• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Psychedelics As a Failed Experiment?

Ismene said:
No he didn't. That's an urban myth.

steve jobs says taking LSD was his second or third most important event in his life.

But it didn't make him behave any differently to any other peice of shit capitalist did it - he was still paying slaves 10 pence a week to work in his factories. I always wonder if he said that to boost the brand like Richard Branson always claims to be a "hippie" or a "rebel" while robbing millions from the taxpayer on the railways.

and dont forget all of the incredible music that has come as a direct result of psychedelic use.

Was that because of the drugs or the people around in music at the time? Lennon was writing pretty good stuff before he ever took LSD.
Click to expand...

The people being paid 10 pence a week would be much worse off without a job. It's not slavery, they chose to work. They'd probably like to give you a good bludgeoning to the head. A lot of people in countries where labor is dirt cheap have lost jobs due to pressure from folk like you on companies. You think they would thank you?

Robbing taxpayers? If companies didn't try to dodge and paid the taxes cunts like you think they should they wouldn't be able to compete globally. They wouldn't be big, wouldn't provide the number of jobs they do and (ironically) wouldn't have grown to such a big size (and thus pay so much tax today).

Denying the influence of drugs in general - but specifically psychedelics (cannabis counts as one) in music shows tremendous ignorance. This last point is just my opinion and is debatable. Economic facts that have been observed and studied in practice are not. Well, they are, but you need to put forth something more coherent than some bleeding heart plight of the worker bullshit which ends up fucking the worker in the ass.

*I edited out the personal attacks, didn't seem to affect the message much, but please refrain from that.*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... all kinds of drugs. Don't forget that they ended a few careers without a doubt or that these people had talent.
 
Your callin ismene stupid, i thought psychedelic users were all chilled damn this place aint like the days where xorkoth n others frequented these boards..
 
Bare_head said:
Your callin ismene stupid, i thought psychedelic users were all chilled damn this place aint like the days where xorkoth n others frequented these boards..
Click to expand...

Well, honestly mate I don't have anything against ismene.Good poster in general. Its not personal, my problem is with anyone regurgitating these arguments, they usually have no actual knowledge of economics and go with it because it feels right. But in practice its a whole different world. I respect ismene, its the argument im attacking.
 
Barehead said:
Your callin ismene stupid, i thought psychedelic users were all chilled damn this place aint like the days where xorkoth n others frequented these boards..
Click to expand...

Barehead makes a good point...:\

We've all got to try and be respectful to each other here. What we are discussing here is not worth being rude about. Sure, we can have different opinions- that's healthy and normal- but name-calling and aggression are not required whatsoever.

Lets all try and stop it :) <3

sexNcandy said:
Your stupidity is beyond you. The people being paid 10 pence a week would be much worse off without a job. It's not slavery, they chose to work. They'd probably like to give pseudo-intellectual dumbasses like you a good bludgeoning to the head. A lot of people in countries where labor is dirt cheap have lost jobs due to pressure from folk like you on companies. You think they would thank you?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing Ismenes point, and I also feel you are exhibiting a certain guileless naivety. Suffice to say, no-one in third world countries would want to be exploited in the way that they are, but- like all of us rich people in rich countries- they have no choice if they want to live and feed their families. Unlike us though, they have very little say in how they get to feed their families. They have no collateral with which to negotiate, because their are millions others who are less fortunate who would jump at the chance to work terrible hours in terrible conditions because the alternative is just suffering and death.

Of course, they would be much worse off without any employment, no one would deny that, but that absolutely does not make the system right. Its through the manipulation of companies like Apple that this exploitation is perpetuated. If the ethics of Steve Jobs are a result of LSD, thank fuck the 'experiment' failed!

sexncandy said:
Robbing taxpayers? If companies didn't try to dodge and paid the taxes cunts like you think they should they wouldn't be able to compete globally. They wouldn't be big, wouldn't provide the number of jobs they do and (ironically) wouldn't have grown to such a big size (and thus pay so much tax today).
Click to expand...

Come on, you can't be that naïve mate. <3 Google, for example, are known worldwide for being one of the biggest tax dodgers around. Our system protects the minority who rake in the trillions and somehow indoctrinates people into thinking this is fair. The jobs they provide are scraps off their table. Sure, they are needed but that doesn't mean we have to lick their shoes also....

I understand your perspective, truly- but I don't think it needs to be delivered so emphatically. This is not important enough to warrant hostility and rudeness...

