From the article: "While I drew, Snyder continued his lecture. ''You could call this a creativity-amplifying machine. It's a way of altering our states of mind without taking drugs like mescaline. You can make people see the raw data of the world as it is. As it is actually represented in the unconscious mind of all of us.''"
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulation utilizing this method. So it isn't the end we're concerned about, it's the vehicle.
Do you realize that roughly 6x as many people have died either outright or by drowning after inhaling fumes while behind a motorboat since 1991 than have while taking MDMA (ecstacy)? And that doesn't even include the people who drowned and nobody suspected the poisoning.
Do you realize that between cirrhosis of the liver (alcohol) and deaths resulting from drunk driving accidents there are 60,000 killed in the US every year? And ephedra, creatine and ecstacy are the problems?
Sorry for going off on a rant here. I welcome this sort of research. But it does point out that what Americans are against is not people doing things to their own bodies. What people fear is a boogeyman that has been fueled by a multi-billion dollar industry that they need to maintain. Ie, jobs.
The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry. Sometimes very damaging changes. This is not even going into the addictive properties of most drugs.
If it is found at any time that these machines make permanent changes in mental funtioning or are addictive in nature, he will have to proceed a lot more carefully and under a very big microscope.
manonthemoon writes: " The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry. Sometimes very damaging changes."
No evidence of this. In the one experiment that theoretically shows this, monkeys were given massive doses of MDMA. We're talking on the order of 40 pills, IIRC. Anybody who does that deserves the damage. There is zero evidence whatsoever that the doses taken by humans to achieve the affect causes any long-term effect on the brain
Ecstacy is not known to be addictive. In fact it is counter-addictive in that subsequent doses cause a much less profound effect on the user such that many people simply lose interest.
And it is this effect that is the most interesting and quite unique to MDMA. It's deserving of more research in order to better understand the workings of the human mind.
From the last link: "Although we havenâ(TM)t yet conducted longitudinal studies in human MDMA users, we know that brain serotonin innervations in monkeys treated with MDMA still isnâ(TM)t normal 7 years later."
Martin Blank quotes a link: "Although we havenâ(TM)t yet conducted longitudinal studies in human MDMA users, we know that brain serotonin innervations in monkeys treated with MDMA still isnâ(TM)t normal 7 years later."
Without listing the dose this information is useless. If I take enough vitamin E I'll die. Doesn't mean it's dangerous.
Hell, you can do it with water [amaasportsmed.org], too.
"Also, if you think declining effects are a reason people put down a drug, then maybe you should do a little research into dr
Point me to the research showing that people who experience declining positive effects from a given dose give it up rather than taking more of the drug to get the desired effect and I'll believe you.
Martin Blank writes: "Point me to the research showing that people who experience declining positive effects from a given dose give it up rather than taking more of the drug to get the desired effect and I'll believe you."
Taking more ecstacy does not increase the effect. Ask anyone who does it.
And if you want citations, look them up yourself. I'm not presenting a white paper here, I'm presenting discussion. If a lack of a citation causes you to not believe me, so be it. I'll live.
Normally I ignore AC posts that I would normally reply to because the odds are good they're not going to read my reply, so why bother?
On the other hand, there is too much crap in here to simply ignore. So I'm speaking to whoever stumbles upon it, not the poster.
The AC (aren't they all?) writes: ""Anyone who does it" is just going to try and rationalize their use of it, just like you are. Of course you want to believe it's not harmful, since you do it yourself."
You're saying that because heroin has less effects as time goes on, and because desperately hooked druggies will do anything to replay the only good feelings they've had, that you don't think declining stimulus ever functions to discourage use?
One thing about MDMA and LSD that would make this more pronounced is that overdoses tend to not be more intense. You burn all your serotonin and it's over, even if you took three times the required dose. There's no gain to be had from increasing the dose. These drugs
No actually, the problem is that people (like you) assume that Ecstacy simply must cause permanent changes so they go looking for them (and consistenly talk about them) even though there have been no indications of it. Why don't you wake the fuck up? Your entire message was based on your irrational "drugs are evil" upbringing that the original poster was talking about.
The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry.
At extremely high doses (the kind given to lab rats), which means that the margin of safety for a normal dose is much slimmer than for example THC or LSD. No research has found permanent changes in brain chemistry from normal doses of MDMA, but it is possible that such changes exist and are not detectable by current methods.
