A month ago, some “interesting” discussion developed around my mini-review of Vin Suprynowicz’s (highly recommended) new book The Testament of James. Religious sensibilities were offended by the thought of finding God via chemical assistance. (Never mind that trying out those unfamiliar mushrooms or leaves probably informed all the world’s religions at some point.)
Now, with support from some very important biochemists, Vin answers one commenter’s most vehement objections.
—–
Feel free to comment here or at Vin’s place. But this time (unlike last) trolls, if any, will be spotted and ejected more quickly.
Pardon an old nurse here, but I think it is important to mention that all herbs and so forth are potentially dangerous, and serious effort should be made to understand what one is proposing to take and very cautious with it. Too many people seem to think that if something is “natural,” that it is safe to use without limit or understanding its properties and so forth. Since each person responds to things differently, and without any standard of composition or dose – especially with raw herbs and mushrooms, it can be a very serious guessing game. Finding a mentor or experienced herbalist/practitioner to advise you might be very wise.
Also, great caution needs to be taken when mixing any of these substances. Most of the “drug overdoses” I’ve seen were the result of ignorant mixing of drugs and alcohol, or automobiles… or all three.
Agree with ML. My wife and I got into a minor disagreement with a couple of our midwives when my wife said she didn’t want to use any drugs during her labor if possible. The midwives defined drugs as factory produced drugs. We define drugs as anything that has a pharmacological effect. “Natural” doesn’t mean what a lot of people seem to think.
On those occasions when I must notice Vin Suprynowicz, I find myself struggling to take him seriously. That article didn’t help.
100% agreed that anything with a pharmacological effect can be called a drug, and that prudence is always in order.
Having had some bad (as well as some very good) experiences in my youth with the kind of psychoactive drugs Vin’s talking about, I know how powerful they can be, for good or ill, and how a single dose can change a life.
I was horrified, years after my experiments with LSD, to hear about people using it just for entertainment. Of course, they were taking about 1/10th the dose that was usual in the late 60s/early 70s. But still … that stuff isn’t to be lightly messed with. OTOH, Vin’s talking about the spiritual use of psychoactive substances, and people have always been willing to suffer and court danger to try and find God. Some entheogens (most, maybe) have potentially horrible side effects, and seekers often accept and even adopt those effects as a valuable part of the experience (e.g. purging during peyote ceremonies).
I also agree 100% with ML.
Using “chemicals” (whether natural-growing or man-made) for relief of pain, e.g., is not the same as using them to induce “the truth.” If the mind is to find some degree of “reality”, it must do so on its own — otherwise the mind (with or without its own natural chemicals) is not doing the thinking, but letting another substance do the perceiving/“thinking” for him.
In addition: Perception /per se/ is not truth, it is a sensitivity and response to stimuli (of whatever nature) which may or may not prove to be correct. Shulgin’s remembering was just that — remembering — and might have been called up just as well by hypnosis.
Also, Hofmann’s experiments with LSD may have been pleasant for him, but I have seen real psychic damage done by LSD — a couple of patients never recovered, and others lost too many years out of their lives. It all depends on what’s in the mind in the first place, and how the chemical acts on it.
But religion has nothing to do with it — except that believers of all sorts, from
Neanderthals to modern times, have always used “sacramentals” to enhance their religious ceremonies and personal reactions. If they wish to call it a religious experience, so be it.
Having said all that, I do think that no one should tell others — either by law or social judgement — what or how to believe, perceive, think, or otherwise conclude during the course of his lifetime. That is an individual process which only the individual can, or has the right to, decide.
“If the mind is to find some degree of “reality”, it must do so on its own — otherwise the mind (with or without its own natural chemicals) is not doing the thinking, but letting another substance do the perceiving/“thinking” for him.”
Pat, I must disagree with that. Entheogens don’t “do the thinking” for a person; they simply enable the brain to think and perceive differently for a time. Eventually the altered state goes away, but afterwards the brain can go on using and developing the insights gained in the experience.
You’re right. I shouldn’t have said chemicals do the “thinking” for the individual, just the perceiving. But they do not allow thinking, at least not a fully cognizant mind that would respond — AND perceive! — at full attention if the drugs weren’t there.
Technically any action taken during the effect of entheogens on the mind is not one’s fault. Yet obviously — to me, at least — we are responsible for every action taken, no matter what the cause.
So I’m not really concerned with the religious aspect of drugs, only the action they elicit during the experience. I do think it’s unnecessary to take drugs when people can get spiritually high on meditation, reading the Bible, even solitude. But that’s not my decision to make. The *results* of taking drugs, however, may often affect other people, and I do believe that “thinking differently” (which is still “thinking,” BTW) can lead to unpleasant or undesirable results for other people.
