."

....I admit they are very attractive and make good reading, but there is not enough evidence to back them up - which is why they remain conspiracies.

Fair enough on your last point though :
"As far as I see it-
OBE - fantastic
mushroom experiences - fantastic
LSD - OK but not nearly as powerful.

Both OBE and mushroom journeys have left me with fantastic memories and the drive to find out more."

It's up to you if you decide to try drugs; good to see that you have had great experiences with them. But I think that society generally has the right idea in banning them.
regards,
Mark

[Frank]

quote:Originally posted by Rolling Bear:
FRANK, psychotropic drugs and plants are non-addictive

Dave, I'd begin to make a clear distinction between drugs and plants if I were you. I've got two of my old lecturer buddies and my ex-professor waiting to take money from you. And that's in addition to the half-million GBP I bet for when you walk on water next year.

quote:
They are not illegal because of addiction concerns; the reasons for their illegality are far more complex, but have to do essentially with ways of controlling our states of mind.

The drugs in question would not be Psychotropic if they did not effect our state of mind. As such, they cannot not have addiction concerns.

quote:
They often trigger in the user a sense of the illusory nature of things, including ideas closely held by society, such as "being a consumer is good," "everyone should be a wage-earner," and "don't question your government.

Dave, I've said before that often your vernacular is hard for me to follow, but here we concur. Consumerism, particularly north-American style consumerism, has always been to my complete distaste.

But as to being a wage-earner, well, my wife and myself are both wage-earners. Which is obviously not to your taste but my wife and I (and all our neighbours I should hasten to add) think it's far better than robbing people for a living. As I say, over 50% of all street crime and burglary in the UK is commited by addicts wanting their next fix.

Yours,
Frank

[Rob]

hey people

A few quick points....

Anyone who disagrees that drugs can have positive, lasting, psychological effects - even beneficial spiritual effects - go and do some research on Ibogaine. I plan to take some in the future, when the time is right. Amazing stuff by all accounts.
I have heard the old "short cut" argument many times now, but as I think has already been remarked, it is only a means to an end. There any many many paths you can take, this is just one of them.
Also, I have to say that I have tried ketamine, and it made me realise that reality really isn't that real, being much more fluid and oddly subjectivel than everyday experience suggests. I also have friend who takes the stuff regularly and is really quite screwed up because of it

*MODERATION* is the key.
I honestly cannot stress that enough.
Regular intake of any drugs is a bad thing.
But trying some drugs just once, is also a bad thing (eg in my very limited experience, exstacy). So start small, get your sea legs, and then try a larger dose.

However, there are no absolutes, ESPECIALLY on a topic as subject as drug use. One persons heaven turns into another persons hell. Again, we each can only find our own way. Eyes sharp though!

As for why it is illegal?? Well, and I hate absolutes just in general, but I have to say that anybody who thinks the reasons are for the good of the population, simply has not done their homework. Making drugs illegal, as has been proved many times, does not decrease usage - it increases it (eg decriminalisation in switzerland, usage statistics on amsterdam compared to america, the effects of alcohol prohibition in america, etc etc etc). Faced with such evidence, ALL arguments to keep drugs illegal fall flat on their face.
What making them illegal does do, however, is increase the prices....hmm. It also forms huge devides between drugs users, and those who don't use drugs. Reinforced by media bulls**t, this gap grows wider and wider. And from here you only plunge head-long into conspiracy theories so I'll keep retreat back into my corner mumbling about the end of the world and reptilians if you all don't mind....hehehe

-------
Rob
-------
seperation = bad
coming together = good