The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry. Sometimes very damaging changes. This is not even going into the addictive properties of most drugs.
I feel the biggest danger of drugs is unreliable quality on the streets.
Most exctacy you can get around here has a strong dose of speed in it and if you are lucky enough to find a pure source the stuff will cost double the cheap stuff. So lesson number one is only buy from known source
For me, the reason is more of having a culture rooted in Purantanism than of some industry that we can't kill.
Wait, I'm not clear on what industry you refer to? Are you coming out saying that we refuse to demonize the liquer industry because we need the jobs, but that we should because less people would die? Whoa.
I had more to say, but I am not clear enough about what you had to say to want to say it anymore.
I'm saying that people should be allowed to do to themselves what they want. This is not to suggest that people should be allowed to do things like drive while intoxicated. Then you begin to create a hazard for other people. If you want to do ecstacy, go ahead. And if you want to shower your brain with electromagnetic stimulation, go bonkers.
One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.
Ok. That's more clear now. I agree completely. I have personally come to the conclusion that our current era of prohibition isn't working, and we need to try something, anything, else. But that isn't gonna happen, cause, remember kids, drugs are bad, umm-kay?
As far as the burden to society, it isn't clear to me that drug use creates the burden, it might just be drug prohibition.
Of course if I had a teenager, and I found out somebody supplied them with something, I would probably go kick the assholes ass. A
No. Fuck off. You stay out of my house, I'll stay our of yours. I have an idea of the source of it's popularity. I just don't care. My money, my rules.
Color me offtopic if you will, but the first thing I thought of after reading your post was that of a person driving while intoxicated by their belief in god.
Which in turn reminds me of Mad magazine's "Popes gone bad", with such things as drive-by baptisms. And also those annoying bumper stickers that say something along the lines of "Warning: in case of rapture, this car will be unoccupied".
Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society. I don't get Presbyterian Welfare, last I checked. Religious institutions are supported by their believers. In fact, they draw in money which is used for charitable purposes, thus aiding society. Tithing is part of both Christianity and Islam, and possibly others. It seems like you just threw that in because it's a popular opinion to have around here.
I'm not talking about misguided people who misinterpret their chosen belief system and use that as justification to harm others. That has almost nothing to do with belief; in some cases it's a result of _religion_, but other things could be substituted.
autechre writes: "Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society."
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
If this is not self-evident I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Plenty of hostility around towards people who believe in God.
There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here.
Because people who overclock their CPUs do not, generally, demand that I do too.
So, is this a problem with religious people, or people in general? Do (democrats|republicans|insert political group here) not try to persuade you? Do (pro-life|pro-choice) groups not pressure you to believe as they do?
Yes, in U.S. and European history, and still today in other parts of the world, not conforming to a set of religious beliefs means death and torture. However, in western history, and still today in other p
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn
An AC writes: "On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn't see that were causing these visible diseases?
They were hung as witches and described as heretics by religious institutions. You get no reprive.
I have an argument that is EXACTLY as good as yours:
The invisible (to the naked eye) realities we know today as viruses and bacteria point to the visible reality of disease. The invisible reality people have faith in (FAIRIES AND GREMLINS), points to the visible reality we see (the Earth and all it contains). While it is a matter of faith and the ignorant wish to mock the fact, I believe (and modern science tells us) that there is more that is invisible (to the naked eye) that exists than we know, and mu
For one, churches don't pay taxes, for another, there is the immeasurable burden of having to slip innovation past the "If god had wanted us to walk around with no clothes on, we would've been born naked." mentality, which has opposed virtually all new technology since before there was a printing press to record it...
Well put. Especially the non-productive class part. Although you have to admit that some of them have been generating a lot of work for the LAWYERS lately. Religion as an institution is a parasite on society. Religion as a personal belief system my actually be a good thing if a shapes a persons moral system in positive way. Religion isn't bad, organized religion IS. Some people are gullable and stay, independent thinkers walk away with a REALLY bad taste in their mouth.
Ah, I guess you haven't heard of the "tentmaker" philosophy, followed by several ministers I've known. This basically means that a pastor should not be dependant on his congregation for a livelihood (in the beginning, they would make tents, though in modern times we get people who are, to use a real-world example, elevator repairmen).
