US Supreme Court approves DMT for religious use

[LoganSquare]

<br>havana<br><br>Hoasca has been used for religious and healing purposes in the Amazon for hundreds if not thousands of years. If that doesn't indicate there may be more to it than a dangerous recreation practice, there's lots of serious research in Brazil and other places showing therapeutic benefits (for alcoholism among other things). That is why Brazil legalized it despite the unwanted attention it draws on the part of drug tourists. Any drug can be irresponsible and disturbing--intention of the user and setting, for example, are critical. <br><br>Alien abduction, refers to, I think, the common animal and other types of archetypes people experience under the influence of the drug. Also, the human brain naturally produces DMT which many feel is related to dreaming.<br><br>I think you will qualify your negative opinion if you read up a bit.<br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[havanagila]

I already qualified my opinion, to non religious use. i maintain my skepticism to the sincerity of the NM group's motivation and I hope its not a secret gov experiment in the worse case.<br><br>There is some confusion, i believe , about various indigenous practices. In their own setting, they fit in a large and complex social fabric, which has checks and balances and a tradition. When you pull out a few "tricks" from the mix, (usually the ones that promise control, magic and....drugs) it is usually very wrong. <br><br>taking my own culture for instance, the new "let's take just kabbala magic" from the rich garden of Judaism - produced -<br>1 dangerous cults<br>2. con artists, rapists (in disguise as "gurus") and sharlatans.<br>3. real bad magik (as in Berg's practices. btw, did you read the news about Madonna this month ? I think she is going under).<br><br>Our sages say, you cannot even read Kabala if you didn't graduate the full learnings of talmud and medrash and bible. And even then...well, it is not advisable. Certainly, one has to be fully observant Jew to practice kabala. This is basically the rule of thumb for all cultures/traditions.<br><br>We all know that some people are running around the globe looking specifically for voodoos and thinking they can play with the new toys. these are NOT good people and in their expeditions they use many innocent people, to create false facade of new religions. this is happening all over. Let me reserve my skepticism, due to Rick Ross, the Bronfman connection, the Israeli enthusiasm with the drug-mushroom, and the description of the NM group members. maybe I am wrong. it will not be the first time.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

I tend to agree with what you say about religious practices- particularly esoteric ones. They're tied to a wider cultural matrix and not easily appropriated in bites.<br><br>In a larger sense, though, religious rites and symbolism have tendencies to syncretize- combine, blend, mutate, evolve- all the time. Particularly nowadays. Increasing cross-cultural contact- centered around free exchange and travel rather than conquest and warfare- is THE anthropological story of the 20th-21st century. Isolated ethnographic study is becoming practically impossible to pursue. <br><br>At any rate, I don't view drugs and shamanic plants as "religious", in and of themselves. They're technologies and catalysts. Tools akin to microscopes or diving suits, when used benevolently. Weapons and toxins, when used malignly. <br><br>I'm definitely a person who acknowledges good and evil. But in chemical substances like drugs, no. They're inanimate compounds. There's only appropriate and inappropriate. <br><br>Refined sugar is terrible for diabetics, and the desire for it is often experienced as an awful temptation. But to many other people, its ingestion is a trivial matter. <br><br>Peanuts aren't "evil" simply because even trace amounts are lethal to those who are allergic to them. <br><br>And, unfortunately, simply dropping LSD or eating peyote buttons doesn't automatically confer enlightenment, or put people in touch with supreme being. <br><br>As commonly used in the society with which I'm familiar, the best thing I can say about psychedelics is that all other things being equal, as a general tendency, the experience of them leaves most people kinder, less cruel, and more thoughtful than they otherwise would be. <br><br>A few people experience lasting psychic trauma, usually as a result of a fragile mental set coupled with an unsupportive environment. And a very few find that they're able to incorporate psychedelics into their own evil schemes, using them in effect to amplify the evil nature that they cultivate.<br><br> But in my experience, most people find something beneficient and worthwhile about their psychedelic experiences. Even immature teenagers seem to appreciate that there's something more profound to it than simply getting drunk. Unless they actually ARE drunk at the same time that they're experiencing the psychedelics, that is, which many of them are...oh well, what can you do...<br><br>I think that some psychedelic compounds are worthy of being used as sacraments. But without an authentically humble and sincere sense of the sacred, and an honest and disciplined sense of quest and mission, they can't accomplish anything in that regard. <p></p><i></i>

[havanagila]

