5 ms·

<soapbox> I just don't buy it. IMHO, saying that using drugs to get to ideas/inspiration is like saying a wheelchair can help you get from one place to another

<soapbox> I just don't buy it. IMHO, saying that using drugs to get to ideas/inspiration is like saying a wheelchair can help you get from one place to another even though your limbs are perfectly adequate. Maybe it'll help you get here but you could have gotten there without it. If you like to get high, don't make excuses for it. Just admit to yourself that you like to get high. People who like to go to strip clubs don't say they go there for the lighting and it helps with design. People who watch TV don't say they watch for the education. Why do people who like to get high make up excuses to make their behavior socially acceptable. If you like to do it, own it. </soapbox> It's definitely possible that I am completely wrong as I haven't done LSD, Coke, etc.

guruz 15y ago
You are wrong ;-)
Alex3917 15y ago
"If you like to get high, don't make excuses for it." The amount of weed you need to consume to get extra creativity is far below the amount weed you would consume for recreational purposes. For someone without a tolerance looking to get the benefits of creativity, the proper vaporized dose would be around .03 grams. Whereas to get 'high' the proper dose would be around .1 - .2 grams. It's the same as how the analgesic dose is below the recreational dose of every drug. Which is why you can take opiates for medical purposes without getting addicted as long as you don't abuse them. This also includes marijuana; people using marijuana for medical purposes use way less than those using the drug for recreational purposes, though different conditions warrant different doses. For example, those using marijuana to treat cachexia generally need a higher dose than those treating anxiety or insomnia.
- jonmc12 15y ago
  Totally agreed, but dosage is just one dimension of marijuana that is generally misunderstood. The other 2 dimensions are consumption form and cannabis strain - combining these 3 dimensions results in very different mental states. However, the laymen looks at marijuana effects and thinks "high", "stoned", or some other mental state that is equivalent to their college experiences or perhaps a drug addict. Consuming marijuana through ingestion vs inhalation results in a completely different mental experience as a function of how these consumption methods throttle dosage over time. Ingestion will spread a dosage over 4-6 hours, whereas inhalation will expose your mind to this same dosage in in .5-1.5 hours. Also, inhalation has a THC absorption threshold that is much lower than ingestion. And, of course, cannabis strains themselves each offer completely different experiences. Small doses of sativa strains vs large doses of indica strains produce a light, highly energetic feeling vs a stoned feeling, respectively. http://www.leafly.com/explore# http://www.leafly.com/explore# Combing these 3 dimensions, dosage, consumption type and strain produces a broad range of mental states that can be anywhere from empowering, to euphoric, to self-destructive. Like anything else in life, the key is to be disciplined and adjust these 3 dimensions for your personal goals (of course, being disciplined about adjusting dosage to 0 as a bias). But consider work, play and deliberate practice (http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3881908748/tldr-summary-the-role-of-deliberate-practice-in-the http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3881908748/tldr-summary-the...). Marijuana affects the hippocampus, and our ability to form memories while under the influence of the drug - this can be a positive in some contexts and a negative in others. For instance, when doing repetitive work, low doses of ingested sativa can actually enhance productivity of results for mundane work - no learning is necessary, just execution. For play, low doses of inhaled sativa or indica can inspire creativity for hours - leveraging the cognitive cycles previously reserved to querying and storing memories for your mind to test new hypotheses about incoming information. For deliberate practice language learning is key, so most contexts of deliberate practice would likely be harmed by introducing marijuana. Of course, some individuals may benefit from low doses that offset the mundane repetition for a net benefit. Anyhow, I don't claim to be an expert in these matters, but simply to point out that judging Marijuana users as simply people that like to "get high" is utterly and completely ignorant of the