Why? Why use substances?

[Quantum Perception]

I really thought IUPAC naming conventions where worldwide for the sake of defining substances.

That's the US pushing their cultural values on others.

 

[XThexXTank]

I been sober for a while now (bout 3 weeks) just to see what its like without drugs. I aint addicted or nothing but its hard to break old habits their kinda like routine in your daily life. Sometimes id use for bein bored or whatever but after now i think ima go back to using because of one simple answer: its fun.

If you take any drug for example like alcohol (my doc) and you throw it into any sitution itll automatically make that situation more fun. And that aint bad

 

[panic in paradise]

Biological implementations of logic "circuits" still take a non-zero amount of time to function, ergo, they are as much "chrono-logic" as is a CPU or an abacus.

our personal genealogical physical and intellectual potential in stored in our DNA and chromosomes, destroying the function of those and other cells that regulate things like the immune and endocrine system, adrenal glands and varying hormones. a persons emotional state dictates in great part the cognitive function and utilized intelligence at a given moment. a sense of fear from an external or internal source leaves an individual especially impressionable and predictable.

 

[rangrz]

That's the US pushing their cultural values on others.

What in the hell man? Is gravity a social construct too?

 

[Quantum Perception]

^No, but substances and addiction are. Read some of Dr. Micheal Winkelman's research on that.

 

[Quantum Perception]

Many psychotropic drugs fit precisely to specific brain receptor sites. When recreational drugs enter the brain, the brain knows exactly what to do with them; this is opposed to something like clay, which would just sit around and not be processed by the brain.

It's as if the drugs are like matching keys to keyholes in our brains. Like exogenous neurotransmitters.

 

[panic in paradise]

^they have to fit or be able to be processed, otherwise they wouldnt work, that doesnt mean they need to be taken though. it says much of what can be done without.

 

[Quantum Perception]

^doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken either.

 

[webbykevin]

Drugs provide an actual experience, most other constructs and beliefs are just someone elses idea that at some point you bought. even your name is just someone elses idea.

 

[panic in paradise]

^doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken either.

maybe not that as a reason, but, there are many others.

the insistence some have as to the effects and reality made available by practicing meditation and prayer doesnt interest you at all?

it is established now that 10 minutes a day of prayer or meditation builds grey matter through out the brain, and especially the right frontal lobe. i dont need oxycotin and klonopin for progressive chronic pain because of this. i have plenty of experience with psychedelics, and especially appreciate DMT and mescaline, but dont need it, and its same with many other people.

it just sounds too easy and too good to be true i suppose. "crazy" but, it is the most common reality, this material world is the least existent as it is the newest, and will be first to be gone.

 

[panic in paradise]

the trips i have on drugs seem less real and tangible then those i have while meditating.

is a good way of putting it.

 

[Mercc96]

Half and escape and half for curiosity. Theres also a paradoxical element of control that drug use gives me such as today I am going to feel 'this' way etc etc whilst people who don't use drugs just stay in the same way of feeling.

 

[Edvard Munch]

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/writings/psychoactives_writings11.shtml

This provides a very good generalization of the human condition to get high. "From Chocolate to Morphine",


Andrew Weil MD and Wilfred Rosen, in their wonderful introductory book
from Chocalate to Morphine, explaining psychoactive drugs for the young
reafirms this idea. They point out:
Human beings it seems, are born with the need for periodic variations in
consciousness. The behavior of young children supports this idea.
Infants rock themselves into blissful states, many children discover
whirling or spinning, is a powerful technique to change awareness.
Infants rock themselves into blissful states, many children discover that
whirling or spinning is a powerful technique to change awareness, some
also experiment with hyperventilation (rapid deep breathing) followed by
mutual chest squeezing or choking, and tickling to produce paralyzing
laughter. Even though these practices may produce some uncomfortable
results such as dizziness or nausea, the whole experience is so
reinforcing that children do it again and again, often despite parental
objections. Since children all over the world engage in these activities,
the desire to change consciousness does not seem to be a product of a
particular culture but rather to arise from something basic. As children
grow older they find that certain available substances put them in similar
states. The attractiveness of drugs is that they provide an easy quick
route to these experiences.


I helped co-authored this book and supplied copious amounts of narcotics to my co-authors.