Peace <3 :)
 
I wouldn't say they're failed or a social experiment. The psychedelic movement of the 60s & 70s has had some lasting contributions to western civilization, most obviously in art & music, but in other areas as well.

It's also difficult to tease apart which aspects of the 60s counter culture were specifically due to psychedelics & which were due to the other large scale societal changes at the time.

As for the stigmatization & criminalization, that's mostly attributable to Dick Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, & Tim Leary. Leary definitely went off the rails as far as rigorous science is concerned, & definitely was guilty of poking the bear, but the real bad guys in that situation were definitely Nixon & Hoover.

The lack of acceptance in medicine is multifaceted as well. Certainly largely due to the above mentioned social & legal issues, but some others as well. The randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of modern medical research, isn't terribly well suited to psychedelics as it's all but impossible to maintain the blind. Also they are less predictable than other drugs, so while they may be very helpful to some they're neutral to detrimental to others. I do think the RCT model will likely be uptated in the nit to distant future to take into account genomics & proteomics & psychedelic research will likely benefit as well as Western medicine writ large. Most of the people working in the current resurgence in psychedelic research are very concerned with avoiding another Leary type character (suck it Pinchbeck) & definitely wanting to do legit science. Ketamine for depression will likely be an approved treatment soon & mdma assisted psychotherapy for PTSD likely within 10yrs. I'm unsure how or when classical psychedelics would be integrated, but the terminal anxiety model shows promise as well.
 
You're right, I shouldn't have been so rude. Although to me thats normal, I talk like that with my mates, but I understand it doesn't translate well here and people will probably not take it lightly. I did already say I wasn't attacking Ismene but the argument. However I apologize anyway.

Having spent most of my life studying markets and government policy, and working in the field, its always baffling to see how quick laymen with no comprehensions of the complexities of the system and understanding of economics are to reach conclusions and point fingers. And then they go ahead and vote (and act, and influence the system) on that, unaware that they are damaging the cause they want to help by having such a short-sighted view. But I guess its pointless to try to discuss that here.
 
Ismene said:
No he didn't. That's an urban myth.

steve jobs says taking LSD was his second or third most important event in his life.

But it didn't make him behave any differently to any other peice of shit capitalist did it - he was still paying slaves 10 pence a week to work in his factories. I always wonder if he said that to boost the brand like Richard Branson always claims to be a "hippie" or a "rebel" while robbing millions from the taxpayer on the railways.

and dont forget all of the incredible music that has come as a direct result of psychedelic use.

Was that because of the drugs or the people around in music at the time? Lennon was writing pretty good stuff before he ever took LSD.
Click to expand...

im just going to try and be helpful here: any time you post an outrageous claim, you need to back it up with evidence if you want to be taken seriously at all.

and if you cant tell the difference between meet the beatles and abbey road, i actually feel sorry for you.
 
sexNcandy said:
You're right, I shouldn't have been so rude. Although to me thats normal, I talk like that with my mates, but I understand it doesn't translate well here and people will probably not take it lightly. I did already say I wasn't attacking Ismene but the argument. However I apologize anyway.

Having spent most of my life studying markets and government policy, and working in the field, its always baffling to see how quick laymen with no comprehensions of the complexities of the system and understanding of economics are to reach conclusions and point fingers. And then they go ahead and vote (and act, and influence the system) on that, unaware that they are damaging the cause they want to help by having such a short-sighted view. But I guess its pointless to try to discuss that here.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is still just your opinion.

And exploited labour is still exploited labour, even if it may be 'better than nothing'.

This is not a political/economic forum as far as I'm aware, so probably best as you say to drop the discussion. Although you could have done so less petulantly.
 
Calling psychedelics a failed experiment implies that the experiment has been concluded. It is still very much in progress. The overall quality, diversity and inspiration of electronic music - a culture inextricably linked with drug culture, especially psychedelics- around the world has exploded in just the last 15 years. Look at psychedelic culture in particular since it openly advocates the benefits of psychedelics. The visionary art, music and all aspects of the culture that can be observed especially through 'transformative festival culture' is (at least in my opinion) the most exciting stuff in the world these days, and it gives me some hope for humanity. Analyzing this culture can offer a glimpse into some of the benefits humanity could reap if psychedelics were integrated into a holistic framework within greater society. It is clear that this subculture is driven by love and is channeling the energy into real-world tangible increase in quality of life for these people, with the hope that some of that energy and inspiration trickles out into benefits for the broader culture. With that said, yes a side effect of psychedelics is delusions, and I see that psychedelic culture is in fact addressing these issues to keep itself grounded and away from too much magical thinking and unrealistic expectations. I see a strong tribal family vibe as one aspect of this grounding to keep its constituents happy, healthy and productive members of greater society as well as active participants within their own 'tribe'.
 
