• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Keeping DMT off the Street...

Migrated topic.
Burnt this could be your number one profound reply.


Basically what I am saying is grow your own drugs make your own drugs use your own drugs once you start moving those drugs around its more likely you will get caught and then all the fun is over.

now thats some damn good advice:lol:

you got my vote

MV
 
MagikVenom said:
Burnt this could be your number one profound reply.


Basically what I am saying is grow your own drugs make your own drugs use your own drugs once you start moving those drugs around its more likely you will get caught and then all the fun is over.

now thats some damn good advice:lol:

you got my vote

MV


Yup, burnt hit it. Don't sell drugs and you have a much, much better chance of not getting caught.
 
swim knows someone who knows someone who gave out free breakthrough does to around 50 good friends, with the anticipation they would have the same life changing experience as SWIM... well about 20 claimed to have life changing experiences with no prompting, radically different experiences ranging from having hate and depression sucked out of them, another became 5 different versions of herself representing different aspects of her personality and each being a different color (wow), one was transported to an alien robot construction yards with giant robots walking around and robot reptilian creatures, one saw a wall of amazing patterns and colors described as "gods wallpaper" haha, another found themselves performing photoshop operations with their mind (???), yet another found themselves in an episode of the simpsons...

Unfortunately 2 had somewhat difficult experiences, but SWIM would attest this to improper respect, neither believed it would be as intense as it was (should've listened)... plus they had no good tunes on and were surrounded by people, although that wasnt their fault... so one had extreme auditary hullications were all sounds in the room were intensified, plus multi colored skull and crossbones were flashing at him, but to make matters worse the guy fought the experience, trying to stand and move around, someone then shouted out "dont fight it!", he immediately settled down and from then on said the trip was amazing.. this guy was also going through some shit with his ex that night so SWIM thinks his set and setting was all wrong... the other guy had done tonnes of acid b4, and simply wasnt that impressed by the experience... SWIM thinks he could've tried harder.

The conclusion of the experiment left SWIM with a feeling that everyone should try it because the odds of have a life changing experience are pretty high... but yeah, most people, even the ones who had amazing experiences said they would probably never do it again... not because it was bad, but because it left them with a feeling of super respect for the substance... almost everyone noticed the mood uplifiting after effects including one dude who is known for being ultra depressed and moody.
 
Yea but your results are biased because it was in a population of people who wanted to try it. I dunno if the responses would be so positive in the general population of non drug users.

I don't see pulling a timothy leary as a very good way of showing people this substance. Psychedelics are finally being appreciated slowly by scientific community and I'd hate to see that get swamped by some over idealistic naive persons. Also we are lucky to have such access to all the plants that some of these substances come from and attracting negative attention is the best way to get them banned. The best way to attract negative attention is to spread it far and wide. Let those who seek the substance come find it not the other way around.
 
burnt said:
Yea but your results are biased because it was in a population of people who wanted to try it. I dunno if the responses would be so positive in the general population of non drug users.

I don't see pulling a timothy leary as a very good way of showing people this substance. Psychedelics are finally being appreciated slowly by scientific community and I'd hate to see that get swamped by some over idealistic naive persons. Also we are lucky to have such access to all the plants that some of these substances come from and attracting negative attention is the best way to get them banned. The best way to attract negative attention is to spread it far and wide. Let those who seek the substance come find it not the other way around.

Well I'd totally agree with you if we were talking about about acid... I think it's obvious that Leary ruined it for everyone because his judgement was heavily effected by the lsd and as a member of the scientific establishment, they were never gonna allow that. Also there was nothing wrong with his idea that everyone should try it... cuz LSD is amazing, but it also seriously messes you up... I feel differently about DMT though, SWIM has taken enough lsd to realise that it's real effect is your mind basically cant figure stuff out properly and so it "fills in" the gaps in reality.... DMT in SWIM's opinion is somewhat "real" or at least it shows you the true depths of mind and the amazing possibilities of our imagination.... I do think it has the potential to affect your judgement but in a more positive way that LSD... SWIM knows a bunch of serious acid casualties even some that are in mental homes right now... like I said there was only really 1 semi-bad trip in 50 and that guys didn't follow the instructions.... plus it's somewhat impossible to overdose and shit it only lasts 10 mins.

Plus don't forget what I said at the end of the post, most people, even the ones who absolutely loved it, said there was no need to try it again, they got the message load and clear.
 
Also I'm not quite sure how biased the experiment was, I mean, yeah, it wasn't on the general population... it was only drug users... but if you've made the stupid decision not to even try drugs, then your definitely not gonna try DMT are you? when I say everyone should try it, I'm not talking about squares who will never try anything.... actually I'm not even sure of that, for those people sometimes I think it would be good to spike them or something because I think personally think they're wasting their lives... especially the religious puritan folks, obviously SWIM would never do such a thing, but SWIM wonders what the world would be like if they took good drugs instead of bad ones... imagine if bars/clubs didnt sell alcohol, tobacco and just sold vapo weed and quality mdma for ravers (shit maybe even LSD if the quality could be regulated), barmaids just hand out water, people get a set amount every few hours based on body weight... I think the world would be so much more chilled... where SWIM lives, cocaine is a scourge, that and alcohol is turning the whole city into a bunch of tweeked out morons looking to fight people.

Also, having tried almost everything, SWIM really cant compare DMT to any other substances, it's not like a "drug" in the typical sense, it's more like a ticket to another world.
 
burnt said:
Yea but your results are biased because it was in a population of people who wanted to try it. I dunno if the responses would be so positive in the general population of non drug users.

I don't see pulling a timothy leary as a very good way of showing people this substance. Psychedelics are finally being appreciated slowly by scientific community and I'd hate to see that get swamped by some over idealistic naive persons. Also we are lucky to have such access to all the plants that some of these substances come from and attracting negative attention is the best way to get them banned. The best way to attract negative attention is to spread it far and wide. Let those who seek the substance come find it not the other way around.

Thank you burnt.

you said it perfectly.
 
lbeing789 said:
Also 1. I'm not quite sure how biased the experiment was, I mean, yeah, it wasn't on the general population... it was only drug users... 2. but if you've made the stupid decision not to even try drugs, then your definitely not gonna try DMT are you? when I say everyone should try it, I'm not talking about squares who will never try anything.... actually I'm not even sure of that, 3. for those people sometimes I think it would be good to spike them or something because I think personally think they're wasting their lives... especially the religious puritan folks, obviously SWIM would never do such a thing, but 4. SWIM wonders what the world would be like if they took good drugs instead of bad ones... 5. imagine if bars/clubs didnt sell alcohol, tobacco and just sold vapo weed and quality mdma for ravers (shit maybe even LSD if the quality could be regulated), barmaids just hand out water, people get a set amount every few hours based on body weight... I think the world would be so much more chilled... where SWIM lives, cocaine is a scourge, that and alcohol is turning the whole city into a bunch of tweeked out morons looking to fight people.

Also, having tried almost everything, SWIM really cant compare DMT to any other substances, it's not like a "drug" in the typical sense, it's more like a ticket to another world.
1. As burned said, it was biased. I would also add that it was also an uncontrolled experiment, therefore of not much value (at least to people who are unfamiliar to dmt, also known as the vast majority of people)

2. Not trying drugs is not a stupid decision. Many people live and die not less happy than people who take drugs. Even though one can say that everybody does drugs, especially endogenous drugs like endorphines and dopamine rushes.

3. A common problem with mainstream people is that they often believe they know what is better for others, they think they can judge others and try to enforce what they think to others. It is sad to see people with this ill notion here

4. The "my drugs is better than yours" is also a childish argument. Drugs are drugs, without moral. People have morality and can be "good" or "bad"

5. So you propose stop selling alcohol + tobacco in bars/clubs? these are great drugs, enjoyed by many. Ban them and you're a step closer to a dictator. Why not allow everything and let people decide what they should take instead of you deciding instead?
 
lbeing789 said:
Also but SWIM wonders what the world would be like if they took good drugs instead of bad ones... imagine if bars/clubs didnt sell alcohol, tobacco and just sold vapo weed and quality mdma for ravers (shit maybe even LSD if the quality could be regulated), barmaids just hand out water, people get a set amount every few hours based on body weight... I think the world would be so much more chilled... where SWIM lives, cocaine is a scourge, that and alcohol is turning the whole city into a bunch of tweeked out morons looking to fight people.

^^very true..I have seen with my own eyes too many times what alcohol has the ability to do to my freinds and family..I hate it..it is killing one of my best friends right now..completely legal and served almost everywhere..they even applied a new tax here, a liquer tax, but it is going to be added to restuarant food bills, even if you dont order any alcohol..so now I have to pay a tax for other people to use such a destructive drug that I dont even use...but of course..god forbid we smok cannabis:d
 
Infundibulum said:
lbeing789 said:
Also 1. I'm not quite sure how biased the experiment was, I mean, yeah, it wasn't on the general population... it was only drug users... 2. but if you've made the stupid decision not to even try drugs, then your definitely not gonna try DMT are you? when I say everyone should try it, I'm not talking about squares who will never try anything.... actually I'm not even sure of that, 3. for those people sometimes I think it would be good to spike them or something because I think personally think they're wasting their lives... especially the religious puritan folks, obviously SWIM would never do such a thing, but 4. SWIM wonders what the world would be like if they took good drugs instead of bad ones... 5. imagine if bars/clubs didnt sell alcohol, tobacco and just sold vapo weed and quality mdma for ravers (shit maybe even LSD if the quality could be regulated), barmaids just hand out water, people get a set amount every few hours based on body weight... I think the world would be so much more chilled... where SWIM lives, cocaine is a scourge, that and alcohol is turning the whole city into a bunch of tweeked out morons looking to fight people.

Also, having tried almost everything, SWIM really cant compare DMT to any other substances, it's not like a "drug" in the typical sense, it's more like a ticket to another world.
1. As burned said, it was biased. I would also add that it was also an uncontrolled experiment, therefore of not much value (at least to people who are unfamiliar to dmt, also known as the vast majority of people)

2. Not trying drugs is not a stupid decision. Many people live and die not less happy than people who take drugs. Even though one can say that everybody does drugs, especially endogenous drugs like endorphines and dopamine rushes.

3. A common problem with mainstream people is that they often believe they know what is better for others, they think they can judge others and try to enforce what they think to others. It is sad to see people with this ill notion here

4. The "my drugs is better than yours" is also a childish argument. Drugs are drugs, without moral. People have morality and can be "good" or "bad"

5. So you propose stop selling alcohol + tobacco in bars/clubs? these are great drugs, enjoyed by many. Ban them and you're a step closer to a dictator. Why not allow everything and let people decide what they should take instead of you deciding instead?


OK, these are fine responses but I disagree with all of them:

1. SWIM is actually a scientist with a Phd, I never claimed it was a controlled experiment.. I dont really understand where there notion is coming from, it was not a proper experiment and I will point out yet again, if it was an experiment it would not have been biased because the experiment was to test the effect of DMT on drug users... if I was trying to establish the effect on the general population then it would've been biased.

2. Well you answered your own point here, everyone does drugs it's natural, mother nature is not perfect (that's the great misconception), we have bad drugs running through our blood stream... people are born with "bad" chemicals... thats why a lot of people to take medication to repair various conditions. SWIM would argue that you cant know what something is like if you've never tried it, new experiences are the spice of life. You're probably missing out because nothing in my life has taught me more than drugs and when I found out at 22, I was a little annoyed that I bought the hype that they rot your brain and stuff... I will explain more on this in the next points.

3. Once again, I think this is completely wrong, another global misconception... democracy has created this idea that every man has an equal and valid voice, and somehow there is no right or wrong answer... as a scientist I know this is bullshit... if you are an experienced chemist you WILL know whats better for a person if they know nothing about it... I mean, would you call an electrician to fix your plumbing? If you are a moron, you dont know whats best for you, if you are smart you know whats better for you and whats better for others. Surely you've met people with wisdom that you respect and you know better than you do? for example, if you've ever done a class, your trusting someone to teach you something because they know more about it than you do. Personally I hate the fact that the world doesnt let the professionals get on with their job... look at things like the aspartme conspiracy, completely unfounded, chemists dont think there is anything wrong with it, yet you'll meet people in bars who are convinced it's toxic when they know literally nothing about it.

4. Well to say it's a childish argument is not cool for a start, maybe it's just childish to write that. Let me explain what I mean by good drugs versus bad drugs, bad drugs are drugs where the payoff is not worth the sideeffects... bad drugs are ones with serious side effects... bad drugs are drugs that cause social harm, bad drugs are drugs that are highly addictive, if you think alcohol is a good drug, I think you're mad, it's a depressive and there is no wisdom in it, that like a lot of drugs is just for getting fucked up and forgetting about the world... pills these days arent even MDMA most of the time, they're filled with ket, speed and even smack + a tonne of RC's (which are very dodgy without clinical testing)... they're bad drugs because you dont know what you're getting. If the government legalised these substances you could get good clean drugs and with proper research they could probaby eliminate side effects all together. Not to mention cut down crime and poverty and misery.

5. I didnt mean banning them, I meant it like how coffee and cakes arent sold in clubs.. because they're not appropriate... in my experience people that smoke tobacco do so because they are addicted and become hooked on the mood stablising effect, most smokers hate smoking, I mean c'mon, you know this. Plus I would think if people had access to better smoking materials (good weed, herbs) + good vaporizing technology then you're not gonna get addicted and you're gonna get better effects making it worth it... bare in mind most people have not tried the alternative because cigarettes are sold in shops, weed is not. Alcohol + Tobacco are great drugs? I'm sorry I respect your views but that just sounds absolutely crazy... of course I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want... I'm merely saying there are much better substances for social lubrication and mood stablisation... and these ones dont cause depression, liver damage, cancer, I mean 1 in 3 smokers die from smoking related illnesses... I mean this is so obvious.

People need to try things to find out what works for them... DMT may not be for everyone, but I still think it's worth trying for everyone... some drugs are bad to get into in the first place like meth, smack, coke, maybe even weed, but I would also put alcohol and tobacco into that category...
 
lbeing789 said:
1. SWIM is actually a scientist with a Phd, I never claimed it was a controlled experiment.. I dont really understand where there notion is coming from, it was not a proper experiment and I will point out yet again, if it was an experiment it would not have been biased because the experiment was to test the effect of DMT on drug users... if I was trying to establish the effect on the general population then it would've been biased.
Fine, so what was the point of the distributing the dmt to 50 people again? Was it just to see whether others can have similar experiences? what was the conclusion?

lbeing789 said:
2. Well you answered your own point here, everyone does drugs it's natural, mother nature is not perfect (that's the great misconception), we have bad drugs running through our blood stream... people are born with "bad" chemicals... thats why a lot of people to take medication to repair various conditions. SWIM would argue that you cant know what something is like if you've never tried it, new experiences are the spice of life. You're probably missing out because nothing in my life has taught me more than drugs and when I found out at 22, I was a little annoyed that I bought the hype that they rot your brain and stuff... I will explain more on this in the next points.
I agree with what you say yet I consider it irrelevant to my initial point. In your original post you said: "..but if you've made the stupid decision not to even try drugs.." this is what I argued with, it is not a stupid decision to decide not to try drugs. People outside the "drug" community are not so stupid as we'd like to think, they have their own fair values, amazing experiences from life and the sort...