You waste time posting on Slashdot. People waste time watching TV. I don't consider worship to be a waste of time.
Proselytizing is unique to several sects of Christianity,
Well, you can make the freedom to do drugs argument, but history is not kind on you if you do that. Historically, about 10% of the population of Britain were addicted to heroin; before this substance was outlawed. That's a lot of smack heads. I don't really think we want that many in any country.
If it turns out that electromagnetic stimulation causes similar social problems, then it too will be banned I suspect.
Well, you can make the freedom to do drugs argument, but history is not kind on you if you do that. Historically, about 10% of the population of Britain were addicted to heroin; before this substance was outlawed. That's a lot of smack heads. I don't really think we want that many in any country.
Way back when the British had an empire, you mean?;-)
fferrers writes: "Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do."
fferrers then writes in the next sentence: "They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize."
So you generalized all of society without knowing all of society, generalized me without knowing anything at all about what I do, then claimed that I cannot generalize.
Err yeah, Dark Ages, 911, book burnings, and it only took the Catholic Church how long to admit Galileo was right? Prior to WWII, more people were killed in the name of Christianity than in all of the known wars combined. Buddhists monks having gang wars to secure monies from funeral services? Jonestown. These are not generalizations.
Of course, it is always put forth that these are fringe elements; mentally unstable people and in no uncertain terms should the religion be held accountable for the actions of
Has nothing to do with religion. If you read the evangelium, you will not find what you think it's writen there. ItÂs just an example.
What some stupid dudes, including some popes, did in the name of religion, has absolutelly nothing to do with what religion is supposed to be. Granted, stupid people do dumb thing thing in the name of religion, as well as some atheist do in the name of... whatever. That doesn't change th reality: there might be god, and as long as it doesn't fuck up your right to do wh
I disagree completely. Yeah, atheist do stupid things for stupid reasons, but the body count isn't nearly as high. Nor is the loss of knowledge as severe. And when people fail to act because they belive their god will save them, or end all discussions with "you're wrong, god told me so"... These are definite tolls on a society. God may work fine and well on some astral plane. Down here on Earth, it sucks ass.
And yeah, it may not be what religon was intended to be, but that can be said about nearly anything
I belive in god, but at no point do I put that belief above my fellow man.
That's the key. Don't try to impose your point of view by force, and don't think you know it all. It's a firm belief. Now, when they try to ban your religion, is it ok?
In any case, religion can be good or bad for society, as well as atheism. I don't know about Nazism much, so I couldn't really tell. Only thing that I can say is that it was really sad and unforgibable. Let's not forget also how the modern Israel was born. History is
That's because most of the "drugs are bad, mmkay" stem from traditions based on people trying to further their own importance. Marijuana was banned not because it gets you high, but because it makes good rope. Speed was a drug dealt out often for various illnesses and weight loss, but if you have a heart condition and you take a shitload, you can die. No shit? Ecstacy and cocaine, were medicines, until the moral police decided they needed some floor space and "won't somebody think of the children" filled the air.
Cocaine is actually pretty similar in danger to caffeine, except that it is usually found in the US in a purified form. If you got caffeine in a similar form, it would probably kill you. Most cultures use one stimulant and prohibit others; it's pretty random that ours picks caffeine as good and cocaine as bad.
MDMA is quite safe: the main danger is that it encourages activity and suppresses thirst. If you take it at an all-night party without a lot of non-diuretic drinks, you can easily cause severe dehydration. It also causes a temporary burnout if you don't take an SSRI with it. If you try to take it frequently, it has no effect, and taking more than the appropriate dose doesn't matter.
Cannabis makes you think unclearly. If you spend too much time thinking unclearly, you can learn to do so all the time. It is therefore about as bad for you as listening to presidential addresses.
I'm not familiar with what is necessary for safe use of heroine. Most likely, a trained anaesthesiologist.
Things on fire cause cancer and burns; snorting and injecting things makes it easy to surpass the safe dosage (which is much harder to do by ingesting things).
Most controlled substances don't really require more responsibility than legal ones. Of course, street drugs are more dangerous than packaged ones, due to concentration and impurity, and street drug administration methods are more dangerous than using your stomach. Some controlled substances will impair driving, but plenty of OTC drugs do, too, and in worse ways.
