Was told by a crazy lady that a DO is like an "ND"

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Mmmm, hallucinations while puking and ****ting your guts out.... FUN TIMES

Originally Posted by SBB2016

That may be true, but it also is true that people do this stuff and never fully recover. No thanks. My sister was on track to get a PhD in Marine Biology, then she discovered how 'Fun' drugs are... now she makes jewelry and does massage... while she gets to travel endlessly, it is in search of 'cleansing' her spirit, blah blah... the only thing I can say is that we as a society don't support her, so she's successful enough in her own right that I can't complain... Other than that I think she and people like her are bat **** crazy... I don't see why taking a hallucinogen is better than my own imagination...

Some people are just predisposed to psychosis. I don't think experimenting with hallucinogens a few times will cause psychosis in a normal person. They probably would have gone "bat siht crazy" anyway. If there are no cases of psychoses in your family and you are a male over 20 or a female over 25, and not yet bat siht crazy, I would be very, very surprised if taking a hallucinogen triggered a psychotic episode. I must stress no one should take any mind altering substances, even alcohol or nicotine until they are at least 25 and their brain is fully developed.

Is your sister happy?

Are you?

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

Some people are just predisposed to psychosis. I don't think experimenting with hallucinogens a few times will cause psychosis in a normal person. They probably would have gone "bat siht crazy" anyway. If there are no cases of psychoses in your family and you are a male over 20 or a female over 25, and not yet bat siht crazy, I would be very, very surprised if taking a hallucinogen triggered a psychotic episode. I must stress no one should take any mind altering substances, even alcohol or nicotine until they are at least 25 and their brain is fully developed.

Is your sister happy?

Are you?

So as my physician, you recommend I trip balls?

Originally Posted by SBB2016

Ayahuasca... also called DMT

http://iceers.org/ethnobotanicals/ay...-overview.html

Originally Posted by Flapjacks

So as my physician, you recommend I trip balls?

Well, you know the American Medical Association was the only Association against making Cannabis illegal back when they were debating how to schedule it.

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

One or two trips can change your outlook on many things. Many people who experimented a coule of times report a highly spiritual experience. More than a few times, it becomes mental masturbation. Used once every few years, at different stages in your life may not be a bad thing. Just remember: moderation. And, don't become a hippy.

Totally agree with this.

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

Some people are just predisposed to psychosis. I don't think experimenting with hallucinogens a few times will cause psychosis in a normal person. They probably would have gone "bat siht crazy" anyway. If there are no cases of psychoses in your family and you are a male over 20 or a female over 25, and not yet bat siht crazy, I would be very, very surprised if taking a hallucinogen triggered a psychotic episode. I must stress no one should take any mind altering substances, even alcohol or nicotine until they are at least 25 and their brain is fully developed.

And this. Kadava definitely knows whe s/he is saying. My neuroscience professor repeated the same thing. Don't use any mind altering substances until your pre-frontal cortex finishes developing at around age 25.

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

Some people are just predisposed to psychosis. I don't think experimenting with hallucinogens a few times will cause psychosis in a normal person. They probably would have gone "bat siht crazy" anyway. If there are no cases of psychoses in your family and you are a male over 20 or a female over 25, and not yet bat siht crazy, I would be very, very surprised if taking a hallucinogen triggered a psychotic episode. I must stress no one should take any mind altering substances, even alcohol or nicotine until they are at least 25 and their brain is fully developed.

No truer words there.

Originally Posted by Rx MPLS

My pharmacy school brought in a naturopath for a lecture on alternative medicine and belief systems. She actually had the audacity to claim that her hours in education in basic sciences were greater than those offered in places like Harvard Medical School. Her basic premise was that she not only took more basic science hours, but that she treated the "whole person".

She then went on to tell us about homeopathic treatments she commonly used and the snickering grew louder and louder. I nearly laughed out loud when she claimed that the reason homeopathy "works" is that there are alternative forms of physics we don't yet understand...lots of entertainment, but also scary to think patients can see these people thinking they offer the same or superior care to an MD or DO!

I remember this speaker. Oh, pharm care, what a wonderful class.

Every time someone asked her to explain further how something works (There's studies and data!) she evaded the question by saying "we don't have time to get into this." Well, if you want scientifically-oriented people to respect your claims that go against all we are taught, then it might help to explain at least a little about how at least ONE thing works! She was a smooth talker though and didn't get flustered with the skeptical questions. I think that wold make people with less/no critical thinking or that are easily convincible people drawn to her methods.