RDR, i beg to differ on the neutrality of chemicals. Some chemicals kill people, so they are bad. (sometimes, they will have other, beneficial effects, in smaller doses, but some don't). They are not evil, but using them is not advised.<br>-<br>there is a religion, in indigenous cultures, and the shaman is part of it. I dont think its a tool, it is imbued with meaning from a large matrix. <br>I hope you are right about anthro, but I don't see war and conquest as obsolete...not these days, and in fact it never did, only changed shapes. Yes, i see the western imperialist appropriation of shamaism and other practices as part of imperialism as well. <br>--<br>Also, you forget the overall "drug culture". your view and I think ProfPan's as well are perhaps elitist. that's fine, i keep forgetting that I should join the elite as well, i mean stay there...<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> . I have those silly slips into a proletariat consciousness. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

How are my views elitist?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[havanagila]

it wasn't in a bad sense, profp. Its just that a healthy elitism would say "if this is good for me, its good", and I sometimes become too concerned with universal effects, which are really outside my scope, as I do not run the world. <br>Elitism re drugs - is applying your standards as "objective" - while for most drug users, (including I suppose with DMT), things are entirely different. Maybe I chose the wrong term, I meant that MY perspective can become paternalistic (in terms of morality and ethics, I think Hart was one of the spokespersons I felt close to). Your view is simply, this was good for me, or could be good for me, it should be legal. I am always looking at wider social implications, and suspending the "freedom of choice" of others. I do tend to think, though, that most people do not enjoy the real freedom to choose. Usually they are too poor to make choices.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=havanagila>havanagila</A> at: 2/23/06 2:54 pm<br></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I'm sure I read in the last six months or so that the drug Ecstasy was now being used on US soldiers back from the oil war to treat them for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).<br><br>PTSD is back in Vietnam-like proportions as a long term malady for many thousands of soldiers and drugs are, of course, the Pentagon's prescription for shattered souls.<br><br>Maybe they will revive LSD therapy, too, which was remarkably helpful before it was made illegal because the CIA originally hoped it to be UNhelpful.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

"i beg to differ on the neutrality of chemicals. Some chemicals kill people, so they are bad. (sometimes, they will have other, beneficial effects, in smaller doses, but some don't). They are not evil, but using them is not advised."<br><br>I didn't say that chemicals aren't dangerous. I said that they're morally neutral. And almost all drugs have some utility, even highly toxic ones like scopolamine, atropine, and curare. <br><br>I think the decision on whether or not to ingest a given substance- or food, for that matter- often has a moral component. That's different than blaming the drugs.<br><br>And I reject the idea that free choice for adults is somehow "elitist." To me, coercive regimes of paternalistic prohibition are much more "elitist"- as well as opening the door to corruption, due to the inherent inability to police such matters equitably. <br><br>Regulation of trade is different from regimes of prohibition that outlaw simple possession of substances, and forbid cultivation of natural plants for non-commercial uses. <br><br>It comes down to this: in the general case, adult humans deserve free will and free choice, because no one else is good enough to take it away from them, as an <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>a priori</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> decision. <br><br>Risk is part of life. The California coastline is comprised in large part of high cliffs from which any fall would be lethally dangerous. But it's both overarchingly paternalistic and practically impossible to forbid people from walking up to the edge as far as they choose. And, despite the complete lack of prohibitions or safety measures like guard rails, falls are few and far between. Although not unknown... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 2/23/06 3:27 pm<br></i>

[havanagila]