You're mostly correct here. However all that's needed for safe opiate use is known doses of a pure drug. It's actually quite difficult to overdose on clean heroin, especially if one has a tolerance to it. Citation [druglibrary.org]
Do you mean it's difficult to overdose in the sense that you know how much you're giving yourself so you won't take too much?
Then I'd agree, as it's the same with anything, eg. caffeine. If I take a 200mg pill I know it'll kick in in around 30 minutes and I won't need another for probably 2 or 3 hours (for staying awake late). But if I was getting anywhere from 10mg to 2g in a cup it could be dangerous to dose on caffeine.
Sorry the only thing that confused me was the mention of tolerance, as I don't k
Things you swallow aren't as dangerous as things you inject, because your digestive tract helps somewhat to avoid overdosing, both by failing to absorb excessive amounts of a particular substance and by inducing vomitting in extreme cases.
That paper suggests that the lethal dose of heroin is actually high enough that you can't buy it accidentally, and that "overdose" deaths are largely caused by mixing with other drugs, either impurities in the substance or taken separately (like alcohol).
It's fairly safe in that the lethal dose is several times the effective dose, and for people with tolerance, it's many times the ED.
Now as to the benefits of opiate use, it's whatever floats your boat. If you like trippiness, you might try opium, also oral opiates tend to be more cognitive and visual. Injected opiates really just tend towards a rush. Opiates can be a source of inspiration. Coleridge's Xanadu [eserver.org] for instance. Sometimes the perfect peace and clarity of an opiate high can be enlightening, a p
>>>>>If you got caffeine in a similar form, it would probably kill you.
I got a visual of someone doing a gram line of caffine off the table, and their head exploding. But seriously, the people who eat the 'caffine-speed' pills to stay awake for exams probably would do better to use Cocaine on the tests instead; it doesn't cause nearly as much mental cloudiness.
A lot of software was written on cocaine binges, according to 'rumors from former employees'.
Cocaine is actually pretty similar in danger to caffeine, except that it is usually found in the US in a purified form. If you got caffeine in a similar form, it would probably kill you. Most cultures use one stimulant and prohibit others; it's pretty random that ours picks caffeine as good and cocaine as bad.
I was rather under the impression, from friends who've studied medicine, that the real reason cocaine is so dangerous is that it is so addictive. It affects your brain within two heartbeats if I re
The chain of causation goes back not to the substance but to the form. Snorting anything makes it hit very quickly and very hard. If you were to drink a beverage containing cocaine, it wouldn't affect you for a little while, since it would have to be absorbed from your stomach, put in your bloodstream, and brought to your brain. If you were to snort powdered caffeine, it would hit in two heartbeats and extremely hard, because it enters your bloodstream in your brain through mucous membranes.
I'm not familiar with what is necessary for safe use of heroine. Most likely, a trained anaesthesiologist.
I've found that TV is an excellent delivery method for heroine [sion.com], though heroine addiction [donnaville.com] has been occasionaly reported. Treatment is often unsuccessful, and there are those who prey on [webundies.com] the unfortunate addict.
I think the arguments have been that the US drug policy was born out of the prevailent racism [drugpolicy.org] and paranoia [dangerouscitizen.com] at the begining of the last century.
But you can't consider this lightly or you'll never really understand American drug policy. The scary thing about the moral police is that they are trying to do what they honestly believe is right and that makes them fairly complicated.
Besides, drugs are not benign and their effects on society (and more importantly your family and friends) can be disastrous.
Bear in mind that leeches were 'medicine' at one point, too. Although the hypocrisy of the War On Drugs can't be disputed, it doesn't turn coke into a cure for cancer.
Hooking ourselves up to 1.21 gigawatt machines that shock our brains into seeing the world in a different way are more acceptable than a pill that does the same, simply because the machine doesn't make you euphoric in the process (and if by chance it did, that could easily be fixed with some mandatory (by law) spikes, sandpaper, etc. Does it make any sense? Of course not.