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

Some people are just predisposed to psychosis. I don't think experimenting with hallucinogens a few times will cause psychosis in a normal person. They probably would have gone "bat siht crazy" anyway. If there are no cases of psychoses in your family and you are a male over 20 or a female over 25, and not yet bat siht crazy, I would be very, very surprised if taking a hallucinogen triggered a psychotic episode. I must stress no one should take any mind altering substances, even alcohol or nicotine until they are at least 25 and their brain is fully developed.

Is your sister happy?

Are you?

No family history of any mental illness. She went to college, did coke, pot, 'lsd' or shrooms (not sure which) and etoh all within an hour and fair quantities of them. She hallucinated for several days and had to be hospitalized for 3 weeks. You can 'assume' whatever you want, but the drugs triggered the episode.

Is she happy, she claims to be, but if you need to take Ayahuasca and vomit your "negative energy out" are you really happy? Not sure...

Am I? When my husband doesn't piss me off but yes, I am a happy person, I don't need drugs to make me 'happy' like many people I know...

Originally Posted by SBB2016

No family history of any mental illness. She went to college, did coke, pot, 'lsd' or shrooms (not sure which) and etoh all within an hour and fair quantities of them. She hallucinated for several days and had to be hospitalized for 3 weeks. You can 'assume' whatever you want, but the drugs triggered the episode.

Is she happy, she claims to be, but if you need to take Ayahuasca and vomit your "negative energy out" are you really happy? Not sure...

Am I? When my husband doesn't piss me off but yes, I am a happy person, I don't need drugs to make me 'happy' like many people I know...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865.../#.T-bGnbVrPRU

This lady DIED from drinking too much water. I suppose that means that we should all stop drinking water too? Although your sister's experience was indeed tragic, anything used to extreme excess will have it's consequences . Let's not forget she was only 19 as well, there are a TON of people out there who thought they would enjoy one thing ex. going to school and studying for a PhD in marine biology, but ended up enjoying another thing such as traveling.

Psychedelic drugs have a great potential for legitimate uses for treatment of depression, addiction, post-traumatic stress etc. Additionally as a recreational drug they are one of the least harmful, because they have a very low potential for addiction.Decades of research have failed to prove that LSD, psilocybin, MDMA cause substantial harm, certainly no where near the harm of recreational drugs that are legal for example alcohol (current studies in the netherlands and UK ranking harm of drugs have confirmed this, psychedelics are at the bottom of the list). One of the biggest potential for harm stems from the fact that with street drugs, there is no guarantee of potency or purity, meaning that many people end up taking far too much or drugs they weren't aware of/prepared for. Frankly, we know from history that people in many cultures around the world have been "tripping" for thousands of years, they are unlikely to stop anytime soon.

Originally Posted by SBB2016

No family history of any mental illness. She went to college, did coke, pot, 'lsd' or shrooms (not sure which) and etoh all within an hour and fair quantities of them. She hallucinated for several days and had to be hospitalized for 3 weeks. You can 'assume' whatever you want, but the drugs triggered the episode.

Is she happy, she claims to be, but if you need to take Ayahuasca and vomit your "negative energy out" are you really happy? Not sure...

Am I? When my husband doesn't piss me off but yes, I am a happy person, I don't need drugs to make me 'happy' like many people I know...

It seems she was on the path to excess early on. She didn't use only hallucinogens, only once in a long while, only for philosophical purposes. She binged right and left for physical pleasure, without deep thought, introspection, or intimate discussions. Coke and EtOH have no long-term benefits and repeated exposure will only harm you. They should never be used with hallucinogens. Coke should never be used. Alcohol, very moderately in a glass of red wine, and pot, no more than once a week.
The fact that your sister is happy and functioning well is what's important. Your husband cannot make you happy. Find out why you get pissed off at him. He may be wondering why he can't seem to be able do anything to please you. Drugs can't make you happy either. The proper ones can only be used as tools to see life from a different perpective and understand things in ways almost impossible in a normal state. Coke and alcohol are only poisons.

Originally Posted by HopesandDreams

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865.../#.T-bGnbVrPRU

This lady DIED from drinking too much water. I suppose that means that we should all stop drinking water too? Although your sister's experience was indeed tragic, anything used to extreme excess will have it's consequences . Let's not forget she was only 19 as well, there are a TON of people out there who thought they would enjoy one thing ex. going to school and studying for a PhD in marine biology, but ended up enjoying another thing such as traveling.