reality. It is a judgement, a prejudice and a symptom of pervasive mis-education in our culture. Of course, these are "opinions that [I] would be reluctant to express in front of a group of peers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) - present company apparently excluded. Rationally, it makes sense to me that drugs exist that allow me to exercise discipline and tweak my mental state for the task at hand - from caffeine, to ritalin, to THC - and everything in between. However, due to the legal status of marijuana, and people's own experiences with using the drug to get stoned, avoiding judgement and prejudice in todays world (even amongst the highly educated and successful) is a taboo. I look forward to the day when I can have open, educated conversations about the effects, benefits and harms of marijuana. I also look forward to the day when I can have educated conversations about marijuana with intelligent people and not be judged as someone who simply "likes to get high".
Ixiaus 15y ago
Mmmh. You are wrong, but I would state that creativity and inspired thinking is something that can be cultivated without the aide of euphorics or psychedelics.
5l 15y ago
Well I do think you're completely wrong anyway, but actually I hear plenty of people say they watch TV for the news and documentaries, and I hear plenty of anecdotes about guys going to strip clubs or hiring prostitutes because they're lonely. People are different
jawngee 15y ago
You're wrong. And your metaphors are wrong. Some people like to eat for the taste, not the sustenance. Some people like to get high for the shift in perspective, not to get high. Some people like to drink wine for the taste, not to get sauced. And some people do go to strip clubs for non-standard reasons. When I was going through my nude photography hobby phase, I went for inspiration and ideas. Of course, I met my wife there so I went for that as well. Some of the most "beautiful" code I've written has been under the influence. The document and video encoding system we used at massify, a self-scaling multi-format disconnected conversion cloud, was designed and built in a very stoned haze. It's been running by itself with 100% uptime and without human intervention or maintenance for 3 years now. If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong.
- Evgeny 15y ago
  If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong. That doesn't sound right. What if I put it this way: "If you haven't got cancer then you can't really comment on it. In fact, probably everything you know about cancer is wrong." But in fact cancer is being studied by people who don't have it - should they not be allowed to comment on it?
  - lee 15y ago
    You can't put it that way. Part of understanding the effects and experience of drug use requires the actual experience of drug use, unlike studying cancer. It's like someone criticizing the taste of a mango without ever experiencing eating a mango directly, or other life experiences like sex, having a child, riding a bike for the first time, etc... It's more like: "If you haven't ever tasted a mango, you can't really comment on the experience of it."
jamesbritt 15y ago
It's definitely possible that I am completely wrong as I haven't done LSD, Coke, etc. Then I have to ask, on what do you base your opinion? Some people take drugs as enhancers; perhaps that's like your analogy (though I'd replace "wheelchair" with "bike" or "car"). Some people takes drugs as normalizers. For example, people who have insufficient levels of serotonin or dopamine and are prone to clinical depression. That's like someone with broken legs using a wheelchair. Or like a diabetic taking insulin. It's hard for people to know quite where they stand. To the best of my knowledge there's no good way to determine if someone has low levels of dopamine. Judging people as if they are taking drugs for the sake of enhancement presumes that person isn't in fact trying to compensate for a deficiency. Curious that some people dislike the idea of chemical enhancement but have no problem with mechanical enhancement. If taking drugs is like riding a bike or driving a car (or even using a wheelchair) instead of walking, why don't people disparage bike riding, etc.? I mean, you could have travelled that same distance without it, right? No one gets upset because someone rides a bike for the fun of it, but somehow taking drugs for the fun of it is suspect, something you have to (gasp) admit to.
redwood 15y ago
I take it then that your whole evaluation of psychedelics comes from your experience with alcohol and marijuana?

