Shamanism-Other Worlds-Ayahuasca Documentary

[SRL+]

If you have an hour or so to burn, you may find this interesting.

 

[Randall]

Here we go again with the drug culture ( shamanistic or otherwise ). However, one thing I will admit is that there is scientific evidence based on MRIs that show mind altering drugs alter consciousness by activating and/or inhibiting neural connections that are different from our baseline ( normal ) state, and that measurable changes remain after the drugs have left the system. So if we suppose that these new "abnormal" pathways represent a residual ability to perceive and/or process sensory data in ways we had never before learned, we could conceivable make a logical claim that there is empirical evidence in support of the idea that we can "expand our consciousness" or that certain drugs can be useful from a therapeutic perspective.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ufology it sounds like you are personally very 'anti-' drugs that are not used medically. Of course it is everyone's right to have a personal opinion on these matters but I would point out (to anyone) that there is a world of difference between the using of drugs and the negative connotations attached to 'dealing' and 'drug crime' etc. It's my belief that there are of course 100% provable negative consequences from abusing drugs but that it is far, far worse to criminalise people for what they do to their own bodies and minds. I think 99% of social trouble stemming from drug use is because they are illegal. People only do silly things to get drugs and the money for drugs because they are ridiculously over-priced due to the law.

Anyway, whether anyone believes that say, psychedelics can 'open doors' to other states of consciousness and suchlike, it is undeniable that drugs can make the brain think in new, novel ways. Those new ways can be either good or bad, but certainly different. I not only think but know that some drugs can allow your mind to do things it just could not do otherwise. Maybe it doesn't matter if these 'other realities' are actually 'real' or not. It feels like they are and they can certainly be completely 'new' - they might as well as be real!

I don't want to sound like some campaign in support of drug-taking but I do think that due to the criminalisation of drugs, humans have missed out on many opportunities to learn about the brain and consciousness. LSD was demonised due to the counter-culture associations despite it being able to provide amazing chances for discovery. Rick Strassman's book on DMT is fascinating and it can only be important to discover how this chemical works - it seems to be made in many living organisms, plant and animal, and there is strong evidence that it could be partly the cause of all religious/mystical experiences that we, humans, have.

 

[Randall]

Ufology it sounds like you are personally very 'anti-' drugs that are not used medically ... I don't want to sound like some campaign in support of drug-taking but I do think that due to the criminalisation of drugs, humans have missed out on many opportunities to learn about the brain and consciousness. LSD was demonised due to the counter-culture associations despite it being able to provide amazing chances for discovery. Rick Strassman's book on DMT is fascinating and it can only be important to discover how this chemical works - it seems to be made in many living organisms, plant and animal, and there is strong evidence that it could be partly the cause of all religious/mystical experiences that we, humans, have.

I'm not "anti-drug", I'm "pro civic responsibility". The largest problem I see is with drugs is the crime element. It's a huge drain. The government is too slow to change, and the crime will continue so long as there is a demand. The obvious choice is for responsible people is to remove the demand ... a nation wide users strike ... and then put the money otherwise spent into into a fund to legalize it. That would not only remove the criminal element, it would prove we as a society are socially capable of handling it responsibly, and it would then be a near certainty that we could be legalize and regulate it. Then we'd end up with a better quality product for less money without the drive by shootings. But you know why that won't work? It's the same thing that's wrong with almost everything else these days.

Not only do people want their instant downloads, instant food, instant movies, instant communication ... all at the expense of some civil right they've thrown away when they click the "OK" button ... they just gotta have their instant high too. They don't have the self control or the organizational ability to pull off real change. Their personal instant gratification comes before anything else. So they keep feeding the crimes ( both legal and illegal ) by their participation and in the meantime who pays? We do ( not to mention the innocent people caught in the crossfire ). So that's where I've drawn my line in the sand. The criminals won't get one thin dime of mine, nor would I want that kind of drug culture associated with my work in ufology. Our young people have enough problems already. Our only chance seems to be slow change by referendum in the hopes that those who can get it together enough to make a difference will get out and vote and make that difference. More rant below.

 

[Muadib]

You're confusing hard drugs with psychedelics, there are no cartels and drug gangs involved in selling ayahuasca that I'm aware of. Your point of view is a little naive, you're assuming that enough money could get the government to back off when it comes to legalization but that's just ridiculous, drugs will stay illegal because the government and big business make more money that way. Whether it's selling drugs to fund black market projects like they did with the Contras or filling prisons with slaves to work in their factories for 15 cents a day the war on drugs has been a huge revenue boost, it's here to stay.