I think that it did not fit with the concept of medicine and prematurely escaped the accepted in roads of research.

The purpose of medicine is to take an abnormal person and make them normal, or at least to give the appearance of being or feeling normal, thus making them better.

LSD, though, has an off-effect on either normal or abnormal people, making neither what ya call normal. It's not the traditional purpose of medicine.

Research was not in a complete state and it was unclear what LSD was for, while the stuff itself was gaining popularity in an important segment of the community, college students. The effects were not simply positive.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? I think the disorganization of research came along first. The prime thrust of the scientific interest began to fade and that was replaced with LSD's own optimistic effects.

The government saw LSD was a possible risk to public safety and researchers were not willing or/and able to persuade Congress that it was ready for use as a medicine.

....

I do not know how LSD actually changed culture, other than certain things had been in the works for decades before and needed to join together under a single movement. If LSD somehow unified or strengthened those groups/concepts then it was a huge success because it came around at just the right time.

Did LSD have a design? Can we say LSD got 50% of the way there and then stopped? Whose grandiose idea are we dealing with? Was LSD supposed to stop all war on the planet and open minds to a divine truth? Win the war? The thought of wanting to give everyone LSD to make a better world almost seems like a normal reaction to the experience, to share that experience.

This fails because LSD might effectively produce those idealations but it does not give the tools or the real insight to reach those goals, and not everyone, breath... gone, winds up reaching the same conclusions after taking LSD.
 
ParappaTheRapper said:
Why do you think psychedelics as a thing failed as a medicine and catalyst for societal change?
Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore the psychedelic revival and answer the implied question: why didn't the Grateful Dead substantially change the structure of society?

1. Because economics > psychology.

Psychedelics don't make you more industrious, focused, assertive, or diligent. They tend to aid perspective, but not skill. Actually, in the short term, some psychedelics do exhibit nootropic effects, but the long-term changes most people are interested in are usually emotional, motivational, or spiritual. The primary risk is becoming too conciliatory or complacent; some studies of heavy psychedelic users found that they were happy and calm, but rarely rich or otherwise highly successful.

There is a cultural aversion among some psychedelic users towards the pursuit of material ends. This is all well and good, but these ideals are part of spiritual growth, not the whole of it:

http://lojongmindtraining.com/Commentary.aspx?author=3&proverb=50

2. Because they reinvented the wheel.

Have you noticed any overlap between the ideals of psychedelic culture and the ideals of rave culture? Or any of, you know, all of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utopian_literature

Timothy Leary was not the first to wonder if we could all just get along. However, he did quickly form his own set of rules about how we could all just get along, and set himself immediately in opposition to various other people and their ideas about how we could all just get along. This is a brilliant tactic that has been used by movements varying in scope from Esperantists to the Catholic Church that can effectively turn a benevolent ideal into a gladiator.

The most effective and least damaging attempts to change society have tried to use the least amount of necessary dissension. Whether it was Ohio doctors championing iodized salt or Mahatma Gandhi fighting for India's independence it has always been to the benefit of would-be world-changers to work within the system as much as possible. This is in direct contrast to "tune in, turn on, drop out".
 
Last edited:
Some great, well thought out posts in this thread.

It's funny how this is even a conversation. We don't ask this question of any other drug class (do we?). asking "why is caffeine a failed experiment" would seem odd. Why is that?

Is it just a coincidence that PDs got tied up with utopian visions, or is this a property of the drugs itself?
 
Caffeine has already succeeded with inserting itself into the morning meal and turning ordinary men and women into tireless wage earners, what more do you require?
 
atara said:
Have you noticed any overlap between the ideals of psychedelic culture and the ideals of rave culture?
Click to expand...

Arn't culture and psychedelics at the opposite ends of the scale tho? Surely tripping is like personal spiritual growth. Nothing to do with anyone but yourself?
 
^Isn't a change in culture or society at large the net/summation of individual changes?
 
asking "why is caffeine a failed experiment" would seem odd. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because caffeine is the most popular psychoactive drug in the world and it has drastically changed the way people live.

From Wikipedia:
Global consumption of caffeine has been estimated at 120,000 tonnes per year, making it the world's most popular psychoactive substance. This amounts to one serving of a caffeinated beverage for every person every day.
Click to expand...
 
ya sorry, not worded in the best way I guess.

Didn't timothy leary research in a foundation for understanding perception or something along those lines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top