We managed to colonize america, defeat the british, expand all the way to california, go through the industrial revolution, and build
im all for the legalization of some drugs. but your pitiful rant is an example of what one can do with statistics.
sure 6x as many people have died behind a motorboat. nice. so how many more people were behind that boat in the first place? 15x, 20x? I bet its up there.
there goes your lovely statistic..
then to attack drunk driving as a defense? might as well not attack drunk driving, cause we have bigger things to worry about...like nukes, wars, cancer
and to lump ephedra and creatine in a sentence with ec
whats the ratio of people who have taken MDMA(ecstasy) to those who have died from it, its probably the same as those who have tried water skiing and those who have died from that activity.
all these statistics are fucked.. its like saying 9/10 lab rats die from water skiing, and 9/10 lab rats die from ingesting 1 pound of MDMA, its all utterly ridiculous
and to lump ephedra in a sentence with ecstasy? seriouslly. do you know anything about drugs?
You made a good point with the statistical flaw, but lost me when you got to the above. I advise you to stop calling the kettle black, and go do some research yourself.
While I support your point about the inherent double standard in the 'developed world,' I wouldn't be surprised if this line of research were decried. To many, including myself (without additional, credible research), this smacks of 21st century charlatanism. Additionally, since this is not a drug in the common sense (ie, produced by some major pharmaceutical company) you will see a great deal of backlash from that sector to debunk and quash this line of research.
An AC writes: "Hedonism extends far beyond just the sexual stuff--there's people out there that think our whole existence should be transformed to a blissful, engineering (not necessarily drug-)induced utopia, completely without pain."
I'm Buddhist. It is sort of a central tenant of ours that this isn't possible.
"Anyways, that's one reason there's a kneejerk reaction against recreational drugs. There are other extremely valid reasons--crime and other behavioral penalties."
Unfortunately, I have known people killed in auto crashes after using MDMA, most likely in conjunction with other drugs, however.
As far as the risk of brain damage is concerned, much research points to the fact that it may be temporary from using MDMA. Brains can establish new connections after old ones have been damaged, over time. Keep in mind, however, the brains of rats and monkeys are a bit different than human beings, so humans may react differently, there may be no damage at all- but no researcher
It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned.
I'm not contending that ecstasy has a high death rate at all merely that the relevant proportions and per capita statistics should be mentioned, not the net number of deaths. Otherwise when you hear that approximately 2.4 million pe
handsolo writes: "It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned."
I agree. I actually agree that ecstacy is much more harmful to the body than alcohol. But alcohol use is an epidemic, not ecstacy use.
My post was not intended to convey some level of safety but merely that our con
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulation utilizing this method. So it isn't the end we're concerned about, it's the vehicle.
Drug-war hysteria (pro and con) aside, most mind-altering drugs are made illegal because they are seen (or at least imagined) to have deleterious effects on the people who use them, and (just as important) on the society that supports those
During alchol prohabition some (wont mention names) politicians learned that all the MOB violence had an interesting side effect of allowing the general populus to put up with taxes that never would have been dreamed of otherwise (in the name of protecting the public, of course). With this money, many funded sweetheart deals that made them very personally wealthy.
Unfortunately, that tradition contunues today. It was especially bad during the 80's - whenever rich people started to get fed up with the hig
I can legally drive a car, license a gun, fink on my sodomite neighbors, or practice dubious quack health care of various kinds, all of which gives me some degree of control over the bodies of others. But I am prohibited from obtaining or using a vast array of substances, many of which are less toxic than aspirin.
We favour coercive control over others' bodies to allowing individual freedoms with our own bodies.
It isn't just about the brain/mind. Prohibition is also about offering your entire body up to th
No worries there. The same people terrified of being attacked by crazed gang members under the effects of "REFFER MADDNESS" are often fairly technophobic as well. Given a few light reports on the tv news, I'm sure folks will start trying to get continuing research into this banned as well.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Brain Wars (Score:5, Interesting)
"While I drew, Snyder continued his lecture. ''You could call this a creativity-amplifying machine. It's a way of altering our states of mind without taking drugs like mescaline. You can make people see the raw data of the world as it is. As it is actually represented in the unconscious mind of all of us.''"
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulation utilizing this method. So it isn't the end we're concerned about, it's the vehicle.
Do you realize that roughly 6x as many people have died either outright or by drowning after inhaling fumes while behind a motorboat since 1991 than have while taking MDMA (ecstacy)? And that doesn't even include the people who drowned and nobody suspected the poisoning.