Also, you do realize how hypocritical it sounds for someone on the internet to bitch about instant communication right? You're just as guilty as anyone else if you don't live in a cave and don't use any kind of tech. You're posting youtube videos while bitching about instant movies and instant downloads? My head is about to explode from the irony....

 

[Randall]

You're confusing hard drugs with psychedelics, there are no cartels and drug gangs involved in selling ayahuasca that I'm aware of. Your point of view is a little naive, you're assuming that enough money could get the government to back off when it comes to legalization but that's just ridiculous, drugs will stay illegal because the government and big business make more money that way ...

The context of my reply above was in response to illegal drugs in general. I'm not the least bit naive. I realize that getting people to actually be responsible enough to drive the violent criminal element out through voluntary abstinence is completely pie in the sky. People are far too selfish or addicted for that and the criminal element depends on that to stay alive. As for the rest, I've already made my comments on the evidence for its use in "expanding consciousness" or therapy. What informed adults choose to do on their own time with their own bodies isn't any of my business, but the last thing I'm going to do is start recommending that people, especially young people start taking it up as a recreation.

 

[Muadib]

The context of my reply above was in response to illegal drugs in general. I'm not the least bit naive. I realize that getting people to actually be responsible enough to drive the violent criminal element out through voluntary abstinence is completely pie in the sky. People are far too selfish or addicted for that and the criminal element depends on that to stay alive. As for the rest, I've already made my comments on the evidence for its use in "expanding consciousness" or therapy. What informed adults choose to do on their own time with their own bodies isn't any of my business, but the last thing I'm going to do is start recommending that people, especially young people start taking it up as a recreation.

I'm not telling you to recommend that people start using drugs, just trying to get you to recognize the difference between drugs that actually do contribute to criminal activity and drugs that don't. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that the criminal element is going to step in to provide it. There are already plenty of drugs out there that have a high potential for addiction and are readily available. That's the kind of drug that appeals to the criminal element. Ayahuasca, on the other hand, is difficult to produce, non addictive, and definitely isn't something that would appeal to the average recreational drug user. You aren't going to find criminals who are interested in selling something like ayahuasca when they can make a lot more money selling recreational drugs to people that will keep coming back every day.

As for your theory about people being responsible enough to drive the criminal element out of the drug game, (lol) it's not just pie in the sky, it's silly. Legalization would take care of the criminal element in one fell swoop, just like it did when prohibition ended. Corporations who already have the resources and a distribution network in place would take over the market with cheaper, higher quality drugs that could be sold in stores instead of the dangerous places that you sometimes have to go when you're chasing drugs. The criminal element depends on the fact that it's against the law which makes them the only game in town.

The people who fight the so called war on drugs, the prison industrial complex, the recovery business, and pharmaceutical companies that make recovery based drugs would all suffer huge losses if drugs were made legal, that's why you're never going to see it.

 

[Randall]

I'm not telling you to recommend that people start using drugs, just trying to get you to recognize the difference between drugs that actually do contribute to criminal activity and drugs that don't. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that the criminal element is going to step in to provide it. There are already plenty of drugs out there that have a high potential for addiction and are readily available. That's the kind of drug that appeals to the criminal element. Ayahuasca, on the other hand, is difficult to produce, non addictive, and definitely isn't something that would appeal to the average recreational drug user. You aren't going to find criminals who are interested in selling something like ayahuasca when they can make a lot more money selling recreational drugs to people that will keep coming back every day.

As for your theory about people being responsible enough to drive the criminal element out of the drug game, (lol) it's not just pie in the sky, it's silly. Legalization would take care of the criminal element in one fell swoop, just like it did when prohibition ended. Corporations who already have the resources and a distribution network in place would take over the market with cheaper, higher quality drugs that could be sold in stores instead of the dangerous places that you sometimes have to go when you're chasing drugs. The criminal element depends on the fact that it's against the law which makes them the only game in town.

The people who fight the so called war on drugs, the prison industrial complex, the recovery business, and pharmaceutical companies that make recovery based drugs would all suffer huge losses if drugs were made legal, that's why you're never going to see it.

