unisonruss1285
Established member
I've been highly addicted to cannabis for a very long time. After just 2 DMT sessions, I have had 0 cravings for it. Has anybody experienced this after so few sessions?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
I've had 2 DMT sessions, and I've had Zero cravings for cannabis.
- Thread starter unisonruss1285
- Start date
Panpsychic
Titanium Teammate
As a former heavy cannabis smoker, aside from its analgesic effects which can be obtained with medicinal cannabinoids without the 'high' from smoking, cannabis is in my view generally a waste of time and a hindrance to the types of states DMT and Harmala+DMT induces.
Of course it can be done ceremonially, once in a while as a sacrament which may be of benefit to some, but almost no one does it like that they use it casually and regularly and it is habit forming especially if taken with tobacco.
It generally promotes hazyiness, lethargy rather than energzing and has a sedating effect rather than the super sharp clarity of mind that DMT fosters.
Its no suprise to me that the DMT trying to cleanse it from your system and giving you an invitation to go further into that clarity, sans the cannabis use.
I personally have felt no desire to use cannabis since giving it up totally more than a decade ago, and my use of DMT has only affirmed this.
Last edited:
fink
overthinking the unthinkable
I spent a decade or more with the same view of cannabis, Panpsychic. That was after quitting a long period of cannabis addiction.
Only in the last few years of moderated reacquaintance with this plant, mostly in edible format, have I realised the deep places it can take me.
I'm not necessarily a typical case, I acknowledge. However I would be more open now to saying cannabis may have the results you, and I previously, describe here. I dont believe they are mandatory side effects.
I should also say, I am right now, tonight, aware of the fine line between a positive new relationship and falling back into a weed habit. Then those symptoms you report are more of a threat.
Need to go play some guitar to justify it.
Only in the last few years of moderated reacquaintance with this plant, mostly in edible format, have I realised the deep places it can take me.
I'm not necessarily a typical case, I acknowledge. However I would be more open now to saying cannabis may have the results you, and I previously, describe here. I dont believe they are mandatory side effects.
I should also say, I am right now, tonight, aware of the fine line between a positive new relationship and falling back into a weed habit. Then those symptoms you report are more of a threat.
Need to go play some guitar to justify it.
Last edited:
Cannabis is a tricky plant to work with and not as simple as many assume. It also helps to have a well-ordered life when you use it.
No plant is inherently good or bad; those are human terms. Most cannot handle cannabis, that is my experience.
fink
overthinking the unthinkable
This is the best quote about weed in the thread, we could leave it at that!
Panpsychic
Titanium Teammate
Its not about good or bad. It's about how one uses, and for what purposes. Different plants can indeed however be useful, or a hindrance, depending on larger purposes. I also find with cannabis use, many often try to justly their use in various ways without addressing or necessarily being aware of the core reasons for their use. These blindspots or resistances are often the challenge.
Yes, which is why I prefaced by saying it can be used sacramentally on occasion for benefit for some, but very few that I have been acquainted with or heard of, use in this way. This appears to be the way however you have reacquainted yourself with it.
Indeed. That fine line however is one many find very hard to walk. Good luck to you with it though should you choose to walk it.
YES! I have a bad relationship with cannabis, I suppose. When I smoke it, I smoke too much. However, I can stop completely with a moderate effort of will. So, I've started and stopped as it suited me for years.
I'm getting older and busier lately and it's not been a good idea for me to smoke at the moment. So, it's been about a year.
DMT has helped me with those occasional cravings immensely and made this so much easier. It's just like OP says, just no cravings. No soul searching, etc.. Just no cravings
I'm getting older and busier lately and it's not been a good idea for me to smoke at the moment. So, it's been about a year.
DMT has helped me with those occasional cravings immensely and made this so much easier. It's just like OP says, just no cravings. No soul searching, etc.. Just no cravings
All on point!
The bright clarity of the dmt experience made me stop craving all the habits that led to the mind being clouded, including cannabis.
It was apparent how that clarity disappeared upon smoking weed
that non-craving isn't always long-lasting, but it can be a strong kickstarter to stay determined on your resolution.
I too see cannabis as a plant that is hard to work with. It can be very beneficial, but it's kind of seductive, and once you fall for that seduction the beneficial effects get less with tolerance, and the mind-clouding gets stronger. In the last sessions with cannabis it felt like she was physically occupying my mind.
The bright clarity of the dmt experience made me stop craving all the habits that led to the mind being clouded, including cannabis.
It was apparent how that clarity disappeared upon smoking weed
that non-craving isn't always long-lasting, but it can be a strong kickstarter to stay determined on your resolution.
I too see cannabis as a plant that is hard to work with. It can be very beneficial, but it's kind of seductive, and once you fall for that seduction the beneficial effects get less with tolerance, and the mind-clouding gets stronger. In the last sessions with cannabis it felt like she was physically occupying my mind.
GTRm8
huh
I quit cannabis after using shrooms. Shrooms have a similar molecular structure to DMT, and they work in a similar way. I have zero cravings to smoke cannabis anymore. Why did I ever smoke cannabis? I tried to escape my struggles, but it doesn't work like that. Drugs will make you a loser. Psychedelics are opposite to drugs and psychedelics (natural) will help you become a human being and a thinker. Cannabis makes you stupid. That's it. That's why you feel you don't need it, and this is true. Good for you; you are about to quit cannabis.
unisonruss1285
Established member
Loving all of these responses, thank you guys! I'm a strong person...but never have been when it comes to cannabis. I am so excited that these cravings are gone now. I have a chance to get rid of it.
My first DMT experience was very profound, and I did not have the intention of quitting anything that day. But I came out of it, and for the rest of the day, I never reached for the glass. Then, came and went another day. And then another.
It is true what they say about psychedelics. They are incredible for your brain. I'm so happy. I discovered them through mushrooms... and now DMT has completely blown my world open!
My first DMT experience was very profound, and I did not have the intention of quitting anything that day. But I came out of it, and for the rest of the day, I never reached for the glass. Then, came and went another day. And then another.
It is true what they say about psychedelics. They are incredible for your brain. I'm so happy. I discovered them through mushrooms... and now DMT has completely blown my world open!
No. Psychedelics are drugs by any reasonable definition of "drug". There are drugs with higher and lower risks. But that doesn't make the lower risk ones to not be drugs.
This artificial division between "good" (the ones I use) and "bad" (the ones I don't) drugs is shallow. Drugs are what the ancient Greeks called pharmakon: both poison and medicine. What made them one or the other was not only the dose, but also the context, intention, frequency... This millennia-old way of looking at it is much more accurate than the puritanical "good vs bad". Don't forget that your "good" drugs also have in them the potential for immense harm.
Also, that simplistic way of looking at drugs is what has lead to prohibition. Psychedelics are considered by most to be of the "bad" kind of drug, unlike alcohol for example. Instead of trying to get our drugs into the "good" group, it's better to do away with that whole framework.
Panpsychic
Titanium Teammate
Not necessarily. His distinction is a valid way of categorizing, although not the common way. Lumping all substances together as 'drugs' is not particularly helpful for some.
The associations with the word 'drug' and 'drug user' naturally lead some to want to distance themselves from this.
The fact that psychedelics are commonly used to treat addictions and come off of other drugs supports this.
Why should psychedelics, holy sacraments that can allow for direct apprehension of the divine, be classified together with all other drugs?
While I would classify them as 'sacred drugs', I get and fully respect the position of not classifying them as just 'drugs' also.
Stigmatizing people who use drugs by calling them losers is misguided. They are people, some of whom will manage their lives well while using, others do not. It is better to see people with severe addiction as sick, because sickness calls for care and help, while the label “loser” strips away value and leaves little room for support. Recognizing addiction as illness here is important, also as a drug user I feel offended and hope you reflect on your statement.
It’s a bit silly to then go on to suggest that psychedelics are not drugs. That is like saying antibiotics are not drugs simply because they fight bacteria. Both antibiotics and psychedelics are classes of drugs, but with different functions. The term “psychedelics” already marks a clear distinction within the broader category. To deny their place as drugs is unnecessary and inaccurate.
To the OP, I’m glad you managed to quit your cannabis addiction but don’t forget the real challenge is long-term. Passing the first few weeks is only the start. Addiction is not solved in a short period, or a couple of dmt sessions, but requires continuous effort and attention.
Keep at it, and good luck moving forward.
We are talking here of a classification that excludes psychedelics and includes cannabis in "drugs". That's not defensible, as cannabis has been used to "allow for direct apprehension of the divine" for millennia. Other non-psycedelic drugs such as dissociatives and deliriants can be and have been used that way too. And you could also pick another use, say "enduring pain", and ask why should a medicine that allows to endure excruciating pain be classified together with all other drugs.
I wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't proposed in judgemental, good vs. evil terms: drugs make you a loser, except for the ones I use.
If there is interest in this topic (once again about words
) we maybe should continue in a different thread to not derail this one. I'm trying to do that less.
Panpsychic
Titanium Teammate
We are distinguishing technical classification from common linguistic usage; there are millions of people on prescription medications for various ailments. None of them would refer to themselves as "chronic drug users" even though they are taking 'drugs'.
Alcohol is likewise enjoyed by millions who would be adamantly against all 'drug use' and don't classifiy it as a drug although it obviously is.
Regards cannabis, although it has been used sacramentally historically it is very commonly abused and thus easily falls into the drugs of abuse category, and it also generally isnt regarded as a psychedelic. Alcohol likewise is used as a sacrement (in Church wine) but that doesn't make it one experientially in the way psychedelics are.
In the case of the above post, he was clearly drawing a distinction between psychedelics, and recreational drugs with a propensity to become drugs of abuse. Its not for us to impose a definition, if one finds it useful to categorize psychedelics apart from being simply 'drugs' there are grounds for doing so.
Alcohol is likewise enjoyed by millions who would be adamantly against all 'drug use' and don't classifiy it as a drug although it obviously is.
Regards cannabis, although it has been used sacramentally historically it is very commonly abused and thus easily falls into the drugs of abuse category, and it also generally isnt regarded as a psychedelic. Alcohol likewise is used as a sacrement (in Church wine) but that doesn't make it one experientially in the way psychedelics are.
In the case of the above post, he was clearly drawing a distinction between psychedelics, and recreational drugs with a propensity to become drugs of abuse. Its not for us to impose a definition, if one finds it useful to categorize psychedelics apart from being simply 'drugs' there are grounds for doing so.
Common since the puritanical sectors in the US started promoting that idea worldwide in the late 19th century. It's a propaganda term, the intention of which is only to be able to condemn those substances the speaker finds unpleasant, scary, or disagreeable. Note that it's completely open: more and more tobacco is considered "a drug". I'm not questioning that it's a prevailing use of the word, I'm questioning the use of the word itself.
Psychedelics are likewise enjoyed by millions who don't classifiy them as a drug although they obviously are.
Cannabis is likewise enjoyed by millions who don't classifiy it as a drug although it obviously is.
Caffeine is likewise enjoyed by millions who don't classifiy it as a drug although it obviously is.
And we could go on and on. So it sounds like the better option is to do away with the pejorative use of "drug" altogether. If you can substitute "bad" for "drug", your definition of drug is only useful as propaganda or to feel better than "those drug users".
Yes, different drugs have different effects. We agree on that.
That potential exists in all drugs. It may be higher in some and lower in other drugs, likewise for the consequences. Ketamine has a high propensity to be abused and yet it's useful for the same purposes that psychedelics are, as you can read in this very forum. And by proportion, most of the times psychedelics are used recreationally. Sometimes in ways that lead to suffering and death.
The clear distinction was being made between "good drugs" and "drugs that make you a loser". No substance is good or makes you anything by itself, it all depends on how, when, why, how often, for what end, etc. is used. The demonization of arbitrary categories of substances is exactly what lead to psychedelics being banned worldwide.
Panpsychic
Titanium Teammate
None of the points you raise above change the fundamental issue: technical usage has often no correspondence to normative linguistic usage which can be shapd by a multitude of meanings and associations.
Your essential argument "Hey, coffeine is a drug, and tea contains cafeine. So you're a hypocritical drug user grandma, and you shouldn't be casting judgement on other drug users who use heroine or fentanyl" is not particularly strong.
Like I said, its not to us to impose the line of distinction. You haven't made any arguments before railing against coffee or tea drinkers as 'drug users' with no right to draw distinction between their drug of choice and psychedelics.
So why the sudden reaction to cannabis where someone draws that line for themselves? Most probably because you smoke cannabis yourself and it triggers this reactivity. Like I said, I personally do class psychedelics as 'drugs' - albeit sacred ones. I respect the right of anyone though to distinguish them from all all other drugs, and those who dont want to classify tea as a drug either.
Your essential argument "Hey, coffeine is a drug, and tea contains cafeine. So you're a hypocritical drug user grandma, and you shouldn't be casting judgement on other drug users who use heroine or fentanyl" is not particularly strong.
Like I said, its not to us to impose the line of distinction. You haven't made any arguments before railing against coffee or tea drinkers as 'drug users' with no right to draw distinction between their drug of choice and psychedelics.
So why the sudden reaction to cannabis where someone draws that line for themselves? Most probably because you smoke cannabis yourself and it triggers this reactivity. Like I said, I personally do class psychedelics as 'drugs' - albeit sacred ones. I respect the right of anyone though to distinguish them from all all other drugs, and those who dont want to classify tea as a drug either.
GTRm8
huh
I mean, when you're addicted and you need a substance regularly to feel okay, you lose then. If you're addicted just admit you're a looser and go ahead to your real freedom. You win when you overcome the addiction as a man and can manage yourself without being addicted to anything.
GTRm8
huh
A drug is something you can be addicted to. You can't be addicted to psychedelics as the more you take them, the less you want to take them. Drugs work the opposite way. Calling psychedelics 'drugs' simplifies and generalizes them into a black-and-white view promoted by government propaganda. There’s no way they are drugs coz psychedelics help people quit drugs and resolve addiction problems. It's really weird that I have to explain these simple truths on a pertaining to psychedelics website.