Do you realize that between cirrhosis of the liver (alcohol) and deaths resulting from drunk driving accidents there are 60,000 killed in the US every year? And ephedra, creatine and ecstacy are the problems?
Sorry for going off on a rant here. I welcome this sort of research. But it does point out that what Americans are against is not people doing things to their own bodies. What people fear is a boogeyman that has been fueled by a multi-billion dollar industry that they need to maintain. Ie, jobs.
w00t.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
If it is found at any time that these machines make permanent changes in mental funtioning or are addictive in nature, he will have to proceed a lot more carefully and under a very big microscope.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
" The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry. Sometimes very damaging changes."
No evidence of this. In the one experiment that theoretically shows this, monkeys were given massive doses of MDMA. We're talking on the order of 40 pills, IIRC. Anybody who does that deserves the damage. There is zero evidence whatsoever that the doses taken by humans to achieve the affect causes any long-term effect on the brain
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
And it is this effect that is the most interesting and quite unique to MDMA. It's deserving of more research in order to better understand the workings of the human mind.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/ecstasy.html
h t tp://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_research 1.pdf
http://www.psychiatry.ufl.edu/newsletters/C ontent/ mccann.pdf
From the last link:
"Although we havenâ(TM)t yet conducted longitudinal studies in human MDMA users, we know that brain serotonin innervations in monkeys treated with MDMA still isnâ(TM)t normal 7 years later."
This link provides information
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
"Although we havenâ(TM)t yet conducted longitudinal studies in human MDMA users, we know that brain serotonin innervations in monkeys treated with MDMA still isnâ(TM)t normal 7 years later."
Without listing the dose this information is useless. If I take enough vitamin E I'll die. Doesn't mean it's dangerous.
Hell, you can do it with water [amaasportsmed.org], too.
"Also, if you think declining effects are a reason people put down a drug, then maybe you should do a little research into dr
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
"Point me to the research showing that people who experience declining positive effects from a given dose give it up rather than taking more of the drug to get the desired effect and I'll believe you."
Taking more ecstacy does not increase the effect. Ask anyone who does it.
And if you want citations, look them up yourself. I'm not presenting a white paper here, I'm presenting discussion. If a lack of a citation causes you to not believe me, so be it. I'll live.
If you are sufficient
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
On the other hand, there is too much crap in here to simply ignore. So I'm speaking to whoever stumbles upon it, not the poster.
The AC (aren't they all?) writes:
""Anyone who does it" is just going to try and rationalize their use of it, just like you are. Of course you want to believe it's not harmful, since you do it yourself."
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
One thing about MDMA and LSD that would make this more pronounced is that overdoses tend to not be more intense. You burn all your serotonin and it's over, even if you took three times the required dose. There's no gain to be had from increasing the dose. These drugs
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
At extremely high doses (the kind given to lab rats), which means that the margin of safety for a normal dose is much slimmer than for example THC or LSD. No research has found permanent changes in brain chemistry from normal doses of MDMA, but it is possible that such changes exist and are not detectable by current methods.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
I feel the biggest danger of drugs is unreliable quality on the streets.
Most exctacy you can get around here has a strong dose of speed in it and if you are lucky enough to find a pure source the stuff will cost double the cheap stuff. So lesson number one is only buy from known source
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Wait, I'm not clear on what industry you refer to? Are you coming out saying that we refuse to demonize the liquer industry because we need the jobs, but that we should because less people would die? Whoa.
I had more to say, but I am not clear enough about what you had to say to want to say it anymore.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
As far as the burden to society, it isn't clear to me that drug use creates the burden, it might just be drug prohibition.
Of course if I had a teenager, and I found out somebody supplied them with something, I would probably go kick the assholes ass. A
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Made me laugh.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not talking about misguided people who misinterpret their chosen belief system and use that as justification to harm others. That has almost nothing to do with belief; in some cases it's a result of _religion_, but other things could be substituted.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:3, Interesting)
"Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society."
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
If this is not self-evident I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here.
And why is that?
Re:Brain Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
So, is this a problem with religious people, or people in general? Do (democrats|republicans|insert political group here) not try to persuade you? Do (pro-life|pro-choice) groups not pressure you to believe as they do?