Psychedelic drugs have a great potential for legitimate uses for treatment of depression, addiction, post-traumatic stress etc. Additionally as a recreational drug they are one of the least harmful, because they have a very low potential for addiction.Decades of research have failed to prove that LSD, psilocybin, MDMA cause substantial harm, certainly no where near the harm of recreational drugs that are legal for example alcohol (current studies in the netherlands and UK ranking harm of drugs have confirmed this, psychedelics are at the bottom of the list). One of the biggest potential for harm stems from the fact that with street drugs, there is no guarantee of potency or purity, meaning that many people end up taking far too much or drugs they weren't aware of/prepared for. Frankly, we know from history that people in many cultures around the world have been "tripping" for thousands of years, they are unlikely to stop anytime soon.

Thank you. They also have very high LD50; some are not even known, because massive doses failed to kill any lab animals; only expanded their little minds. Thanks also for using the term "psychedelic". Better than "hallucinogens". The way psychedelics should be used is as "entheogens"; not as recreational drugs.

Originally Posted by HopesandDreams

Decades of research have failed to prove that LSD, psilocybin, MDMA cause substantial harm, certainly no where near the harm of recreational drugs that are legal for example alcohol (current studies in the netherlands and UK ranking harm of drugs have confirmed this, psychedelics are at the bottom of the list).

Yes, unfortunately drug classification and DEA scheduling is not based on science. Its based on politics. This is why I believe more scientists and doctors should go into politics and less lawyers and political "scientists".

A bit off the thread subject, but certainly within the discussion above, in that the issues mostly lie with the individual, as opposed to the substance itself, that is in regards to the softer substances at least (as Kadava mentioned above): Carl Sagan's account of his cannabis use:

Mr. X by Carl Sagan
This account was written in 1969 for publication in Marihuana Reconsidered (1971). Sagan was in his mid-thirties at that time. He continued to use cannabis for the rest of his life.

It all began about ten years ago. I had reached a considerably more relaxed period in my life – a time when I had come to feel that there was more to living than science, a time of awakening of my social consciousness and amiability, a time when I was open to new experiences. I had become friendly with a group of people who occasionally smoked cannabis, irregularly, but with evident pleasure. Initially I was unwilling to partake, but the apparent euphoria that cannabis produced and the fact that there was no physiological addiction to the plant eventually persuaded me to try. My initial experiences were entirely disappointing; there was no effect at all, and I began to entertain a variety of hypotheses about cannabis being a placebo which worked by expectation and hyperventilation rather than by chemistry. After about five or six unsuccessful attempts, however, it happened. I was lying on my back in a friend’s living room idly examining the pattern of shadows on the ceiling cast by a potted plant (not cannabis!). I suddenly realized that I was examining an intricately detailed miniature Volkswagen, distinctly outlined by the shadows. I was very skeptical at this perception, and tried to find inconsistencies between Volkswagens and what I viewed on the ceiling. But it was all there, down to hubcaps, license plate, chrome, and even the small handle used for opening the trunk. When I closed my eyes, I was stunned to find that there was a movie going on the inside of my eyelids. Flash . . . a simple country scene with red farmhouse, a blue sky, white clouds, yellow path meandering over green hills to the horizon. . . Flash . . . same scene, orange house, brown sky, red clouds, yellow path, violet fields . . . Flash . . . Flash . . . Flash. The flashes came about once a heartbeat. Each flash brought the same simple scene into view, but each time with a different set of colors . . . exquisitely deep hues, and astonishingly harmonious in their juxtaposition. Since then I have smoked occasionally and enjoyed it thoroughly. It amplifies torpid sensibilities and produces what to me are even more interesting effects, as I will explain shortly.

I can remember another early visual experience with cannabis, in which I viewed a candle flame and discovered in the heart of the flame, standing with magnificent indifference, the black-hatted and -cloaked Spanish gentleman who appears on the label of the Sandeman sherry bottle. Looking at fires when high, by the way, especially through one of those prism kaleidoscopes which image their surroundings, is an extraordinarily moving and beautiful experience.

I want to explain that at no time did I think these things ‘really’ were out there. I knew there was no Volkswagen on the ceiling and there was no Sandeman salamander man in the flame. I don’t feel any contradiction in these experiences. There’s a part of me making, creating the perceptions which in everyday life would be bizarre; there’s another part of me which is a kind of observer. About half of the pleasure comes from the observer-part appreciating the work of the creator-part. I smile, or sometimes even laugh out loud at the pictures on the insides of my eyelids. In this sense, I suppose cannabis is psychotomimetic, but I find none of the panic or terror that accompanies some psychoses. Possibly this is because I know it’s my own trip, and that I can come down rapidly any time I want to.