guruz 15y ago

You are wrong ;-)

Alex3917 15y ago

"If you like to get high, don't make excuses for it." The amount of weed you need to consume to get extra creativity is far below the amount weed you would consume for recreational purposes. For someone without a tolerance looking to get the benefits of creativity, the proper vaporized dose would be around .03 grams. Whereas to get 'high' the proper dose would be around .1 - .2 grams. It's the same as how the analgesic dose is below the recreational dose of every drug. Which is why you can take opiates for medical purposes without getting addicted as long as you don't abuse them. This also includes marijuana; people using marijuana for medical purposes use way less than those using the drug for recreational purposes, though different conditions warrant different doses. For example, those using marijuana to treat cachexia generally need a higher dose than those treating anxiety or insomnia.

jonmc12 15y ago
Totally agreed, but dosage is just one dimension of marijuana that is generally misunderstood. The other 2 dimensions are consumption form and cannabis strain - combining these 3 dimensions results in very different mental states. However, the laymen looks at marijuana effects and thinks "high", "stoned", or some other mental state that is equivalent to their college experiences or perhaps a drug addict. Consuming marijuana through ingestion vs inhalation results in a completely different mental experience as a function of how these consumption methods throttle dosage over time. Ingestion will spread a dosage over 4-6 hours, whereas inhalation will expose your mind to this same dosage in in .5-1.5 hours. Also, inhalation has a THC absorption threshold that is much lower than ingestion. And, of course, cannabis strains themselves each offer completely different experiences. Small doses of sativa strains vs large doses of indica strains produce a light, highly energetic feeling vs a stoned feeling, respectively. http://www.leafly.com/explore# http://www.leafly.com/explore# Combing these 3 dimensions, dosage, consumption type and strain produces a broad range of mental states that can be anywhere from empowering, to euphoric, to self-destructive. Like anything else in life, the key is to be disciplined and adjust these 3 dimensions for your personal goals (of course, being disciplined about adjusting dosage to 0 as a bias). But consider work, play and deliberate practice (http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3881908748/tldr-summary-the-role-of-deliberate-practice-in-the http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3881908748/tldr-summary-the...). Marijuana affects the hippocampus, and our ability to form memories while under the influence of the drug - this can be a positive in some contexts and a negative in others. For instance, when doing repetitive work, low doses of ingested sativa can actually enhance productivity of results for mundane work - no learning is necessary, just execution. For play, low doses of inhaled sativa or indica can inspire creativity for hours - leveraging the cognitive cycles previously reserved to querying and storing memories for your mind to test new hypotheses about incoming information. For deliberate practice language learning is key, so most contexts of deliberate practice would likely be harmed by introducing marijuana. Of course, some individuals may benefit from low doses that offset the mundane repetition for a net benefit. Anyhow, I don't claim to be an expert in these matters, but simply to point out that judging Marijuana users as simply people that like to "get high" is utterly and completely ignorant of the reality. It is a judgement, a prejudice and a symptom of pervasive mis-education in our culture. Of course, these are "opinions that [I] would be reluctant to express in front of a group of peers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) - present company apparently excluded. Rationally, it makes sense to me that drugs exist that allow me to exercise discipline and tweak my mental state for the task at hand - from caffeine, to ritalin, to THC - and everything in between. However, due to the legal status of marijuana, and people's own experiences with using the drug to get stoned, avoiding judgement and prejudice in todays world (even amongst the highly educated and successful) is a taboo. I look forward to the day when I can have open, educated conversations about the effects, benefits and harms of marijuana. I also look forward to the day when I can have educated conversations about marijuana with intelligent people and not be judged as someone who simply "likes to get high".

Ixiaus 15y ago

Mmmh. You are wrong, but I would state that creativity and inspired thinking is something that can be cultivated without the aide of euphorics or psychedelics.

5l 15y ago

Well I do think you're completely wrong anyway, but actually I hear plenty of people say they watch TV for the news and documentaries, and I hear plenty of anecdotes about guys going to strip clubs or hiring prostitutes because they're lonely. People are different

jawngee 15y ago

You're wrong. And your metaphors are wrong. Some people like to eat for the taste, not the sustenance. Some people like to get high for the shift in perspective, not to get high. Some people like to drink wine for the taste, not to get sauced. And some people do go to strip clubs for non-standard reasons. When I was going through my nude photography hobby phase, I went for inspiration and ideas. Of course, I met my wife there so I went for that as well. Some of the most "beautiful" code I've written has been under the influence. The document and video encoding system we used at massify, a self-scaling multi-format disconnected conversion cloud, was designed and built in a very stoned haze. It's been running by itself with 100% uptime and without human intervention or maintenance for 3 years now. If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong.

Evgeny 15y ago
If you haven't done drugs, then you can't really comment on them. That would be like me having a strong opinion on a topic I've never studied or have practical experience with. In fact, probably everything you know about drugs is wrong. That doesn't sound right. What if I put it this way: "If you haven't got cancer then you can't really comment on it. In fact, probably everything you know about cancer is wrong." But in fact cancer is being studied by people who don't have it - should they not be allowed to comment on it?
- lee 15y ago
  You can't put it that way. Part of understanding the effects and experience of drug use requires the actual experience of drug use, unlike studying cancer. It's like someone criticizing the taste of a mango without ever experiencing eating a mango directly, or other life experiences like sex, having a child, riding a bike for the first time, etc... It's more like: "If you haven't ever tasted a mango, you can't really comment on the experience of it."

jamesbritt 15y ago

It's definitely possible that I am completely wrong as I haven't done LSD, Coke, etc. Then I have to ask, on what do you base your opinion? Some people take drugs as enhancers; perhaps that's like your analogy (though I'd replace "wheelchair" with "bike" or "car"). Some people takes drugs as normalizers. For example, people who have insufficient levels of serotonin or dopamine and are prone to clinical depression. That's like someone with broken legs using a wheelchair. Or like a diabetic taking insulin. It's hard for people to know quite where they stand. To the best of my knowledge there's no good way to determine if someone has low levels of dopamine. Judging people as if they are taking drugs for the sake of enhancement presumes that person isn't in fact trying to compensate for a deficiency. Curious that some people dislike the idea of chemical enhancement but have no problem with mechanical enhancement. If taking drugs is like riding a bike or driving a car (or even using a wheelchair) instead of walking, why don't people disparage bike riding, etc.? I mean, you could have travelled that same distance without it, right? No one gets upset because someone rides a bike for the fun of it, but somehow taking drugs for the fun of it is suspect, something you have to (gasp) admit to.

redwood 15y ago

I take it then that your whole evaluation of psychedelics comes from your experience with alcohol and marijuana?