Silly? Pie in the Sky? I thought those were fairly synonymous:

• If an idea or scheme is pie in the sky, it is utterly impractical ( UsingEnglish.com )
• Silly is lacking common sense ( Encarta )

How long have people been trying for legaization ( decades ) and all the while the users have participated in the growth of a violent criminal network. That's just a fact. It not the same as "Well if they had just legaized it in the first place we wouldn't have this problem now." There is no "What if." Yet, you're calling the idea of taking the matter into our own hands as responsible citizens by boycotting the products "silly"? The only thing silly about it is to expect a bunch of drug users to be that responsible. As for recognizing which drugs are more or less damaging or even potentially beneficial when used responsibly: That is something you don't need to tell me about. I get that picture. I know not all producers of all products are "bad people" ( especially in the early days ). To me it's more of a crime for a police hit squad and their dogs to smash into a little old grandmother's house and bust her for a few plants she's tenderly cared for that help ease her arthritis. Don't think I don't understand. The fact that I do understand is one of the main reasons I don't do it. I won't contribute to the crime, but I will support legaization. I can do both and be completely responsible. So can almost anyone if they really want to. But there's the rub.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I think that crimes committed by drug-takers would be almost nil if the price of the drugs they were buying were realistic. Also, let's face it, is it not usually only those addicted to heroin or crack or meth that do anti-social crimes? Let them have it on demand. It's not expensive. I see many people adversely affected by drugs who've never touched a drug ever. It's because it's illegal there are stupid prices that addicted people could never afford. I'm not saying it's good for people to take drugs or be addicted, but I certainly don't see why the rest of society has to suffer too.
If we are supposed to be helping those with drug problems then adding legal and financial troubles to their woes is the absolute opposite of what will work.

I genuinely think that there is just far too much profit in illegal drugs and that there is a high likelihood that some 'legitimate' people are profiting from criminalisation and for that reason they have no wish to see them legalised.

Think of the money made in the prison/police systems. A lot of that would disappear if the drug crime did also.

 

[Muadib]

Silly? Pie in the Sky? I thought those were fairly synonymous:

• If an idea or scheme is pie in the sky, it is utterly impractical ( UsingEnglish.com )
• Silly is lacking common sense ( Encarta )

How long have people been trying for legaization ( decades ) and all the while the users have participated in the growth of a violent criminal network. That's just a fact. It not the same as "Well if they had just legaized it in the first place we wouldn't have this problem now." There is no "What if." Yet, you're calling the idea of taking the matter into our own hands as responsible citizens by boycotting the products "silly"? The only thing silly about it is to expect a bunch of drug users to be that responsible. As for recognizing which drugs are more or less damaging or even potentially beneficial when used responsibly: That is something you don't need to tell me about. I get that picture. I know not all producers of all products are "bad people" ( especially in the early days ). To me it's more of a crime for a police hit squad and their dogs to smash into a little old grandmother's house and bust her for a few plants she's tenderly cared for that help ease her arthritis. Don't think I don't understand. The fact that I do understand is one of the main reasons I don't do it. I won't contribute to the crime, but I will support legaization. I can do both and be completely responsible. So can almost anyone if they really want to. But there's the rub.

Yes I'm calling it silly because it is silly and for three reasons, one as you've already pointed out expecting drug users to act in a responsible manner is pretty damn silly, two expecting the entire human race to act in concert on any one issue is completely and utterly ridiculous and three even if that somehow did happen it wouldn't lead to legalization. Why would they bother to legalize drugs once everyone in the world decided that they'd just boycott them? They would see that as the victory of the war on drugs and they'd move on to their next batch of atrocities in the name of public good. And it would literally have to be every single person in the world because the supply will follow the demand, this is not rocket science. Once everyone realized that they would be boycotting drugs for the rest of their lives it would all collapse and the whole thing would go right back to where we started.

You seem to think that this is an issue of responsibility but it's not, it's an issue of morality and money for most, drugs are repulsive to those of certain religious and political persuasions so I don't see how users showing that they can use responsibly would change their mind. So yes, it's silly, pie in the sky, ridiculous, overly idealistic whatever you want to call it, I prefer naive personally. For you to expect a society of individuals to act as if it were a hive mind says that you haven't really thought this one through, that's just my opinion though.