 

[Quantum Perception]

maybe not that as a reason, but, there are many others.

the insistence some have as to the effects and reality made available by practicing meditation and prayer doesnt interest you at all?

it is established now that 10 minutes a day of prayer or meditation builds grey matter through out the brain, and especially the right frontal lobe. i dont need oxycotin and klonopin for progressive chronic pain because of this. i have plenty of experience with psychedelics, and especially appreciate DMT and mescaline, but dont need it, and its same with many other people.

it just sounds too easy and too good to be true i suppose. "crazy" but, it is the most common reality, this material world is the least existent as it is the newest, and will be first to be gone.

I ask you, do you think its bad to rely on things?

For i think that everything has some kind of condition to it, and we can only try to be pragmatic with what we have, weighing the pros and cons.

 

[Xenochrist]

Reality can be fucking boring sometimes.

 

[panic in paradise]

I ask you, do you think its bad to rely on things?

For i think that everything has some kind of condition to it, and we can only try to be pragmatic with what we have, weighing the pros and cons.

i say to you it is in our mentality to rely on material things, mostly to transcend and escape from routine, to create a sense of identity for the self or to be portrayed to others. we communicate with each other with our stuff, there isnt always time for talking, and actually my stuff can say more of what i want it to about me then i can!

there are the choices of a few tv shows spread through out the week with a certain food or drink, or a car that sits in the garage besides a few times a month, or a drug numerous times a day. each are choices with their own consequences and unique details. it must be considered the type of food and amount eaten; storage and maintenance for play truck or motorcycle; alcohol or meth.

just the thought of a vehicle kept my garage and the particulars of its surroundings, the lighting inside the garage from the windows at that time of day, the smell of the garage and the tarp covering the car as it is removed, and the pavlovian jingle of the keys used to unlock the door in the early morning.

these are transcendental thoughts, and can be so effective that you could believe the car exists, and be excited to drive it next sunday.

that is fine and natural, but how much do i want to depend on this thought to be there, in order to complete my month and the rest of the season. it is easy to say and believe we are content in every way and have many things; this scenario can be a problem for those who do have it all.

in my opinion to own something isnt necessarily relying on something, but to own something is to have that dependent on you, which can be done for personal convenience. allowing for ways to escape further from responsibilities creating more consequences. this is a trap for someone who is hooked on 'instant gratification' in general, as most drug/alcohol abusers will be.

in the scheme of many things, compared to almost anything, drugs must at the top for bad choices.

 

[rangrz]

^No, but substances and addiction are. Read some of Dr. Micheal Winkelman's research on that.

No, just like the compound "hydrogen sulphide" is the exact same thing in each culture, as is "1-phenyl-propan-2amine" is it not? Just as hydrogen sulphide causes it's toxicity to all people regardless of culture, so does my example of amphetamine has its properties which are not culturally dependent.

Many psychotropic drugs fit precisely to specific brain receptor sites. When recreational drugs enter the brain, the brain knows exactly what to do with them; this is opposed to something like clay, which would just sit around and not be processed by the brain.

It's as if the drugs are like matching keys to keyholes in our brains. Like exogenous neurotransmitters.

So, your saying here that they have binding affinities driven by natural mechanistic chemistry related reasons? Sounds very not culturally defined to me. BTW, the brain does not "know" what to do with them, it's not a conscious plan. The key/lock concept of receptor/ligand binding is a bit simplistic.

"Like exogenous neurotransmitters"- No wonder the term "exogenous receptor ligand" appears so frequently in texts then...

 

[P A]

Hey rangrz, you've been a consistent voice of reason around here for longer than I.

I'm curious as to whether you've read any material by Alan Sokal et al. You know, Fashionable Nonsense, Transgressing the Boundaries, and so forth.

 

[rangrz]

^

I have and I am a huge fan of Sokal.

 

[P A]

Thought so! I still have yet to finish Boundaries, mostly due to the facts that a) It is, by the author's admission, a well-played Trojan horse, composed of deliberate nonsense; and b) I just can't suppress goofy grins and laughter as I read further than three paragraphs or so - I lose my cool when he starts denigrating the 'arrogance' of scientists and other vile Enlightenment-mongering toads.