“The *results* of taking drugs, however, may often affect other people, and I do believe that “thinking differently” (which is still “thinking,” BTW) can lead to unpleasant or undesirable results for other people.”
Maybe those other people should mind their own business.
It’s always a good idea for individuals to understand and consider the effects their actions might have on other people. However, there is a limit to how far a person can go down that road, and still own his life (rather than those other people owning it). That limit is set by self interest; e.g., “How much do I really want to fit in with this crowd?”
“I shouldn’t have said chemicals do the “thinking” for the individual, just the perceiving. But they do not allow thinking, at least not a fully cognizant mind that would respond — AND perceive! — at full attention if the drugs weren’t there.”
Pat, I’m thinking that you’re thinking of an entirely different sort of drug than I’m thinking about.
Maybe those other people should mind their own business.
Yeah, ideally. But an intoxicated driver careening down the road or a spouse spending the family food budget on drugs is unavoidably other people’s business. That’s what I would consider “undesirable results.” YMMV
Sometimes you don’t need a “substance” to take a trip. In Ranger School we were out in the woods on a day when it was about 50 degrees, misty, and windy. One of the students wandered over to a pine tree and made a phone call to his parents. Understand, this was long before cellphones, etc, so there was no phone. Hypothermia is a sneaky bitch.
Larry… an impaired driver, maybe. But how is the unwise use of a family “food budget” anyone else’s business? Isn’t that the spouse’s business? She/he could ask for assistance if it was beyond her/his ability to deal with.
An “undesirable result” of drug use, maybe so… or gambling, obcession with a hobby, many others possibilities. Living with the consequences of our words, actions and choices is the price of liberty…
LOL and thank you, LarryA.
While I do appreciate the many cautions people are expressing about various sorts of drugs, I find it sad that the moment so many people think about mind-altering chemicals they automatically think of abuse of mind-altering chemicals. The talk instantly turns to how chemicals control people, prevent thinking, damage lives.
Can substances from mescaline to vodka be abused? Sure they can. Of course. (And I know you nurses and others have witnessed that.) Those same chemicals can also be responsibly, and even productively, utilized. Psychedelic drugs, for one thing, have many potential uses in everything from addiction treatment to enhancing creativity to spiritual quests.
The fact that many people — even here! — instantly equate drug use with drug abuse is a sign of how effective drug-war propaganda has been. Why should abuse be our first thought when the subject of mind-altering chemicals comes up?
I think that there are several points being made here. And, in their context, well taken.
The original point was that certain drugs could create/enhance a spiritual experience. And from my own experiences, I’d have to agree. I have received insights when under the influence of the powerful psychoactives that have never left me. They constitute what I consider an important component of who I am now.
To be clear, I wasn’t looking for that when I took them. I simply wanted to get very very high and have a good time. Instead I took a trip (arrgh) into the deepest places I have ever consciously gone. That didn’t happen every time.
After my marriage to drugs (it certainly wasn’t an affair, and it wasn’t flirtation), I eventually came to realize that, for me, taking the potent psychoactives was a bad idea to do for entertainment. Taking a screwdriver to ones brain is not to be done lightly. I have seen people who haven’t quite returned.
We aren’t divorced. I suppose to extend a bad analogy, we are separated. I still see them from time to time, but we don’t sleep together.
I no longer take the heavy psychoactives, tho. I reserve the right to do so in the future. I would do so in very controlled circumstances, in a carefully considered environment.
And, to me, there is zero difference between a spiritual experience provided by ones own serotonin imbalance, and one that has been nudged by a pill.
Vin is by no means advocating reckless or irresponsible use of plant helpers, though perhaps he neglected to include the standard disclaimers to that effect. (The hazards of blog posting!)
Things that heal can also harm, and vice-versa. Banning substances does not prevent harm, and in many cases can prevent healing — there’s a lot of new research into using entheogens to treat PTSD, depression, autism and addictions with promising results, although the drug war has made it difficult for researchers (and likely their subjects) to be involved.
Too, it’s important to recognize that a lot of the harm from the drug war is the impact it’s had on the types of drugs available. What street drugs most of us grew up with were products of the black market — and it’s an iffy proposition indeed to mess with drugs unwisely, legal or otherwise. And those shamans and medicine men/women who might advise psychic explorers in the judicious use of such drugs … where are they? They’ve essentially been banned from practice in the U.S. and elsewhere. So now it’s becoming a tourist industry in South America (consumer beware.)