RDR, well, we are going to end up with the more general discussion, libretarianism, socialism/state paternalisms etc. Drugs are just one example of many. The problem with the non paternalistic view is that is assumes a basic equality and rule of law, which do not exist. So, if in fact criminals are allowed a free hand in pushing drugs to people who are not informed, then we just make our lives easier, but not really making a coherent claim. if in fact people are allowed to drug unwitting young ladies to rape them, or just to get others dependent (hooked), or to youth in schools...so etc. etc. I don't want to repeat that, you already know all of it. And so actually derregulating drugs will require much more regulation (enforcing labor laws, customs laws, information on packets, price regulation, maybe prescription regulations etc. etc. we might end up just saving money by making the entire thing illegal, because society sees no POSITIVE value, so great to outweigh the costs. certainly the costs of misuse, the kind that is always incidental to such risky activities). So, I don't think there are easy solutions otherwise we would all hear about them and be immediately convinced. Once you accept the need and justification for criminal law (police powers), the rest is negotiable, and depends on cost-effect data, risk v. benefits etc. It is not engraved in stone by the finger of god. Its just social policies, with view to social order, public peace, etc. I was taking a more personal line of thought, trying to follow my own reasoning.<br>I agree that the drug itself has nothing to do with ethics, its the use, the user, the context..that invoke ethics and morality. But that's like saying guns are neutral. I agree, and then what ? should toddlers have access to it ? should selling guns in schools be allowed ? should licensing be prescribed under the law, etc. etc.<br>I will not say LSD is bad, or good. But whether giving it, or selling it, or allowing it for use, is good or bad. My impression, from anecdotal, personal, life experience was that ALL the users I met who thought they can control the experience became addicts and fell into the drug lifestyle (namely, zombified). So my natural take on it is that using drugs is bad for you. (not morally, but being bad as in opposed to beneficial). But then I am saying also, who cares ? not in the evil way, but really, I cannot protect people from their judgement, and the law couldn't as well (they all became drug users despite the law), maybe its just as well not to bother with criminalizing it. I would then qualify my argument and say that I believe it is much more ethical to inform people of the risks in a way that is available and effective BEFORE they use it.Usually, criminalizing something increases the chances people will know of the risks. <br>If I heard more people with positive experiences, that I trust as credible, I might change my mind. But if my life is an average representation of statistics, then I KNOW one person who thought it was very good, the Ecstasy person, and did not seem addicted (although immediately after the "trips" that showed her the light, she decided to divorce her husband of twenty years marriage and father of 4 kids, and decided he kept her from living etc. etc. she completed the divorce a few months ago, so I don't know if the final implication are available). All the others, dozens of friends, acquaintances not to mention clients...suffered tragic adverse results from using drugs of ANY kind (including pot). The closer friends among them, whom I knew when they first started, were very happy in the beginning and also never even dreamt they will get addicted. They all started with pot, then to hallucinogenics and landed in the pit of Heroine (called here "Persian Cok"). Other ecstasy people, not that lady I mentioned, said they had a good time but had indiscriminate sex which they regret. <br>--<br>Last. And that's an Israeli perspective. It has become a growing problem, that soldiers and security servicemen are using various drugs. This, they say, is how they can "carry on" the jobs without being affected emotionally or feeling bad that they harm others. I find this very disturbing.<br><br>But the law, might not be the remedy for my concerns. the world sucks, and not everything can be changed by just writing down "do not do it". We know now what "the law" is, and who are those in charge of making and enforcing it. So, I am not as resolved as I was, but still I think this unfortunate that many people cannot cope with life (for a good reason) and depend on drugs (until they collapse) and others provide them with this death trap. But what else is new. <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[LoganSquare]

<br>Info on MDMA (and other psychedelic research projects).<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.maps.org/mdma/">www.maps.org/mdma/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Havana--a link for the protocol for an Israeli study:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.maps.org/mdma/israel_protocol_3.16.05.pdf">www.maps.org/mdma/israel_....16.05.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Here's an interesting bit from an article at that website on Using Psychedelics Wisely:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/stolarof.htm">druglibrary.org/schaffer/...olarof.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>>snip<<br><br>DEALlNG WITH THE SHADOW<br> As Jung indicated, the Shadow holds all the material that we have pushed aside so we can hide from ourselves. Unfortunately, it also contains much of our energy, and as long as it is unconscious, it exerts a powerful influence on our behavior without our knowing it. Furthermore, Shadow material is responsible for most of the difficulties humans create in the world. We project our Shadow onto others, believe those others to be the source of our difficulties, and seek refuge from them rather than taking responsibility in our own hands. Consequently we must resolve Shadow material if we are to develop. If this were accomplished on a widespread basis, it would be a major benefit for the world.<br> Jung describes human development as the process of "making the unconscious conscious." Psychedelics, particularly in low doses, can be an extremely effective tool in this process. The bulk of my experience is with the phenethylamine compounds, which remained legal longer than the standard psychedelics such as LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin. Whereas a full dose of a phenethylamine like 2C-T-2 or 2C-T-7 might be 20 milligrams, a low dose would be ten or twelve milligrams, or roughly equivalent to 25-50 micrograms of LSD.<br> The most infallible guide to Shadow material is our uncomfortable feelings. Many do not like to use low doses because these feelings come to the surface. Rather than experience them, they use larger doses to transcend them. But these uncomfortable feelings are precisely what we must resolve to free ourselves from the Shadow, gain strength and energy, and function more comfortably and competently in the world. By using smaller amounts and being willing to focus our full attention on whatever feelings arise and breathe through them, we find that these feelings eventually dissolve, often with fresh insight and understanding of our personal dynamics. The release of such material permits an expansion of awareness and energy. If we work persistently to clear away repressed areas, we can enter the same sublime states that are available with larger doses—with an important additional gain. Having resolved our uncomfortable feelings, we are in a much better position to maintain a high state of clarity and functioning in day-to-day life.<br> I would also like to add a word about frequency: Individuals vary greatly in their frequency of use of these materials. Some are satisfied with an overwhelming experience which they feel is good for a lifetime. Others wish to renew their acquaintance with these areas once or twice a year. Still others are interested in frequent explorations to continually push their knowledge forward. Regardless of the frequency, it is wise to make sure that the previous experience has been well integrated before embarking on the next one. Early in one's contact with these substances, where there is a wealth of new experience, this may take several months. As one becomes more experienced, the integration time grows shorter, and the interval between trials may be shortened.<br> Many stop the use of psychedelics when they feel they have learned what they wished. But often it is likely that they halt because they have hit a deeply repressed, painful area that is heavily defended. The issue goes beyond purely personal material, however. One is unlikely to reach full realization without awareness, not merely of one's own pain and suffering, but of that of all mankind. This may help explain the Dark Night of the Soul, which is the final barrier to mystical union described by Evelyn Underhill in her classic book Mysticism. Since we are one, we must not only confront the personal Shadow, but the Shadow of all humanity. We can do this more readily when we discover the ample love that is available to dissolve all Shadow material.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

I reject the idea that there's such a thing as "the drug lifestyle", as if it were a monolith. <br><br>"The criminal lifestyle"- that I don't reject. That really is a monolith.<br><br>What a huge difference it is not to be criminally persecuted for a private behavior. It changes everything. Suddenly you aren't being driven to find your refuge with other criminals.<br><br>If I have a position on commercial sale of mind-altering substances, it's a strong tendency toward banning many of them from the market. <br><br>But I don't understand why it's illegal to cultivate cannabis or peyote, and legal to grow a trellis full of belladonna trumpet flowers in your front yard. There enough toxins in one of those vines to wipe out whoever's growing them, their neighbors, and their neighbors neighbors. And don't even get me started about tobacco, which is quite legal to grow, but which is so toxic that it has to be harvested with gloves, lest the sap from the green plants get into a cut and cause the harvester to become deathly ill. And if your toddler takes so much as one errant bite, it's all over. That simply will not happen with cannabis. <br><br>But as toxic as those plants are, I can't conceive of outlawing them. They're natural plants. The idea of outlawing plants is human hubris, an inexcusable folly. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 2/24/06 2:15 am<br></i>

[havanagila]

since I don't know how it would be if drugs were legal, I see that "lifestyle" as a result of the drug not the criminality. But perhaps you have a point. I simply dont know. the people i referred to seemed to have incurred brain damage, or some loss of brain capacity, with the prolonged use. they became dumber. So, I dno't know if this has to do with the criminality and having to hang around criminals (that's also possible, because maybe in order to integrate with the criminals they adopted their standards of intellect, so as to be "one of the gang" but i doubt it, or...actually, don't know).<br>Apparently, prolonged use of psychotropic legal drugs (medications) in now known to shrink the frontal lobe AND damage the brain and intellect. (don't know about tobacco, but I doubt it). I don't know peyote users at all, and cannabis, as I said, all the addicts i know started with hashish and pot and ended with heroine...one of them remained only with pot, heavy user, daily, all her adult life. She is fit, physically, but also seems dumber than she was, through the years. kind of thicker, I think.<br>I am quite sure you can grow cannabis if you prove you never use it to get high, or going to use it, sell it or so, i mean if you just wanted to grow it, I suppose you could. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>I know heroine, if used long enough, simply kills the user, who cannot stop ingesting it. I think this must feel very bad for such a person. I know how I feel with my cigarettes addiction...I suppose if i really knew that tobacco is addictive in such a way, and that my first pack is cigarrettes is going to make me addicted for life, I would hesitate before starting, or not start smoking at all. but instead, it was "pushed" and marketted as really "cool" in my times/place. In fact, soldiers were entitled to a free pack a day at some stage. So, what I am saying is that i would want every person to have full information of what they are getting into. If then, they choose to do that, perhaps it is not a criminal issue, but a social or psychological one. And you have the problem of minors, of course who are legally, and factually, are unable to make informed decisions on certain issues. that's probably the biggest target-market, and they later become the adult addicts/consumers. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

The status quo of illegal drugs in the United States is that the retail markets are staffed largely by teenagers, and perhaps the most reliable marketplaces are the large public high schools.<br><br>I find this to be a dreadful state of affairs. <p></p><i></i>

[LoganSquare]

<br>Most of my understanding of Ayahuasca (or hoasca--the drug refererenced in the Supreme Court decision) comes from Daniel Pinchbeck's book, Breaking Open the Head (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/).">www.breakingopenthehead.com/).</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> My recollection of his described experience is that it is different than the Jungian shadow concept in that the images, such as serpents and predators, seem to come from a more primitive dimension than the collective unconscious (where Jungian archetypes can be found?). (that can explain the Alien reference). Again, according to my recollection, these predators seek out and destroy negative shadow elements. <br><br>It's a mistake to include other drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, heroin, etc in a discussion about Ayahuasca. Obviously, they're all very different in important ways including how they concern the law.<br><br>I hope the Supreme Court is making this distinction with this decision. In Brazil drug addicts and alcoholics, many of whom were previously involved in criminal or antisocial activities were apparently sucessfully treated with Ayahuasca. <br><br>I don't think anyone's worried about it being pushed as a party drug. I'm really surprised, given what I've read about it, that the members of the church apparently use it every two weeks.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>