While my early perceptions were all visual, and curiously lacking in images of human beings, both of these items have changed over the intervening years. I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high. I test whether I’m high by closing my eyes and looking for the flashes. They come long before there are any alterations in my visual or other perceptions. I would guess this is a signal-to-noise problem, the visual noise level being very low with my eyes closed. Another interesting information-theoretical aspects is the prevalence – at least in my flashed images – of cartoons: just the outlines of figures, caricatures, not photographs. I think this is simply a matter of information compression; it would be impossible to grasp the total content of an image with the information content of an ordinary photograph, say 108 bits, in the fraction of a second which a flash occupies. And the flash experience is designed, if I may use that word, for instant appreciation. The artist and viewer are one. This is not to say that the images are not marvelously detailed and complex. I recently had an image in which two people were talking, and the words they were saying would form and disappear in yellow above their heads, at about a sentence per heartbeat. In this way it was possible to follow the conversation. At the same time an occasional word would appear in red letters among the yellows above their heads, perfectly in context with the conversation; but if one remembered these red words, they would enunciate a quite different set of statements, penetratingly critical of the conversation. The entire image set which I’ve outlined here, with I would say at least 100 yellow words and something like 10 red words, occurred in something under a minute.

The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I’m down. This is one of many human frontiers which cannabis has helped me traverse. There also have been some art-related insights – I don’t know whether they are true or false, but they were fun to formulate. For example, I have spent some time high looking at the work of the Belgian surrealist Yves Tanguey. Some years later, I emerged from a long swim in the Caribbean and sank exhausted onto a beach formed from the erosion of a nearby coral reef. In idly examining the arcuate pastel-colored coral fragments which made up the beach, I saw before me a vast Tanguey painting. Perhaps Tanguey visited such a beach in his childhood.

A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony and the richness of the counterpoint. I have since discovered that professional musicians can quite easily keep many separate parts going simultaneously in their heads, but this was the first time for me. Again, the learning experience when high has at least to some extent carried over when I’m down. The enjoyment of food is amplified; tastes and aromas emerge that for some reason we ordinarily seem to be too busy to notice. I am able to give my full attention to the sensation. A potato will have a texture, a body, and taste like that of other potatoes, but much more so. Cannabis also enhances the enjoyment of sex – on the one hand it gives an exquisite sensitivity, but on the other hand it postpones orgasm: in part by distracting me with the profusion of image passing before my eyes. The actual duration of orgasm seems to lengthen greatly, but this may be the usual experience of time expansion which comes with cannabis smoking.

I do not consider myself a religious person in the usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs. The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I’ve had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor. Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds. A sense of what the world is really like can be maddening; cannabis has brought me some feelings for what it is like to be crazy, and how we use that word ‘crazy’ to avoid thinking about things that are too painful for us. In the Soviet Union political dissidents are routinely placed in insane asylums. The same kind of thing, a little more subtle perhaps, occurs here: ‘did you hear what Lenny Bruce said yesterday? He must be crazy.’ When high on cannabis I discovered that there’s somebody inside in those people we call mad.

When I’m high I can penetrate into the past, recall childhood memories, friends, relatives, playthings, streets, smells, sounds, and tastes from a vanished era. I can reconstruct the actual occurrences in childhood events only half understood at the time. Many but not all my cannabis trips have somewhere in them a symbolism significant to me which I won’t attempt to describe here, a kind of mandala embossed on the high. Free-associating to this mandala, both visually and as plays on words, has produced a very rich array of insights.

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we’re down the next day. Some of the hardest work I’ve ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one. It is easy to understand why someone might think it’s a waste of effort going to all that trouble to set the thought down, a kind of intrusion of the Protestant Ethic. But since I live almost all my life down I’ve made the effort – successfully, I think. Incidentally, I find that reasonably good insights can be remembered the next day, but only if some effort has been made to set them down another way. If I write the insight down or tell it to someone, then I can remember it with no assistance the following morning; but if I merely say to myself that I must make an effort to remember, I never do.

I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can’t go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books.

But let me try to at least give the flavor of such an insight and its accompaniments. One night, high on cannabis, I was delving into my childhood, a little self-analysis, and making what seemed to me to be very good progress. I then paused and thought how extraordinary it was that Sigmund Freud, with no assistance from drugs, had been able to achieve his own remarkable self-analysis. But then it hit me like a thunderclap that this was wrong, that Freud had spent the decade before his self-analysis as an experimenter with and a proselytizer for cocaine; and it seemed to me very apparent that the genuine psychological insights that Freud brought to the world were at least in part derived from his drug experience. I have no idea whether this is in fact true, or whether the historians of Freud would agree with this interpretation, or even if such an idea has been published in the past, but it is an interesting hypothesis and one which passes first scrutiny in the world of the downs.

