Ain't that a trip?

[innerSpaceman]

There's a lot of anecdotal emphasis on hallucinations when talking about the effects of psychedelic drugs. It's mostly bogus. Far more emphatic hallucinations result - as € pointed out - from sleep deprivation. Psychedelic drugs do provide a panoply of visual effects, but they are not usually the outright hallucinatory effects of no sleep.

LSD's visual effects usually run to "trails" and "melting". Ecstacy has the wonderful visual effect of extreme clarity and precision (unless the tremors get to your eyeballs).

But the hallucinatory or visual effects are NOT the main event, and not - I daresay - why people take psychedelic drugs. It's the effect on the mind, the soul and the psyche that are important. LSD provides uncommon insight and Ecstacy uncommon empathy - often resulting in soul-improving experiences which are of extreme value to personal growth and richness of life.

There are also negative physical effects associated with these drugs, but mostly have to do with the elements they are "cut" with. Ecstacy can give you the shakes, and acid can be very speedy ... but not because of the LSD or MDMA itself. Pure forms of these drugs, much more rarely found, have none of these negative effects.

Some negative effects are endemic to the drugs themselves. Ecstacy, particularly, (in essence) depletes the brain chemical serotonin ... and can leave you feeling a bit blue as a result (easily combatted psychologically if you know why you have the temporary blues).

LSD, Ecstacy and, to a lesser extent, psilocibin mushrooms tend to leave you feeling a little worn out. So does a good hike, a good party or a good day at Disneyland.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In terms of "messing with chemisty", I'll got out on a limb and suggest that the amount of "damage" (i.e., irreversible alteration) done by the huge dump of adreneline (and countless other hormones) during something like skydiving is likely a far larger chemical alteration than is done by LSD where one dose is so small that, as a percentage of liquid volume in your body it's literally zero.

I can totally accept, "It doesn't seem like something for me." That was me for a long time, and still is for many-a-recreational substance. Such things certainly aren't for everyone. I generally don't set out to try everything I can. But "I don't want to mess with my body" (especially with "except for caffine, sugar, chocolate, and adrenaline sports" caveats) is an interesting bit of excuse making.

As for hallucinations, I've never had a true "seeing something that's completely not there" hallucination. What I tend to experience is an easing of my minds visual slipability. My brain, under the influence of certain drugs, likes to take what I see in front of me, turn it into a mental image, and then alter that mental image in vivid and interesting ways. I don't see things that aren't there, I see things that are there in a visually enjoyable way.

Actually, one of my favorite states is towards the end of a shroom experience in what I like to call the "what's different" stage. The vivid visuals are gone, the scattered thoughts are gone, but something just feels different. Just enough to give the world a fresh perspective for a little while. The best analogy I can think of is when, after many days of rain and cloudiness, all of a sudden it's a clear, sunny day. Nothings really changed from the last time you saw the sun shine, but the familiar still seems new and wonderful.

[scaeagles]

I completely agree that caffeine and sugar are drugs. I was completely addicted to soda and quit drinking it several years ago and for three days I could hardly function. I do my best to avoid them, and as I'm not eating chocolate anymore, I don't get much sugar and no caffeine.

Regardless, I disagree about adrenaline issues. I fail to see how something our body makes and increases production of naturally (assuming there is nothing wrong the way your body is functioning) is quite akin to putting foreign substances in your body, but that's OK. This is also why I would never be critical of some on say, an antidepressant, because typically that mind altering drug is to try to restore the natural balance of serotonin.

I'm not ragging on anyone here for doing what they do. I'm saying exactly the "it's not for me" thing and explaining why. I almost get the feeling some people view it as an attack that I stress what I think are the negative things about putting mind altering substances in the body.

But, as CP put it, it's a risk/benefit analysis for everyone. I do like "adrenaline sports", as GD put it, and there certainly is risk involved. I prefer the risk of jumping out of an airplane to purchasing something from someone on the street and smoking or snorting or licking or injecting or whatever the heck you do with whatever the heck it is.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Regardless, I disagree about adrenaline issues. I fail to see how something our body makes and increases production of naturally (assuming there is nothing wrong the way your body is functioning) is quite akin to putting foreign substances in your body, but that's OK. This is also why I would never be critical of some on say, an antidepressant, because typically that mind altering drug is to try to restore the natural balance of serotonin.

Interesting that you call the goal of antidepressatns "restoring the natural balance", but don't see massive adrenaline dumps as an "unnatural imbalance". LSD, actually, makes for an interesting comparison point. It's been show to have effects using as little as 20 micrograms (that's 1/50 the weight of a grain of sand). A dose that size is far too small for the direct physical effects of the chemical to be causing the "symptoms". No one's even sure what exactly causes it, but the likely culprit seems to be an increase of the naturally ocurring amino acid glutamate. From that view, skydiving and LSD sound pretty similar. Both are activities that produce enjoyment for some people by increasing production of a naturally ocurring body chemical, cause permanent alteration to the functioning of the brain, and carry a risk of serious physical harm.

