Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Of course it is harmful! Any psychedelic drug is, first of all, a huge load and overload on the nervous system. If for three or four hours, a person watches colorful pictures with their eyes closed, hears sound allusions or even voices, then the next day apathy comes due to excessive impressions, lethargy, memory disorders, etc.etc. Here you can draw analogies with muscle activity – if you preloaded a muscle during training, it is exhausted, if you preloaded it very intessively, you are guaranteed to get injured. Nerve tissue has its own resources for processing information in a time interval-psychedelic, forcibly forces the neuron to work beyond the norm.
But if during training the athlete is fully aware of the level of loads and at any time can reduce them or stop training. With LSD or mescaline, the situation is almost out of control. You throw a deliberately large dose of a stimulant into the body and it begins to exhaust the nervous system. Moreover, this happens in a “fraudulent” way from the point of view of the body. When you train a muscle , you are doing things that the muscle has been adapting to for hundreds of millions of years, so it responds naturally to training. Moreover, when you train a muscle or some other skill (drawing, playing the violin, writing poetry, singing, programming), you can create a long-term plan in which you can expect results. And as time passes, you can judge whether you have progress or not, how you need to change the training to change the skill, etc.
And in the case of LSD, it is quite obvious that there is nothing to train. For this reason, there is no result that can be assumed and then checked whether it has appeared or not. Except, of course, for any “side effects” in the form of mental disorders and psycho-emotional background.
LSD is a “hack” in the jargon of programmers, a deception and can only give one “necessary” result (amazing illusions and associations), while breaking the rest of the body's system. Over time (and this may be after the first or second experiment), exhaustion begins to destroy the functions of higher nervous activity.
You can say that psychedelics are harmless, but I wouldn't say that anyway, especially after such cases when people under the influence of LSD stared at the sun for several hours – and if complete loss of vision is not considered harmful… then…
However.
Why don't stupid, educated people like Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin and other researchers study these substances so fascinatingly and at the same time (not forgetting our question about health) don't seem to suffer much from them?
Let's start with health. Don't forget: there is a variety of human genes. And in the case of substances, this variability is very pronounced. W. Churchill is said to have smoked cigars and drunk whiskey every day, and lived to be 90 years old. However, the vast majority of smokers die from heart and lung diseases at an earlier age. Then there's the fact that Hoffman and Shulgin are professional scientists, and they didn't buy LSD from gypsies or DJs in clubs. They used obviously real substance, followed the rules of precaution at the level of scientific experiments. And they studied the very properties of these substances, and did not try to get surprise and pleasure “fraudulently”. When using psychedelics, it is very important what mental background of the user the session takes place against. Because psychedelics enhance and transform existing experiences, and if the client is depressed or agitated, then expect trouble.
So why do psychedelics appeal to some scientists? If you answer as succinctly as possible, they show several tricks with consciousness that change the awareness of your self. This is very interesting, and we ask a lot of questions. The essence of these questions can be expressed as ” Who am I? how do I exist?” These substances disrupt the work of some parts of the brain and there is such an effect. However, today, modern neuroscientists in their research are faced with a huge number of more diverse “brain tricks”, so it is not worth dwelling on LSD for those who want to learn these secrets.
LSD does not cause any harm to the body. Not the slightest. The only problem is that you need to make sure of the quality of your psyche before using it, if there are any barely noticeable violations, then you can move.
I think to find the answer to this question, you need to read the American scientist Alexander Shulgin, who has been experiencing various psychedelics all his life. See Hoffmann, who died of natural causes at his home in Burg near Basel on April 29, 2008, at the age of 102.
“I think that in human evolution it has never been so necessary to have this substance LSD before, it is just a tool to help us become who we are meant to be,” Hoffman said.
Not an article, but propaganda. Ridiculous comparisons with muscle! Half of the responses are from people who didn't get this experience. Euphoria want more and more? pf… Clearly mixed up with something, alcohol and cigarettes for example…
Very harmful+ addictive
Because of the feeling of euphoria, you want to use it again and again. But still, it is very harmful, like any drug.
I agree in part with the theses of Andrey Zhuravlev that scientists studying LSD use a medical drug, with preliminary training. But this does not prove the harm of LSD caused by the stress on neurons.
The hypothesis that neurons are running longer, cause only some aberrations, distortions rather refuted by researchers in the last 10 years. So you can say that coffee is wildly harmful, because it blocks the adenazine receptors, not allowing you to feel tired. But that doesn't stop anyone from drinking coffee.
In order to confirm the harm of any substance, it is necessary to conduct long-term studies, without which the degree of risk is difficult to determine. Although research is not known what will show.
But the relative risk without such studies is justified because of practical benefits. A benefit that occurs in a therapeutic, religious, or creative context.
It is true that street LSD is an unjustified risk, but also a personal responsibility.