I can remember the night that I suddenly realized what it was like to be crazy, or nights when my feelings and perceptions were of a religious nature. I had a very accurate sense that these feelings and perceptions, written down casually, would not stand the usual critical scrutiny that is my stock in trade as a scientist. If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I’m high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say ‘Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!’ I try to show that my mind is working clearly; I recall the name of a high school acquaintance I have not thought of in thirty years; I describe the color, typography, and format of a book in another room and these memories do pass critical scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs. Such a remark applies not only to self-awareness and to intellectual pursuits, but also to perceptions of real people, a vastly enhanced sensitivity to facial expression, intonations, and choice of words which sometimes yields a rapport so close it’s as if two people are reading each other’s minds.

Cannabis enables nonmusicians to know a little about what it is like to be a musician, and nonartists to grasp the joys of art. But I am neither an artist nor a musician. What about my own scientific work? While I find a curious disinclination to think of my professional concerns when high – the attractive intellectual adventures always seem to be in every other area – I have made a conscious effort to think of a few particularly difficult current problems in my field when high. It works, at least to a degree. I find I can bring to bear, for example, a range of relevant experimental facts which appear to be mutually inconsistent. So far, so good. At least the recall works. Then in trying to conceive of a way of reconciling the disparate facts, I was able to come up with a very bizarre possibility, one that I’m sure I would never have thought of down. I’ve written a paper which mentions this idea in passing. I think it’s very unlikely to be true, but it has consequences which are experimentally testable, which is the hallmark of an acceptable theory.

I have mentioned that in the cannabis experience there is a part of your mind that remains a dispassionate observer, who is able to take you down in a hurry if need be. I have on a few occasions been forced to drive in heavy traffic when high. I’ve negotiated it with no difficult at all, though I did have some thoughts about the marvelous cherry-red color of traffic lights. I find that after the drive I’m not high at all. There are no flashes on the insides of my eyelids. If you’re high and your child is calling, you can respond about as capably as you usually do. I don’t advocate driving when high on cannabis, but I can tell you from personal experience that it certainly can be done. My high is always reflective, peaceable, intellectually exciting, and sociable, unlike most alcohol highs, and there is never a hangover. Through the years I find that slightly smaller amounts of cannabis suffice to produce the same degree of high, and in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater.

There is a very nice self-titering aspect to cannabis. Each puff is a very small dose; the time lag between inhaling a puff and sensing its effect is small; and there is no desire for more after the high is there. I think the ratio, R, of the time to sense the dose taken to the time required to take an excessive dose is an important quantity. R is very large for LSD (which I’ve never taken) and reasonably short for cannabis. Small values of R should be one measure of the safety of psychedelic drugs. When cannabis is legalized, I hope to see this ratio as one of he parameters printed on the pack. I hope that time isn’t too distant; the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

It seems she was on the path to excess early on. She didn't use only hallucinogens, only once in a long while, only for philosophical purposes. She binged right and left for physical pleasure, without deep thought, introspection, or intimate discussions. Coke and EtOH have no long-term benefits and repeated exposure will only harm you. They should never be used with hallucinogens. Coke should never be used. Alcohol, very moderately in a glass of red wine, and pot, no more than once a week.
The fact that your sister is happy and functioning well is what's important. Your husband cannot make you happy. Find out why you get pissed off at him. He may be wondering why he can't seem to be able do anything to please you. Drugs can't make you happy either. The proper ones can only be used as tools to see life from a different perpective and understand things in ways almost impossible in a normal state. Coke and alcohol are only poisons.

I was joking about my husband I love him very much, and that DOES add to my happiness in life, and yes, I realize that my happiness is my own, I was the one who told my sister that many years ago No worries I was trying to make a joke, it didn't come through.
As for my sister and her drug use, she has experimented with many drugs and has never seemed to have an addiction, but she seems to need a variety of different drugs (kind of weird process, not sure if you follow). I am not saying that the shrooms/lsd (I truthfully don't remember which it was ~20yrs ago) were the only factor, I just fully believe that the combination triggered the response. She thought it was partying, etc... She did like the marine biology path, and was excited about it, this completely derailed the whole college process, still makes me sad... She is a brilliant woman, and she does see things differently than the rest of us, so she's either WAAAY ahead of the curve, or crazy, not sure...

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Yes, unfortunately drug classification and DEA scheduling is not based on science. Its based on politics. This is why I believe more scientists and doctors should go into politics and less lawyers and political "scientists".