[Alex]

By broad defnitions pretty much anything you put into your body is a drug. If sugar is a drug then so are carbohydrates and protein. All of them, through injestion cause body chemistry changes. About the only thing you could put into your body and not have it be a drug would be the rightmost column of the periodic table (and even those, in sufficient quantities will produce significant change in bodily function).

I don't care what people put into their bodies or why. All I care about is how they act after they do so. If you can consume an 8 ball a day and still function in polite society I don't give a damn. If you can't drink an O'Doul's without becoming aggressive and puking on my shoes then I give a damn.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's (LSD) been show(n) to have effects using as little as 20 micrograms (that's 1/50 the weight of a grain of sand). A dose that size is far too small for the direct physical effects of the chemical to be causing the "symptoms". No one's even sure what exactly causes it...

Exactly. One of the "trippiest" things about LSD is its ability to be active in doses so small as to be nearly non-existent. It's merely a (very powerful) trigger to your own brain chemistry. (Ecstacy likewise, though not nearly as miraculously effective in miniscule does as LSD).

In both cases, it's your own brain chemistry at work. Essentially, an innate ability that is rarely enjoyed without trigger assistance. The adrenaliine rush of skydiving is a trigger assistance.

There are many such trigger assists that we call "natural" because circumstances like being chased by a bear will produce tons of adrenaline, and being subjected to torture will produce tons of endorphines. But finding these chemical-dump triggers to be the "right" or natural ones while LSD is a somehow "wrong" and dangerous one is naive.


(I'm not saying all this to rebut scaeagles, just to point out info which I find interesting)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Each drug that I have used, and that would be most of them, with the exception of ecstacy and opiates, has one thing in common. It provides a unique perspective, a different way of looking at things. As someone who has creative tendencies, I see new perspectives as a welcome thing and there are certain drugs that caused me to create things that I would not have without their use. This is the appeal that drugs have on creative types.

As an example, you can look at a prolific group like The Beatles and literally hear in their music when they started to smoke pot and how that drug changed their perspective. Likewise, when they started experimenting with hallucinagens, which had a much different effect than the marijuana. And these drugs literally transformed what was a boy band (albeit, a very talented one) into a group of groundbreaking visionaries. One needn't even be a fan to be able to see the difference in depth between "She Loves You" and "Eleanor Rigby".

Another example would be the works of Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, and so many other bebop artists who used heroin. While this drug has done a lot of damage to the lives of so many artists and is quite dangerous, it has still made its mark in music by providing its own unique perspective to a number of musicians who made some incredible music under its influence. I would be so bold as to say that we would be missing a lot of our best musical works had drugs not been a part of the picture.

From my own perspective, I went through a wide variety of experiences, both good and bad before finding what did and didn't work for me. The nice thing is that once you have experienced a drug a few times, it seems to alter your perception forever, in the sense that you can tap into the creative areas that the drug opened up, even if you aren't under the influence anymore.

I guess this is all what I would consider a non-medical benefit of drugs, although benefit might not be the best word. All drugs carry various dangers along with them. Still, it is a tradeoff I was willing to make. There is really only one drug that I still have any interest in doing. I'm well aware of the ones that have the potential to cause problems in my life. I stay away from those like the plague. Well, with the exception of cigarettes, which in my opinion is the most dangerous and addictive drug that there is, legal or illegal.

[scaeagles]

While I find the chemistry lesson to be interesting (seriously, no sarcasm intended), my body is designed to increase and decrease adrenaline all by itself. With LSD, and you did say that no one knows exactly what causes the effect, the effect sought after is still brought about by introducing some physical and foreign substance into your body, regardless of the amount required.

And again, to each their own. I stand by my reasoning. You stand by yours, and that's great. As long as no one forces me to take anything, we're cool.

You see, this is really why I've never agreed to meet anyone at when I've gone to DL....I'm really just afraid you'll slip me a drop of acid.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

While I find the chemistry lesson to be interesting (seriously, no sarcasm intended), my body is designed to increase and decrease adrenaline all by itself. With LSD, and you did say that no one knows exactly what causes the effect, the effect sought after is still brought about by introducing some physical and foreign substance into your body, regardless of the amount required.

But what if someone discovers a way to completely reproduce the effects of LSD without any such "foreign substance" (I know, unlikely, but bear with me). Would you, scaeagles, then be inclined to try it? My guess is probably not since, as you've already made clear, the effects aren't something that appeals to you. So this whole business of "foreign substance" is stands out as quite the red herring, even more so when you look at the reality of the chemistry going on. If it doesn't interest you then it doesn't interest you, no worries.

But the "it's bad for you 'cause it's not natural" argument is too often used as justification for the vilification and persecution of drug use. I'm not in saying that that's what you're doing, obviosly you're not. But as a rational person, I'd think that you'd be better served just making your decission based on your own desires, not on some technical rationalization that bears little resemblance to reality.

[Alex]

But the "it's bad for you 'cause it's not natural" argument is too often used as justification for the vilification and persecution of drug use.

I'm not saying anybody here has put forward the argument but something I find interesting is that many people will disdain the "unnatural" argument against drugs while blindly supporting it against genetically modified corn. And vice versa.