 

[Randall]

Yes I'm calling it silly because it is silly and for three reasons, one as you've already pointed out expecting drug users to act in a responsible manner is pretty damn silly, two expecting the entire human race to act in concert on any one issue is completely and utterly ridiculous and three even if that somehow did happen it wouldn't lead to legalization. Why would they bother to legalize drugs once everyone in the world decided that they'd just boycott them? .... ( see full post above ).

In the past people have boycotted various products and had an effect, but that was the past, before the age of instant gratification. Nowadays there is no self-discipline. Everybody's gotta have it now and so long as all the dirt is hidden behind the facade, they don't care how they get it. Why would they legalize it in the face of a nationalized boycott? Two reasons. It would prove society is responsible enough to handle it, and as mentioned, the boycott would go hand in hand with a legalization campaign funded by all the money saved from not buying drugs ( how many billions is that? ). It would be a virtual certainty that with that kind of organization, cooperation and funding, it could be done. But it won't happen ... so why bother trying ... it's just "silly".

 

[Muadib]

In the past people have boycotted various products and had an effect, but that was the past, before the age of instant gratification. Nowadays there is no self-discipline. Everybody's gotta have it now and so long as all the dirt is hidden behind the facade, they don't care how they get it. Why would they legalize it in the face of a nationalized boycott? Two reasons. It would prove society is responsible enough to handle it, and as mentioned, the boycott would go hand in hand with a legalization campaign funded by all the money saved from not buying drugs ( how many billions is that? ). It would be a virtual certainty that with that kind of organization, cooperation and funding, it could be done. But it won't happen ... so why bother trying ... it's just "silly".

This is exactly what I mean by naive. There's a huge difference between a temporary boycott of some product or service by a relatively small segment of society compared to what you're proposing, which would literally have no effect at all unless you could get the entire to world to participate because the suppliers would just sell to whoever didn't participate and wait for the rest of the people who did participate to realize that their boycott wasn't having any effect. I've already pointed out that isn't an issue of responsibility so I'm not going to address that.

You talk about "nowadays there's no self discipline" but when it comes to drugs there never has been, not now, not in the past and there probably never will be on the level that you're suggesting. You could campaign until you're blue in the face and while it could be argued that people are becoming more receptive to legalizing a relatively harmless drug like marijuana, I seriously doubt that any amount of money or campaign or personal responsibility exhibited by drug users would convince certain segments of this society of the potential benefits of legalization when it comes to harder drugs. The billions that your campaign would raise is nothing compared to the trillions put into the enforcement of the current laws against drugs, not to mention the benefits that certain corporations and politicians reap from criminalization. The idea that personal responsibility exhibited by drug users would change that is terribly naive.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I don't have any problem with someone experimenting with these types of substances.

 

[Randall]

This is exactly what I mean by naive. There's a huge difference between a temporary boycott of some product or service by a relatively small segment of society compared to what you're proposing, which would literally have no effect at all unless you could get the entire to world to participate because the suppliers would just sell to whoever didn't participate and wait for the rest of the people who did participate to realize that their boycott wasn't having any effect. I've already pointed out that isn't an issue of responsibility so I'm not going to address that.

You talk about "nowadays there's no self discipline" but when it comes to drugs there never has been, not now, not in the past and there probably never will be on the level that you're suggesting. You could campaign until you're blue in the face and while it could be argued that people are becoming more receptive to legalizing a relatively harmless drug like marijuana, I seriously doubt that any amount of money or campaign or personal responsibility exhibited by drug users would convince certain segments of this society of the potential benefits of legalization when it comes to harder drugs. The billions that your campaign would raise is nothing compared to the trillions put into the enforcement of the current laws against drugs, not to mention the benefits that certain corporations and politicians reap from criminalization. The idea that personal responsibility exhibited by drug users would change that is terribly naive.

I never claimed it wasn't naive to think it would actually happen and it would seem we both agree on why. However that doesn't mean it isn't an issue of responsibility. Everyone who buys drugs from a source in any way connected to violent drug suppliers is guilty of collusion in their crimes ... plain and simple. Why? Because without customers they would be gone. Customers are responsible for perpetuating their business. Therefore it's irresponsible to buy anything from them ... there is no escaping that logic. But users would sooner enter into a state of denial or willful ignorance or blaming someone else ( like the government ) to rationalize their personal need to get high. They will never wake up to the fact that because the government has failed and continues to fail, the responsibility falls directly on them not to participate.