I love this, and the reason I love it is that it shows pot as being as addictive (or potentially as addictive) as caffeine is, which most people are easily addicted to... Either way, good info.. I'd like to ask the question though, a long time ago when they were allowed to run experiments with LSD, they determined that it can cause long-term effects similar to schizophrenia, so how is it not harmful? If it is used repeatedly and long-term, it causes irreparable damage... 'splain? A good example of this is Syd Barrett (former lead singer for Pink Floyd), he was given LSD on many occasions without his knowledge, as his 'friends' thought it was 'cool' to watch him have bad trips. They would lock him inside cabinets because he would become incredibly violent and dangerous. He never fully recovered from this, and was hospitalized at times...


As to the rest, we really don't need to turn this into a psych session for me, but it is interesting hearing thoughts on my sister, I really wish I could get her to at least tone down how much she uses chemicals, but it doesn't ever work... This is a great discussion though and I appreciate the contributions

Thank you.

LSD is a tricky one. Since it is a semi-synthetic derivative of ergot that was discovered by the accidental self-dosing of a Swiss chemist in 1943, it has not been used for thousands of years as mescaline and psilocybin have been. LSD and other psychedelics can cause flashbacks and HPPD (Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder) but it is uncommon and no real double-blind formal studies have been done on the adverse long term effects of these substances because of their illegality. Everything can be used in moderation and there are experiments being done at Johns Hopkins Medicine (http://www.bpru.org/cancer-studies/), in Switzerland and in some other limited locations. Your sister seems to have followed the "teachings" of psychedelics. You have to dismiss them just as you dismiss dreams upon waking otherwise there can be dire consequences.

Also notice the chart says physical harm and the other one says active dose/lethal dose. The charts say nothing about psychological damage that can occur but I can tell you that if used by stable individuals with no history of mental diseases in the family and in a proper set and setting there will be no dire consequences.

Originally Posted by SBB2016

I was joking about my husband I love him very much, and that DOES add to my happiness in life, and yes, I realize that my happiness is my own, I was the one who told my sister that many years ago No worries I was trying to make a joke, it didn't come through.
As for my sister and her drug use, she has experimented with many drugs and has never seemed to have an addiction, but she seems to need a variety of different drugs (kind of weird process, not sure if you follow). I am not saying that the shrooms/lsd (I truthfully don't remember which it was ~20yrs ago) were the only factor, I just fully believe that the combination triggered the response. She thought it was partying, etc... She did like the marine biology path, and was excited about it, this completely derailed the whole college process, still makes me sad... She is a brilliant woman, and she does see things differently than the rest of us, so she's either WAAAY ahead of the curve, or crazy, not sure...



I love this, and the reason I love it is that it shows pot as being as addictive (or potentially as addictive) as caffeine is, which most people are easily addicted to... Either way, good info.. I'd like to ask the question though, a long time ago when they were allowed to run experiments with LSD, they determined that it can cause long-term effects similar to schizophrenia, so how is it not harmful? If it is used repeatedly and long-term, it causes irreparable damage... 'splain? A good example of this is Syd Barrett (former lead singer for Pink Floyd), he was given LSD on many occasions without his knowledge, as his 'friends' thought it was 'cool' to watch him have bad trips. They would lock him inside cabinets because he would become incredibly violent and dangerous. He never fully recovered from this, and was hospitalized at times...


As to the rest, we really don't need to turn this into a psych session for me, but it is interesting hearing thoughts on my sister, I really wish I could get her to at least tone down how much she uses chemicals, but it doesn't ever work... This is a great discussion though and I appreciate the contributions

Let me make an analogy for you: comparing recreational use of a low to moderate dose of LSD in a safe environment with people you know and trust to being given LSD without your knowledge and then locked in a dark cabinet while people egg you on towards a bad trip, is like comparing taking a shower vs being waterboarded for hours.

What you are talking about is chronic psychosis induced by LSD use. It's actually somewhat rare, although there are a few recorded cases. Also, it is suspected that in certain people predisposed to mental illness, LSD could actually bring their symptoms on. However again it's quite rare, in this paper http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/1960/1960_cohen_1848_1.pdf in 1960, they found that the rate of psychosis lasting longer than 48 hrs was .8/1000 "healthy "volunteers, and 1.8/1000 in patients with psychiatric illnesses. Usually it is brought on by a disturbing hallucination during the experience, for example some patients "remembered" being abused as a child or, accidentally smothering their sibling to death as a child. In some cases the recovery was incomplete meaning the patients were left with a chronic condition. However even in cases of a "bad trip" many patients did actually recover from the trauma within a few days weeks or months.

