only so many?

You obviously haven't read that many of my posts here, have you?
I've done some things I'm not proud off, everbody has to one extent or another.
Difference is not everybody has deprived someone of thier dignity and committed sexual assualt and then proudly brag about it as you do.
Peter part of me really hopes you are just a troll stirring things up, because to think that people like you exist is disturbing.

 

No dude, its just because we care about you. Beleive it or not.

 

as odd as it may sound Peter, I agree with pr0ne.

 

From examining the vagaries of my own devotions.

 

That's one way to look at it. Another way is to assume drugs or some other variable showed them that life is a short ride that can be played any way one chooses (obvious Bill Hicks plagiarism, but it's the best way I've found to put it). Given the current construct of the ride, and the mindset of the average person, the reclusive drug addiction path is very tempting. I realize this is very cliche, but just because both of these individuals didn't conform to societal "norms" doesn't make those choices any more or less relevant. I love how you say Timothy Leary got carried away in the "fantasy trip". Sorry, but unless you know truth, I wouldn't judge what is real and what is not. I don't know about you, but I envy these individuals in the way they played the game - Hunter just offed himself because of the non-stop pain from drug abuse in his later years (specifically cigarettes). I'd do the same; fuck death, I don't really see why it's so taboo - it's not a big deal. Life was given to you.

I also think it's hilarious how you blame your problems on LSD when you used to constantly talk about how you abuse just about every drug known to man.

Assuming there is something to know.

I always thought your fascination and belittlement of Peter is because he reminds you a lot of yourself. No offense, but you seem to fit the arrogance profile in a lot of your posts. "I just say this because I care about you."

 

No quite the opposite. I just have little tolerance for people who CHOOSE to remain ignorant, as Peter has time and again shown by his posts over the past couple years. Even when given the facts or resources to the facts, he still insists he is correct. He really has produced some real head scratcher of remarks in the past; "black people are immune to skin cancer" for example.

The difference is that when I quote or state facts, I am doing just that, relaying facts, not opinion. I always try to distinguish between fact and my opinion, unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to be able to make that differentiation.

Let me ask you this, I am wrong in the information I post regarding drugs?
Am I wrong in my personal opinion regarding the abuse of others that Peter brags about?

There is a big difference between being arrogant and knowing when your right about something.

And I have always admitted and owned the FACT that I can be a real asshole at times.

 

I don't know what kind of derivative of arrogant you're using, but what I was getting at is egotism/pride. I never said you were wrong in any of your statements, just that you put a lot of energy into your pride, and that's where I compared you to Peter. As far as your contributions to the LSD community and your intelligence, Peter doesn't stand a chance. Let's not get this confused here, because words can be deceiving, especially when you're using a different connotation.

 

It will fuck you up man. lol

 

LSD doesn't like people like you taking it Peter .
So, yes it fucks up your already fucked up brain .

 

Is it possible that you are taking my confidence in what I say as arrogance?
If you are confident and certain of something, aren't you going to project a different attitude than if you were unsure about your position?

 

How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?

 

Well I do know who I am,
and I've traveled pretty far, as far as the eye can see,
and I've been there often enough to know,
But I didn't see nothing that doesn't show,
I am definitly not a rich man, no big brown bag full of money,
But I am tuned to a natural E, and happy to be that way,
One thing I do know for sure,
It is all a just a big Magical Mystery Tour.

 

black people have more pigment in there skin. somthing called melanin. the reason why white people (like me) get tanned when i go in the sun, is because the skin releases the melanin in the skin, which makes u darker. the body does this to fight off the suns rays.... thats why if ur tanned and go in the sun alot it takes much longer to burn.

black people have so much melanin in there skin, they dont really burn do they???
when the skin burns the cancerous molecules are created and go into the body or whatever.
so black people have a natural tolerance to skin cancer.
u people r dumb.
im alot smarter than u give me credit for.

so maybe black people, lets just say from africa and the abbos from australia, are black right. yes. well because those countries have such hot sun, that over hundreds of years, they permanently turned black. a natural evolutionary thing to protect there skin? right. cause thats what the body does.
and the english people, from england, are white, because its really cloudy over there all the time. yes evolution is real.

anyway, i dont go thro peoples old posts to bring up dirt about them and be a dog and give them shit about it. u call urself such a good quality person. ur an asshole, plain n simple.
if anyone is smart here, its me, cause iv gone down that road, but worked out its a good idea to stop here... n live life to its fullest without drugs. (n ur giving me shit for what? that conclusion hahahahaha seriously)

i have dreams, aspirations and desires. i want a house, a family, n kids. what sort of father would i be, droping acid trips? huh. think about the real world for a second. damn im grounded. lol

a bit deluded? sucked into the world of lsd r we? yep. i used to be for sure.
let me ask u somthign , do u personally have to keep taking it? to get the amazing thoughts to come back? cause when the afterglow goes its meh.

did u know that half the trip is just neurons misfiring?


and it was deffinatly not sexual assault... it was just somthing weird that happened. and anyway, we apoligesed like 50 times for getting the wrong idea, and gave her money for the taxi... so we were good to her. gentleman lol.