There’s also the tragic approach to young people in our culture who “don’t fit in” — who in indigenous cultures might enter training as shamans or visionaries; here they’re ostracized, stigmatized, and doped up, or even institutionalized. Phil Borges does a great TED talk, “Psychosis or Spiritual Awakening” on that subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFtsHf1lVI4
The war on drugs has been (it’s increasingly a “has-been”) a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Kudos to those courageous souls who are struggling to regain freedom of consciousness/conscience.
Claire, back in the day I too had both positive and negative experiences … in retrospect, I’m surprised the drugs weren’t more dangerous than they were. But I think the mentality of those who’d ban the use of drugs and those who’d ban guns is similar. Vin’s taken the conscious step of trying to go in a new direction with his writing knowing it will infuriate or alienate some … but also hoping to spark some new awareness in others that freedom isn’t just a physical concern, it’s also psycho-spiritual. Just as with guns, where I suspect we can all agree that young people should learn a healthy respect for guns and safe ways of handling them, so too do “drugs” have their inevitable place and kids would be better off learning to respect them — I’m afraid our culture has taught them (and us) the opposite.
“Why should abuse be our first thought when the subject of mind-altering chemicals comes up?”
Because that’s what the control freaks and Prohibitionists have been repeating in our ears (from every direction) for decades. Just like the anti-gun bigots: “Guns only have one purpose- to kill people!” Of course guns don’t only have one purpose, and drugs can be used without being abused. But, the brainwashing works- as demonstrated every time drugs come up in conversation.
“Maybe those other people should mind their own business.”
Not always possible. Sometimes the drug-taker insinuates himself into the lives of those other people — to their detriment. I could have, should have added, “…*or dangerous* results for other people.” Finding God through drugs is not always desirable, the drug-taker doesn’t always have pleasant experiences. Some want to kill God, or sacrifice a person because they think that person IS God. (And one wanted to kill a woman because he thought he was Christ and she was the Virgin Mary…) They all wanted to “experience” God, whatever that means, through drugs.
Re any psychedelic drug: Even if one or more experiences are good, it doesn’t follow that all will be. Depending on amount, strength, source, and purity of the drug, as well as the drug-taker’s physical condition and mental “preparedness”, he may well have a totally different experience/reaction the next time.
“Why should abuse be our first thought when the subject of mind-altering chemicals comes up?”
Actually, abuse is not my first thought; rather, it is questions: Why “alter” your mind? What does one hope to gain with the altering? And is that the only alternative that person can find to reach his goal?
I guess I’ve dealt with too many drugs, both useful and harmful, to believe that any particular drug — or /type/ of drug — is a panacea for anything.
“But, the brainwashing works- as demonstrated every time drugs come up in conversation.”
Heck, it’s demonstrated every time “medicinal herbs” come up in conversation. I’m finding that out now.
But how is the unwise use of a family “food budget” anyone else’s business? Isn’t that the spouse’s business?
Guess I should have been clearer. I meant that the spouse and kids of the user were “other people facing undesirable results.”
Pat, almost everything and anything can alter our brain/mind. Did you ever finish a good meal with a deep sigh, feeling relaxed and happy? A number of amino acids and other food components work directly on the brain and alter that chemistry considerably. Even many things we only smell or taste will stimulate brain changes. But what we think and believe is even more powerful to alter our minds.
I have a dear friend who has become obcessed with food, so terrified that she might ingest some fragment of “GMO” or “inorganic” material that she can’t really enjoy eating anything much anymore. She has pursuaded herself that any least possible taint of canola oil or MSG must be avoided at all costs… so she will no longer eat anything she doesn’t prepare herself – from a very narrow range of things available. And she worries about even that, a lot.
What altered her brain and thinking? Fear.
“Let people choose their own drug policies”
http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/03/reversing-history-the-american-drug-expe
Stanton Peele talks about how the social (and political) atmosphere around drugs helps determine whether use is a problem — or not.
The knee jerk reaction to individuals using substances for spiritual or recreational use is tiring.
What happened to our freedom to live our lives as we desire as long as we don’t harm others?
My use of LSD in the late 60s was a profound spiritual experience and motivated me to stop the self destructive life style I was engaged in at the time. It is none of anyone’s d**** business what I ingest or smoke.
Chill out!!!
ML – I don’t disagree with what you say. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, is it? (At least, I’m not.)