Yes, in U.S. and European history, and still today in other parts of the world, not conforming to a set of religious beliefs means death and torture. However, in western history, and still today in other p
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Brain Farts = Those without faith (Score:1)
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn
Re:Brain Farts = Those without faith (Score:2)
"On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn't see that were causing these visible diseases?
They were hung as witches and described as heretics by religious institutions. You get no reprive.
"We have not discovered e
Re:Brain Farts = Those without faith (Score:2)
The invisible (to the naked eye) realities we know today as viruses and bacteria point to the visible reality of disease. The invisible reality people have faith in ( FAIRIES AND GREMLINS ), points to the visible reality we see (the Earth and all it contains). While it is a matter of faith and the ignorant wish to mock the fact, I believe (and modern science tells us) that there is more that is invisible (to the naked eye) that exists than we know, and mu
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Promote the existence of a non/anti-productive class (the clergy).
Waste the time consumed in worship.
Promote irrationality and gullibilty.
Give tyrants another excuse for war.
Obstruct science (anti-Darwinism, for example).
Create an irritating class of people who proselytize.
Christianity bears a large part of the responsibilty for the roughly 1000 years of no advancement of civilization prior to the renaissance.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
You waste time posting on Slashdot. People waste time watching TV. I don't consider worship to be a waste of time.
Proselytizing is unique to several sects of Christianity,
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
If it turns out that electromagnetic stimulation causes similar social problems, then it too will be banned I suspect.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Way back when the British had an empire, you mean?
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do. They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
"Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do."
fferrers then writes in the next sentence:
"They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize."
So you generalized all of society without knowing all of society, generalized me without knowing anything at all about what I do, then claimed that I cannot generalize.
That is just
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Of course, it is always put forth that these are fringe elements; mentally unstable people and in no uncertain terms should the religion be held accountable for the actions of
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
What some stupid dudes, including some popes, did in the name of religion, has absolutelly nothing to do with what religion is supposed to be. Granted, stupid people do dumb thing thing in the name of religion, as well as some atheist do in the name of
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
And yeah, it may not be what religon was intended to be, but that can be said about nearly anything
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
That's the key. Don't try to impose your point of view by force, and don't think you know it all. It's a firm belief. Now, when they try to ban your religion, is it ok?
In any case, religion can be good or bad for society, as well as atheism. I don't know about Nazism much, so I couldn't really tell. Only thing that I can say is that it was really sad and unforgibable. Let's not forget also how the modern Israel was born. History is
Oblig. Simpson's Quote (Score:2)
Homer: "No TV and no beer make Homer something something..."
Marge (reading the walls): "Go crazy?"
Homer: "Don't mind if I do..." (Makes crazy sounds)
Ah, a classic.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:4, Insightful)
MDMA is quite safe: the main danger is that it encourages activity and suppresses thirst. If you take it at an all-night party without a lot of non-diuretic drinks, you can easily cause severe dehydration. It also causes a temporary burnout if you don't take an SSRI with it. If you try to take it frequently, it has no effect, and taking more than the appropriate dose doesn't matter.
Cannabis makes you think unclearly. If you spend too much time thinking unclearly, you can learn to do so all the time. It is therefore about as bad for you as listening to presidential addresses.
I'm not familiar with what is necessary for safe use of heroine. Most likely, a trained anaesthesiologist.
Things on fire cause cancer and burns; snorting and injecting things makes it easy to surpass the safe dosage (which is much harder to do by ingesting things).
Most controlled substances don't really require more responsibility than legal ones. Of course, street drugs are more dangerous than packaged ones, due to concentration and impurity, and street drug administration methods are more dangerous than using your stomach. Some controlled substances will impair driving, but plenty of OTC drugs do, too, and in worse ways.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Then I'd agree, as it's the same with anything, eg. caffeine. If I take a 200mg pill I know it'll kick in in around 30 minutes and I won't need another for probably 2 or 3 hours (for staying awake late). But if I was getting anywhere from 10mg to 2g in a cup it could be dangerous to dose on caffeine.
Sorry the only thing that confused me was the mention of tolerance, as I don't k
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
That paper suggests that the lethal dose of heroin is actually high enough that you can't buy it accidentally, and that "overdose" deaths are largely caused by mixing with other drugs, either impurities in the substance or taken separately (like alcohol).