I'm certainly not trying to make the argument that psychedelic drugs are completely harmless and safe, and they pose no danger at all. But then again there are a lot of dangerous things in life, and IMO if a responsible educated adult manages the risks appropriately and takes a reasonable dose in a safe environment as a once in a blue moon experience, it probably poses less of a danger to them than driving to work every day.

Also, damn Carl Sagan used to trip balls on cannabis hahaha. Some of those experiences do not sound normal to me.

Not saying that the drug can't be used by some to have 'fun' in moderation etc... Just saying that repeated usage of some of these chemicals is probably not as safe as some people would like to say/believe it is... I am sure many people have used it safely; I personally choose to not use chemicals because I have crazy dreams all on my own, they don't need any help I choose a chemical-free lifestyle because I think it is healthier than using... I am sure my sister could have been one of those people, and I am sure she has used things safely, but I think it has progressed beyond the point of normalcy...

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Yes, unfortunately drug classification and DEA scheduling is not based on science. Its based on politics. This is why I believe more scientists and doctors should go into politics and less lawyers and political "scientists".

Nice figures!

I absolutely loathe the term political "science." It's absurd.

Originally Posted by NeuroLAX

Nice figures!

I absolutely loathe the term political "science." It's absurd.

Thanks, I'm just waiting for somebody to throw in the "Oh..its this thread again..." meme lol

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Also notice the chart says physical harm and the other one says active dose/lethal dose. The charts say nothing about psychological damage that can occur but I can tell you that if used by stable individuals with no history of mental diseases in the family and in a proper set and setting there will be no dire consequences.

Ever? 100%?

ya this one and the DO discrimination thread must have been treated with a "Max Revive"

sorry..... downloaded a gameboy emulator to help pass some boring incubation times and just beat the elite four for the first time in about 15 years

Originally Posted by VA Hopeful Dr

Ever? 100%?

yeah, I dont know that shnurek has the expertise or experience to really say that in a conclusive manner..... n=1 excluded

Originally Posted by VA Hopeful Dr

Ever? 100%?

Well no, nothing in the world has a strictly 100% chance of happening or not happening. I meant it as a hyperbole as we all use hyperboles in common speech.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

meant it as a hyperbole as we all use hyperboles in common speech.

Never.....

But as someone said, drinking too much water can kill you... Eating too many carrots could kill you... There is no pharmaceutical that doesn't carry risks, it is whether the benefits outweigh the risks... To me a 'drug' will never fit that...

And I was just told by a guy I know that because THC has the potential to produce hallucinations, it should be listed as one.... OMG, where do these people come from...

Originally Posted by SBB2016

There is no pharmaceutical that doesn't carry risks, it is whether the benefits outweigh the risks...

True. One must also be familiar with the therapeutic index, ED50, ID50, among others.

Originally Posted by SBB2016

To me a 'drug' will never fit that...

Things like pot, lsd, etc will never be in the category of benefits outweighing risks...

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Just to play the devil's advocate, anesthesiologists used to just be nurses that knocked somebody out for the doctor. Now the M.D. anesthesiologists hate the nurse anesthetists

Haha

+1

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

no degree attained online is doctorate level. period.

I don't know if this has been said but please tell that to the nurses and their "DNP" programs...

Click, click, click...wait...doctor!

I'm not sure if we are in agreement or if your post was a counterpoint.... I al aware of the online programs. I just think it is crazy that they stamp a doctor label onto an education that is barely masters level in depth and breadth.

I think you're agreeing... Doctorate online=BS

I thought so too..... but usually the "please tell that to xxxxxx" statements are facetious based on foreknowledge that the message will me received with hostility so I was a little thrown off

Even the on-site DNP programs are laughably doctorate level from the curricula I've seen. They are essentially BSNs with some extended focus on team building and unit dynamics.... but I did not see anything in the trianing that was medical/clinical and therefore necessitated increased clinical power. The fact that it can be attained online is simply problematic. Im only ranting about this because there is a phoenix commercial with a DNP that has been flooding my TV box of late that commercial gets to me.