 

Black people do get sunburn ya fool.
I think I'd make a decent father, and I will still be tripping occasionally when I have the time to, and don't have to keep an eye on my child (when they're sleeping most likely), or maybe take a weekend out to trip or something.
It's all about what you take from your trips peter, and you only took the negatives.
It's fine to want to go through life without drugs, but the lines you've drawn to your conclusions don't really connect.

 

Skin cancer in darker pigmented people occurs less frequently than in lighter skinned people due to the melanin content, like you said Peter.
But they can and do get skin cancer and the mortality rate from it is higher for dark skinned people than light skin.

 

I feel so bad for this dude lol..

 

n ur an idiot. i feel sorry for u, well not really, i couldnt care less.lol

 

yeah, i can understand tryin to do a few trips now and again, if u can get away with it. but its blurring 2 realities together. in a way. n lsd does change a person. u have to ask urself, if it would effect the relationship with the wife... imagine doing a big trip, or a bad trip, n u change alot, u will change , the wife might not like who u r becoming u know.
thats how i see it.

to be honest, i would love to live a life of acid. to take acid my whole life, and just trip out, and have these awsum crazy profound trips. and really blurr the boudry. but i choose life, not repress back into my brain.
taking acid kinda makes u introverterted. overthink things.

dont mistaken what im saying as some sort of, "omg acid is the the worst thing in the world, and u shouldnt do it". cause im not.

more or less, after the first maybe 10 trips, there not that much to gain from doing acid, more or less, more negatives to gain after that.

 

I'm gonna defend Pete a bit here. Also, I take random links from here and there with test results with a grain of salt. You really don't know what happens 5 years later, how the tests were conducted, or really any of the details besides what was written... Being able to find said articles and paste them on a forum =/= much either. Like PB said, anyone can do it.

I'm sure LSD CAN fix some of those issues, if done carefully and right, but let's take a poll here and find out how many people are taking LSD here to fix Cluster Headaches, and how many are doing so to trip balls. And on the extreme end of tripping balls to much, fuck what research says, I will bet Pete's old road is the most common result.

Anywho, not sure where the argument is at the moment, but PB and Peter hugs and get along!

 

I take studies and info found on the internet with a grain of salt as well, but with LSD research there is such a HUGE volume of information compiled over decades and scientific medical research REQUIRES the researcher to document every aspect of the research, those that don't are shoddy and not to be taken as definitive. Doing scientific research requires the researcher to lay out their hypothosis which states what they hope to achieve from the research and make predictions of the outcome. It also requires an operational definition which is a description of all factors to be considered in the research, the who,what,where and how. It has to be all inclusive to the point that another researcher can exactly duplicate the research if needed. So as far as "You really don't know what happens 5 years later, how the tests were conducted, or really any of the details besides what was written" that is incorrect.
If I come across research that does not contain those two elements, than that research is suspect from the outset.
You will notice one of the links to research I provided;

"For the past five years, Dr. Erika Dyck has been unearthing some intriguing facts related to a group of pioneering psychiatrists who worked in Saskatchewan, Canada in the '50s and '60s."

"The LSD somehow gave these people experiences that psychologically took them outside of themselves and allowed them to see their own unhealthy behavior more objectively, and then determine to change it," said Dyck, who read the researchers' published and private papers and recently interviewed some of the patients involved in the original studies--many of whom had not had a sip of alcohol since their single LSD experience 40 years earlier."

re-visited participants decades later. I always try to look for longevity of results and other corraborating research, not just a few studies here or there.

You have to keep in mind that a LOT of clinical research into beneficial results of LSD was done in the 40's and 50's, long before LSD made headlines as a "party" drug. The majority of those studies did follow the participants over the course of years. This excerpt from a risk assesmment done prior to clinical trials for cluster headache treatment is another example;

Assessing Long-term Risks of LSD Use

In “Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered”, Grinspoon and Bakalar conclude that “[T]he most important fact about chronic or long-term psychedelic drug use is that there is very little of it.”


The long “trips” that LSD brings on at hallucinogenic doses rarely inspire dependence. Regular use is generally the result of cultural pressure, not physiological drug-seeking due to withdrawal. “The kind of steady, reliable euphoria that produces a drug habit is impossible to achieve with psychedelic drugs.”


There is no evidence that the suicide rate among LSD users is higher than among the general population.


Attempts to link LSD to violent behavior reveal that multiple drugs, including large quantities of alcohol were also consumed, “making it difficult to pin the behavior on LSD.”


Halpern reinforces Grinspoon’s assessment in his literature review of long-term LSD risk studies. Far from demonstrating long-term negative effects, these studies showed minimal effect when controlled for confounding factors. For example, patients often were not screened for previous psychiatric illness, or LSD was lumped in with other psychoactives such as PCP, confusing the data. Furthermore, abuse of other drugs muddied the waters.


The lack of significant long-term negative effects of LSD use is also supported by Doblin et al’s 40-year follow-up interview study of patients treated by psychiatrist Oscar Janiger. Between 1954 and 1962, Dr. