Ask one who has been to Nirvana

[Narz]

mostly they don't care whether or not taking those drugs is harmful

People care. Just like fat people know stuffing their face is bad but its hard to stop. That's why its called addiction.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Everything is not always an addiction.

 

[Patine]

Everything is not always an addiction.

The chemically-induced aspect of these substances has been clinically proven. Whether there is always a psychologically addictive component (a compulsion) is not always consistent, but the chemical addiction is there. Overeating it always pure compulsion, though, if an addiction exists there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The chemically-induced aspect of these substances has been clinically proven. Whether there is always a psychologically addictive component (a compulsion) is not always consistent, but the chemical addiction is there. Overeating it always pure compulsion, though, if an addiction exists there.

Which substances? Certainly some "drugs" are more addictive than others and some people more prone to becoming addicted than others. Anything can be abused.

 

[Patine]

Which substances? Certainly some "drugs" are more addictive than others and some people more prone to becoming addicted than others. Anything can be abused.

That's what we in Canada call a "politician's response," - non-committal and dismissive, but worded to sound officious and confident.

 

[Narz]

That's what we in Canada call a "politician's response," - non-committal and dismissive, but worded to sound officious and confident.

It's pretty concrete actually (everything needs to be understood on a case by case basis). You're the politician painting all drugs and drug users w a broad brush.

I understand reality is complicated and mental shortcuts are often necessary but if you're really a social worker a little education about substances and their effects could be useful.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The chemically-induced aspect of these substances has been clinically proven....

Which substances? ...

That's what we in Canada call a "politician's response," - non-committal and dismissive, but worded to sound officious and confident.

You said "these substances". I asked which ones.

I don't see how asking you to clarify is dismissive. It looks like I'm engaging you in conversation. Until you state exactly what drugs you are talking about, of course I will not commit to a specific response.

 

[Patine]

It's pretty concrete actually (everything needs to be understood on a case by case basis). You're the politician painting all drugs and drug users w a broad brush.

I understand reality is complicated and mental shortcuts are often necessary but if you're really a social worker a little education about substances and their effects could be useful.

I said nothing of the drug users in a uniform, or stereotyped sense. You just disingenuously inserted that part on your own. Falling to drug dependency is a tragedy for anyone, but one which happens for many myriad of reasons and numerous stimuli - both external or internal, or in combination. Like any other such issues in a persons life, the fall to such, the coping and struggling with it, a path to recovery for some, and for others, tragic demises, as well as highly unhealthy lifestyle choices made to finance and get access to supply of said substances. I did NOT paint the user with a broad brush, and I resent that manipulative and disingenuous attempt to insert that part into what I said. However, the actual substances themselves do not vary nearly as much - chemical potency, specific effects on the user, availability in most areas, and other such factors. I did NOT refer to the substances and those who tragically get caught in the self-destructive path of those substances and the soulless living vampires who run the trade in them as though they were the same, or in the same vain. So, please, don't expect disingenuous insertions into my posts that aren't there, or slanderous accusations of my motives to get any results over me in debates.

<Self-Edit>

 

[Moriarte]

Right, so we literally have a guy here, who took lsd, still thinks his hallucination was real, convinced himself of being “all-seeing, all-wise”, opened his third eye (and kept it open). As such he is proposing teacher-student conversations with him, the Illuminator. It’s hard to find a better demonstration of dangers of lsd than the opening post in this thread. So, who else is frequenting nirvana in CFCOT? Come on out into the light!!!

 

[Hygro]

Right, so we literally have a guy here, who took lsd, still thinks his hallucination was real, convinced himself of being “all-seeing, all-wise”, opened his third eye (and kept it open). As such he is proposing teacher-student conversations with him, the Illuminator. It’s hard to find a better demonstration of dangers of lsd than the opening post in this thread. So, who else is frequenting nirvana in CFCOT? Come on out into the light!!!

What hallucination?

 

[Patine]

What hallucination?

Even if the OP's experiences and statements are not verifiable as a hallucination, are we required to take them at face value?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Even if the OP's experiences and statements are not verifiable as a hallucination, are we required to take them at face value?

Not at all. Religious and quasi religious experiences are personal experiences. You can accept them as real or not. For him, his experiences are real and valuable just like yours are to you. Objective truth is not part of the equation.

 

[Narz]

Even if the OP's experiences and statements are not verifiable as a hallucination, are we required to take them at face value?

Why not?

You think you have a pure understanding of reality?

 

[Narz]

Right, so we literally have a guy here, who took lsd, still thinks his hallucination was real, convinced himself of being “all-seeing, all-wise”, opened his third eye (and kept it open). As such he is proposing teacher-student conversations with him, the Illuminator. It’s hard to find a better demonstration of dangers of lsd than the opening post in this thread. So, who else is frequenting nirvana in CFCOT? Come on out into the light!!!

You came in the thread just to be a hater?

If you care about harm reduction I can think of much better people to pick on than T

 

[Patine]

You think you have a pure understanding of reality?

I never said I did, did I? But I do not believe you, the OP, or anyone else on CivFanatics likely does, either, and I'm not going to feel obliged to believe it outright because the OP, or anyone else here, said as much.

 

[Moriarte]

You came in the thread just to be a hater?

If you care about harm reduction I can think of much better people to pick on than T

At this point I am laughing out loud. If you have something to say, go ahead, say it. Don’t devolve this into ‘u hater’ and ‘pick on somebody else’. Is the awoken one an untouchable one also? Come on, man, there’s no harm saying: heck I had a blast of a trip, seen some crazy **** on the way. But if it’s spun into ‘unverifiable mystical experience’, ‘nirvana’, ‘third eye’, ‘teacher never lectures, the student asks’, I’d like to raise my hand and ask for proof, in spirit of honest conversation. If there is no proof it’s real, then it’s a hallucination. There is no third option, no grey area here. It’s an accepted and widely used medical term describing what happened to terx.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why not?

You think you have a pure understanding of reality?

No one has. Which includes the OP.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just tell me how, big mouth, and I reduce you to the spec of dust you are. Promised.

I'm very happy to take up that challenge and I volunteer.

Reduce me to a spec of dust.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Do it.