Yeah, it's pretty sad... I looked into some of this way back when, and found basically the same thing, I could get called Dr... but not be one, and just have to do more BS classes and get no extra money... the whole ND thing just baffles me though... at least an NP has SOME ability to diagnose a condition and treat it and will hopefully refer to a legit practitioner for something beyond their skill... UGH

Same.... I realize that now we are just getting into a bash-fest..... but I have never understood the alternative curricula to begin with. It is almost as if you have to identify the proper science and knowledge, and then choose to turn 180* around and go the other way with it. Either that or the people involved literally lack the cognitive ability to attach point "a" to point "b" (academic to clinical) because many of the things they "believe" are in direct contradiction to good science. And let's be frank here (hi Frank, I'm Specter ooohhhhhh I need more sleep ) any (ANY) education system that begins with "we believe that xxxx" and pretends to be scientific has already dunn Eff'ed up. You cannot fit the "facts" to suit your belief, your belief needs to be guided by the facts. It is simply inappropriate to have a foundational belief to any healthcare system other than "to follow the best clinical and scientific evidence available to us at the time for the best interest of the patients" (and this should NOT be confused with "patient knows best" )

Seems like people get the care they deserve if they don't have enough interest in their own care to find out what the real difference between "health care" providers is. (ND's provide something but it ain't health care).

Originally Posted by Cinclus

It's just another issue with not thinking something over enough. For instance, without such "unnatural" things such as pasteurization, antibiotics, and vaccination, how many of us would already be dead due to infectious disease? How many people would live past their 30's and 40's? These are simple questions people could ask themselves, but they don't. BRING ON THE RAW MILK!!!

I <3 listeria

Originally Posted by Rx MPLS

My pharmacy school brought in a naturopath for a lecture on alternative medicine and belief systems. She actually had the audacity to claim that her hours in education in basic sciences were greater than those offered in places like Harvard Medical School. Her basic premise was that she not only took more basic science hours, but that she treated the "whole person".

She then went on to tell us about homeopathic treatments she commonly used and the snickering grew louder and louder. I nearly laughed out loud when she claimed that the reason homeopathy "works" is that there are alternative forms of physics we don't yet understand...lots of entertainment, but also scary to think patients can see these people thinking they offer the same or superior care to an MD or DO!

Oh boy, I watched a documentary on homeopathy last fall. The lady running the "treatments" explained that the water retains the memory of the herb, so the dilutions somehow get stronger

wait a second, the whole water thing therapy is real.... and i mean real in the sense that they are pushing it as a legit thing? I thought that was something MD's made up to make ND's look even dumber. Amazing.

Originally Posted by Gamechanger

wait a second, the whole water thing therapy is real.... and i mean real in the sense that they are pushing it as a legit thing? I thought that was something MD's made up to make ND's look even dumber. Amazing.

am I understanding you correctly? You are not aware that some people actually believe in the premises of homeopathy? Yes. There are those people. IMO they are dangerous to the general public

Originally Posted by SBB2016

Things like pot, lsd, etc will never be in the category of benefits outweighing risks...

Please--the only major risk of marijuana is the legal consequences of getting caught.

Originally Posted by K31

Please--the only major risk of marijuana is the legal consequences of getting caught.

I've seen a lot of people do a whole lot of nothing smoking dope everyday... Agree to disagree, I have every right to feel that any drug is bad for my body...


As for raw milk... The reason milk was required to go through pasteurization was because of TB, not listeria. In the late 1800s early 1900s they figured out that bovine TB was transmitted by milk to humans and that pasteurization removed that risk....

Originally Posted by SBB2016

I've seen a lot of people do a whole lot of nothing smoking dope everyday... Agree to disagree, I have every right to feel that any drug is bad for my body...

And I've seen plenty of people do the same without the aid of any substances whatsoever.

Like I said, you can have your opinion, I have mine. No substance, as discussed earlier, is without risks.

Originally Posted by SBB2016

I think you're agreeing... Doctorate online=BS

Are you insinuating that my PhD in theoretical carpentry is not valid?

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

Are you insinuating that my PhD in theoretical carpentry is not valid?

did you get it online?? I wish I could remember the name of the crazy religious non-accredited school in CO that hands out 'doctoral' degrees for ~$1200ea

Originally Posted by Kadava Reviva

Are you insinuating that my PhD in theoretical carpentry is not valid?

I took a BS elective course in undergrad who was taught by a PhD in the field and I am certain she got her degree by mailing in 4 proof of purchases from cracker jack boxes... (have I already shared this anecdote here? old thread.... not sure...) either way, even the PhDs you get at a university dont always guarantee doctorate level training
(yes, I know your post was not srs..... but so what )

I used to work with a PhD (Endocrinology) who we SWEAR knocked over the real PhD grad and stole his diploma. Either that or it was from the same place your prof got theirs spec.... UGH... I just love the place that we could all have some kind of religious 'doctorate' for ~1200... at that price, why not...