4 ms·
drugabuse.gov should probably not be considered an un-biased source on the topic of drugs of abuse. Some of their material will be propaganda and FUD.
by rosser 7y ago
drugabuse.gov should probably not be considered an un-biased source on the topic of drugs of abuse. Some of their material will be propaganda and FUD.
- losteric 7y agoSo that's as far as you got? Didn't like the domain, therefore the study results are bunk? 75% of the authors are affiliated with other institutions, only 3 are with the National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA itself is well-grounded. There have been some instances where they take a more conservative stance given uncertainty in results, but this is still a national scientific institute - not DARE or the DoJ. Finally, the paper is on PMC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ - why do you disagree with their conclusion?
- rosser 7y agoWould you care to speculate again about how much time I've spent reading their literature before this discussion? I promise you, it's non-zero. Please try not to dismiss people's positions that shallowly; it's a disservice to the conversation we're trying to have, and it's rude. I am involved in a number of communities that engage intentionally, even sacramentally, with psychedelics. The amount of sheer bullshit they continue to promulgate on that matter, about which I consider myself advanced-lay to burgeoning-expert, is staggering, and is sufficient for me to be default skeptical of anything else they might have to say. When you lie to me about things I know something about, I'm obligated to trust the rest of your oeuvre somewhat less, aren't I? Finally, I said nothing whatsoever about the conclusion of the paper under general discussion. In point of fact, I generally agree with it.
- monktastic1 7y agoNot OP, but FWIW your italicizing of drugabuse.gov also gave me the impression that you were dismissing it purely by domain. I did not ready any rudeness in your parent.
- rosser 7y agoThanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. I can see that being a legitimate read of the comment, if one punts on the guideline to assume good faith, and interpret people's arguments in the strongest light, rather than, e.g., dismiss them on the basis of formatting. It's just disappointing when that happens, because I try to engage that way, and assume my comments will be treated the same. EDIT: That said, I didn't exactly offer much in the way of argument there, did I?
- ozzmotik 7y agooh thank the cosmos there is someone else who notices. im absolutely fascinated with psychedelic inspired communities, but that being said i certainly do notice a lot of people that tend to just devolve into a mostly coherent glossolalia in order to fit into some perceived archetype of a "woke shaman" or some such, and as someone with a vested interest in the pursuit of shamanism as an aspect of spiritual pursuits, it certainly frustrates me. i mean, to each their own, but i think it kinda poisons the well a bit. words and stuff ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- rosser 7y agoI'm not quite sure what you're referring to with "glossolalia", offhand. The shamans I work with variously use a mix of Spanish, English, and Quechua, or Shipibo-Conibo, and although all of those (if moreso the indigenous tongues) have what seem to be "filler words" with no specific (known) meaning, the overwhelming majority of the sounds they utter are recognizably from those languages, or whistling, or whatever.
- ticmasta 7y agoyour statement is soundly countered in a similarly unsupported opinion above. You may not like their domain name but the paper and science behind it appear pretty sound.
- rosser 7y agoRight, because it's clearly the domain name I take issue with, and not at all the literal lies that have been published under it.