The thing with t
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Now as to the benefits of opiate use, it's whatever floats your boat. If you like trippiness, you might try opium, also oral opiates tend to be more cognitive and visual. Injected opiates really just tend towards a rush. Opiates can be a source of inspiration. Coleridge's Xanadu [eserver.org] for instance. Sometimes the perfect peace and clarity of an opiate high can be enlightening, a p
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
I got a visual of someone doing a gram line of caffine off the table, and their head exploding. But seriously, the people who eat the 'caffine-speed' pills to stay awake for exams probably would do better to use Cocaine on the tests instead; it doesn't cause nearly as much mental cloudiness.
A lot of software was written on cocaine binges, according to 'rumors from former employees'.
According to our informat tests
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
I was rather under the impression, from friends who've studied medicine, that the real reason cocaine is so dangerous is that it is so addictive. It affects your brain within two heartbeats if I re
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Caffeine and co
Safe Use of Heroine (Score:2)
I've found that TV is an excellent delivery method for heroine [sion.com], though heroine addiction [donnaville.com] has been occasionaly reported. Treatment is often unsuccessful, and there are those who prey on [webundies.com] the unfortunate addict.
Actually I thought it was racism... (Score:2)
But you can't consider this lightly or you'll never really understand American drug policy. The scary thing about the moral police is that they are trying to do what they honestly believe is right and that makes them fairly complicated.
Besides, drugs are not benign and their effects on society (and more importantly your family and friends) can be disastrous.
I m
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
machine vs drugs (Score:2)
We managed to colonize america, defeat the british, expand all the way to california, go through the industrial revolution, and build
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
sure 6x as many people have died behind a motorboat. nice. so how many more people were behind that boat in the first place? 15x, 20x? I bet its up there.
there goes your lovely statistic..
then to attack drunk driving as a defense? might as well not attack drunk driving, cause we have bigger things to worry about...like nukes, wars, cancer
and to lump ephedra and creatine in a sentence with ec
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
all these statistics are fucked.. its like saying 9/10 lab rats die from water skiing, and 9/10 lab rats die from ingesting 1 pound of MDMA, its all utterly ridiculous
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
You made a good point with the statistical flaw, but lost me when you got to the above. I advise you to stop calling the kettle black, and go do some research yourself.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
"Hedonism extends far beyond just the sexual stuff--there's people out there that think our whole existence should be transformed to a blissful, engineering (not necessarily drug-)induced utopia, completely without pain."
I'm Buddhist. It is sort of a central tenant of ours that this isn't possible.
"Anyways, that's one reason there's a kneejerk reaction against recreational drugs. There are other extremely valid reasons--crime and other behavioral penalties."
I have not touched drugs in well
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
As far as the risk of brain damage is concerned, much research points to the fact that it may be temporary from using MDMA. Brains can establish new connections after old ones have been damaged, over time. Keep in mind, however, the brains of rats and monkeys are a bit different than human beings, so humans may react differently, there may be no damage at all- but no researcher
statistic Wars (Score:1)
I'm not contending that ecstasy has a high death rate at all merely that the relevant proportions and per capita statistics should be mentioned, not the net number of deaths. Otherwise when you hear that approximately 2.4 million pe
Re:statistic Wars (Score:2)
"It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned."
I agree. I actually agree that ecstacy is much more harmful to the body than alcohol. But alcohol use is an epidemic, not ecstacy use.
My post was not intended to convey some level of safety but merely that our con
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulation utilizing this method. So it isn't the end we're concerned about, it's the
vehicle.
Drug-war hysteria (pro and con) aside, most mind-altering drugs are made illegal because they are seen (or at least imagined) to have deleterious effects on the people who use them, and (just as important) on the society that supports those
offtpoic - why we have prohabition (Score:2)
During alchol prohabition some (wont mention names) politicians learned that all the MOB violence had an interesting side effect of allowing the general populus to put up with taxes that never would have been dreamed of otherwise (in the name of protecting the public, of course). With this money, many funded sweetheart deals that made them very personally wealthy.
Unfortunately, that tradition contunues today. It was especially bad during the 80's - whenever rich people started to get fed up with the hig
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
We favour coercive control over others' bodies to allowing individual freedoms with our own bodies.
It isn't just about the brain/mind. Prohibition is also about offering your entire body up to th
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)