lbeing789 said:
3. Once again, I think this is completely wrong, another global misconception... democracy has created this idea that every man has an equal and valid voice, and somehow there is no right or wrong answer... as a scientist I know this is bullshit... if you are an experienced chemist you WILL know whats better for a person if they know nothing about it... I mean, would you call an electrician to fix your plumbing? If you are a moron, you dont know whats best for you, if you are smart you know whats better for you and whats better for others. Surely you've met people with wisdom that you respect and you know better than you do? for example, if you've ever done a class, your trusting someone to teach you something because they know more about it than you do. Personally I hate the fact that the world doesnt let the professionals get on with their job... look at things like the aspartme conspiracy, completely unfounded, chemists dont think there is anything wrong with it, yet you'll meet people in bars who are convinced it's toxic when they know literally nothing about it.
My point was more about enforcement of what people think its better/worse to the others. That said, I agree with most of your post. A scientist knows more about aspartame than laymen, yet he doesn't enforce compulsory aspartame consumption to the population.

lbeing789 said:
4. Well to say it's a childish argument is not cool for a start, maybe it's just childish to write that. Let me explain what I mean by good drugs versus bad drugs, bad drugs are drugs where the payoff is not worth the sideeffects... bad drugs are ones with serious side effects... bad drugs are drugs that cause social harm, bad drugs are drugs that are highly addictive, if you think alcohol is a good drug, I think you're mad, it's a depressive and there is no wisdom in it, that like a lot of drugs is just for getting fucked up and forgetting about the world... pills these days arent even MDMA most of the time, they're filled with ket, speed and even smack + a tonne of RC's (which are very dodgy without clinical testing)... they're bad drugs because you dont know what you're getting. If the government legalised these substances you could get good clean drugs and with proper research they could probaby eliminate side effects all together. Not to mention cut down crime and poverty and misery.
Apologies for the ad hominem; Your response is however your opinion and I will not discuss your topics much. My opinion is that drugs are amoral. It is the user who makes a bad drug or a good drug. In addition, side effects are irrelevant when it comes to the correct use of a drug. I do not even know what are side effects - take alcohol for instance. It tends to make some people violent, but is it a side effect of alcohol consumption? Or does it precipitate violent tendencies that have been building on individuals because of oppressive social conditions?

lbeing789 said:
5. I didnt mean banning them, I meant it like how coffee and cakes arent sold in clubs.. because they're not appropriate... in my experience people that smoke tobacco do so because they are addicted and become hooked on the mood stablising effect, most smokers hate smoking, I mean c'mon, you know this. Plus I would think if people had access to better smoking materials (good weed, herbs) + good vaporizing technology then you're not gonna get addicted and you're gonna get better effects making it worth it... bare in mind most people have not tried the alternative because cigarettes are sold in shops, weed is not. Alcohol + Tobacco are great drugs? I'm sorry I respect your views but that just sounds absolutely crazy... of course I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want... I'm merely saying there are much better substances for social lubrication and mood stablisation... and these ones dont cause depression, liver damage, cancer, I mean 1 in 3 smokers die from smoking related illnesses... I mean this is so obvious.
I didn't say banning them either. What is better for social lubrication is up to the users to decide. I like alcohol and cigarettes so I like to see them sold in clubs. For me they are better social lubricants compared to mdma.
 
Nice points guys. Yes and I see the point made by Ibeing that the idea was to see the effect on willing users. Interesting that so many had positive results for sure. But yes this is well known the positive effects of dmt. I guess my point is that often you see people who take dmt and then want to spread it to the world and go really far with that desire. I think that can easily get dangerous thats really my only concern. I think people who want to try dmt can find it. There is no reason to go around encouraging people too when it can easily backfire on them and make them go wacky. By go wacky I mean start believing in UFO's magic energy forces and a host of other delusions dmt users are prone too. Seriously. I see the positive effects and the negative effects just by browsing this forum for a while. And thats not meant as an offense to anyone but its how the rest of the world will look at it regardless of who is more or less sane.
 
lbeing789, with all due respect, you've stated a number of times that you are a scientist with a PhD, but your statements & opinions are kind of saying something else.