To clarify my previous statements: I see “mind-altering drugs” as an attempt to invoke feelings /and/ perceptions that are apart from the reality of the moment. Even a search for “spirituality,” which can be good in itself, can be tempered by the *intent* of the searcher: if he just wants a high, is the result “spiritual” or a simple case of hedonism? The perceptions he achieved may be pleasant and seem like a road to heaven, so to speak, but that doesn’t mean he found God or any degree of “real” spirituality. The /perception/ of heaven is not the same as true spiritual enlightenment.
I agree with Brunette that mind-altering drugs can and should be utilized for relief of certain physical or mental problems, but they still fall under the category of altering one’s perception of the here-and-now, thus /potentially/ confusing the patient into believing something that doesn’t exist. (In terminal cases, obviously this wouldn’t matter anyway.) I think this confusion is what /might/ lead to addiction ultimately, as addiction is not always physical, but can reside in the “perception” of need. I don’t know this, but I think the idea has some merit and might be explored further.
~~~
kycolonel — Lucky you! It was in the late 60s that I saw a kid die from LSD. He might have had a “profound spiritual experience” too, but we’ll never know. Unlucky him.
“I see “mind-altering drugs” as an attempt to invoke feelings /and/ perceptions that are apart from the reality of the moment.”
But when it comes to entheogens, Pat, you are speaking as someone who sees only “through a glass, darkly.” The perceptions engendered by those drugs aren’t apart from the reality of the moment. The perceptions are altered, but that can mean many things. It can mean enhanced or just different. The perceptions may be greater than the reality of the moment, beyond it, superior to it. (Or they may not.) But to say “apart” from reality implies that the perceptions are false, and people who’ve been there can tell you that’s not necessarily so.
As to the kid you saw die of LSD, I wonder about that. I suspect you saw a kid die of doing something crazy after ingesting LSD. Or perhaps saw someone die of ingesting an impure chemical of an unknown dosage. Something like that. I’ve never heard that LSD itself has a fatal dosage. Absolutely, indisputably entheogens and recreational drugs (and other drugs, as you know) can be dangerous. The psychedelics can be terribly, terribly hazardous to people in fragile mental health or people taking them in the wrong circumstances. If you notice, not one person is arguing with you on that point.
But you speak as someone who’s apparently never experienced an entheogen. Thus your statements have that “through a glass, darkly” effect.
[Yeah, ideally. But an intoxicated driver careening down the road or a spouse spending the family food budget on drugs is unavoidably other people’s business.]
You know, it’s weird what people let themselves fear. This same sort of thing turns up in conservative forums when talking about Muslims, for example.
How often is an intoxicated driver really a problem for you? Are you helpless on the rare occasion one shows up, or can you simply pull over or use other avoidance tactics? What about those people texting while driving or applying makeup or just tuning the radio? At some point you need to stop fearing and get on with your life.
As to a spouse doing irresponsible things, you picked that spouse, didn’t you? (Assuming one is positing a personal example.) Choices have consequences. Deal with your own problem yourself. That’s liberty for you.
The comments here about indoctrination are well taken. The state fills us with these fears for its own purposes, not for our benefit. It certainly does not help us with them.
By the way, the name of this blog is “Living Freedom”. We should try it some time.
Pat, Pat… What possible difference can it make to you why, how or when someone seeks to alter their brain, by any means?
Just to put this into perspective:
I have been talked into trying cannabis twice now. The first was a very uncomfortable and non productive experience. The second was much, much worse and at one point I feared I would actually die from a very small dose (who knows?) of cannabis oil. I’ll spare you most of the details…, but I was unable to stand or walk for about 6 hours, then staggered to the bathroom to puke for a long time. It took me more than 30 hours to get past the legarthy and unhealthy feelings I experienced afterward…
The only “religious” aspect of the whole thing was a sacred vow never, ever to touch the stuff again in any form.
But that’s just me. Your mileage may vary. 🙂
ML – It doesn’t make any difference to me what people want to do – I’m talking about the drugs, and perception vs reality.
~~~
“But you speak as someone who’s apparently never experienced an entheogen.”
You’re right, Claire. I saw the bad side before I got a chance to try them.
But does this mean we can never learn except through experience? (If so, I understand why we’ve never learned from history.) Does it mean we can’t (or shouldn’t) try to weigh the good and bad of a substance to arrive at a reasonable conclusion regarding its value and its use? I’m not sure what my using entheogens or not has to do with my evaluating their role in reality vs perception.
I don’t happen to believe that “perception is everything.” I understand the lure of it, I truly do. But I’ve spent a lifetime trying to distinguish between what’s real and what merely /seems/ to be. This applies to drugs, as well as religion. Sorry, but I can’t break that course of action now.
“But does this mean we can never learn except through experience?”
No, of course not. It just means that in this particular case your perception about the effects of entheogens on the mind is incomplete.
It’s very clear from your words that you don’t understand what these drugs do, subjectively, spiritually, etc. That’s not a knock on you, but to those of us who’ve had the experience, it’s clear that you haven’t been there. You speak as if entheogens impose a false reality, when in fact what they do is activate different portions of the brain so that the brain “sees reality from a different angle” (so to speak).
“I don’t happen to believe that “perception is everything.” I understand the lure of it, I truly do. But I’ve spent a lifetime trying to distinguish between what’s real and what merely /seems/ to be. This applies to drugs, as well as religion. Sorry, but I can’t break that course of action now.”
BTW, I also don’t believe that “perception is everything.” And I don’t think you should have to break any course of action. I’m just observing that once we’ve “opened the doors of perception,” reality may look very different forever after.
ML —
“I have been talked into trying cannabis twice now. The first was a very uncomfortable and non productive experience. The second was much, much worse and at one point I feared I would actually die from a very small dose (who knows?) of cannabis oil. I’ll spare you most of the details…, but I was unable to stand or walk for about 6 hours, then staggered to the bathroom to puke for a long time. It took me more than 30 hours to get past the legarthy and unhealthy feelings I experienced afterward…”
My first experience with cannabis edibles was like your second one. God, I was so impaired and so sick! I tried edibles one more time (much smaller quantity) and still disliked the experience. Smoking is a whole different thing. To each his own …
BTW, I haven’t thanked everybody for the good comments. I wasn’t expecting this much discussion to arise from a follow-up post. But it’s been illuminating.
Thanks, Claire, but I’ve no interest in smoking anything, ever, quite aside from my sacred vow. 🙂 The thought of being too impaired to defend myself for hours or days is also not acceptable. That came to mind several times over the long hours I was basically paralyzed and unable to see clearly.
I’m going to be content with the endorphin high I get with dark chocolate, roast turkey or a good Ruben sandwich. I can handle those side effects. 🙂
Paul, I was responding to your Maybe those other people should mind their own business. I merely meant that there are times when undesirable side effects of substances are difficult to ignore for the people they have a real effect on.
You know, it’s weird what people let themselves fear.
Didn’t say I was afraid of the examples I cited, any more than I am of civilized Muslims. I just drive defensively, wear seatbelts, go armed, and maintain condition yellow, etc.
How often is an intoxicated driver really a problem for you?
Three times, so far. I avoided the first one, but had to leave the road to do so, and then comfort two terrified young daughters. The second one clipped the back of my van, and of course had no insurance since his license had already been suspended for drunk driving. The third hit my wife’s pickup from behind while she was stopped in traffic. She was uninjured, but my disabled cousin had to spend a couple of nights in the hospital. Of course that’s in fifty years of driving, which isn’t too bad.
You’re right about alcohol and drugs not being the only problem, hence my example about hypothermia. My last near-collision (avoided because I as defensively driving and noticed the problem in time to slow down) involved no substances. The other driver turned into our Wal-Mart out of the inside lane in front of me because he and the woman with him were in a nastyface shakingfist argument.
As to a spouse doing irresponsible things, you picked that spouse, didn’t you? (Assuming one is positing a personal example.)
Nope. Neither of us do anything stronger than soft drinks. I was remembering many of the sexual assault and domestic violence survivors I’ve worked with, and the emotionally-damaged children that have come from family violence situations.
For the record:
IMHO the war on drugs is far more destructive than the use of the drugs could ever be. As any form of prohibition inevitably must be.
IMHO folks should approach the use of psychoactive drugs the same way they would the use of a firearm or automobile. Make sure they know what they’re doing, be damned careful about how they do it, and try not to hurt anyone else in the process.
And then there’s this drug 🙂
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/02/05/8-ways-sex-affects-your-brain/
LarryA, sorry for reading more into what you wrote than you put there. I can’t disagree with much of your response, but I will say that the state justifies itself by claiming that it can fix life’s little (and big!) problems for us, often by citing such examples as you posted. Thus my knee-jerk response.
However I still insist that a lot of problems we face could still be solved by people minding their own business. Sometimes the actions of others do impinge on others, as you suggest; but a lot of the time they don’t really, or the mere theoretical suggestion that they might is all it takes to get people begging government to prevent it somehow.
http://strike-the-root.com/myob-as-important-as-nap
[Neither of us do anything stronger than soft drinks.]
I was not intending to suggest you had that problem, but as a theoretical scenario. Unfortunately it came out sounding like I suggested the opposite.
LOL, Pat! That’s definitely a mind-altering drug. Makes some people completely crazy, too!