Most of the actual scientists I've know are usually a bit more Objctive in their expressed opinions.
You don't seem to be thinking around the situation very much, or looking past your personal feelings, to the bigger picture...Objectively.
Like a scientist is trained to do.
Instead I'm reading the opinions of a young mind, wanting everyone to have the same ideas & values as you, because of certain experiences that were positive for you. The scientific mind does not think this way.

I'm not wanting to bag on you, I'm just saying that it's very easy to claim to be a scientist...but if you are one, why doesn't your opinions, writing style, or grammar seem to reflect it?

That does not mean...why don't you agree with us...it just means, that the thought process you've explained to us in the above posts does not reflect that of an scientifically educated person with a PhD.
I hesitate to say it, but it reminds me more of the thought processes of me & my pals when we were teenagers & just started learning about these things.

For example:
everyone does drugs it's natural, mother nature is not perfect (that's the great misconception), we have bad drugs running through our blood stream... people are born with "bad" chemicals... thats why a lot of people to take medication to repair various conditions. SWIM would argue that you cant know what something is like if you've never tried it, new experiences are the spice of life. You're probably missing out because nothing in my life has taught me more than drugs and when I found out at 22, I was a little annoyed that I bought the hype that they rot your brain and stuff... I will explain more on this in the next points.

democracy has created this idea that every man has an equal and valid voice, and somehow there is no right or wrong answer... as a scientist I know this is bullshit... if you are an experienced chemist you WILL know whats better for a person if they know nothing about it...If you are a moron, you dont know whats best for you, if you are smart you know whats better for you and whats better for others. Surely you've met people with wisdom that you respect and you know better than you do?

Those just don't seem like the objective, thought out processes of an educated scientist to me. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm sorry if that is a bit harsh, but I'm not down with people claiming things like that, if it's not true.
I'm not down with lieing.
I truly apologize if I'm off on this one.


Cheers
WS
 
warrensaged, if you're asking for some kind of proof.. I'm not gonna give it to you, because I dont have to explain myself... I think it's really bad manners and not objective at all to call someone a liar when you have absolutely no idea... so you're obviously not objective or scientific at all, you're just working from instinct... plus I dont know why but you failed to actually point out any flaws in my science... if you manage to do that, then I may actually listen to you... but yeah, your post is unhelpful, doesnt say anything, has no wisdom in it.. you're just ragging.

In my experience only teenagers and childish folks question peoples careers, it's usually just a sign of insecurity, do you feel bad that you dont have a phd? cuz I can tell you it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be... I'm merely pointing out that I understand the scientific method completely, and if you want to challenge me on it, I'm happy to argue with you about anything... but if you're gonna say stuff like that, please back it up with some evidence.

Also, some people need to read more carefully... if I use the terms "I think" or "I believe" that means I'm either not sure or it's just my opinion not a statement of scientific fact.
 
oh and saying "with all due respect" and "I'm sorry if that is a bit harsh" and then calling someone a liar is just a lame thing to do... you dont have any respect, dont pretend you do.
 
and one more thing... scientists are supposed to be objective not subjective, maybe that's where you're getting mixed up, you dont know what science actually is.
 
"You're probably missing out because nothing in my life has taught me more than drugs."

Totally valid statement, considering everything you learn is from chemicals flowing through your brain. Notice the word "probably".

"if you are smart you know whats better for you and whats better for others"

again, this is totally valid as well, what does it mean to be smart? the word implies being more knowledgable about something... maybe that insecurity thing is making you read this wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom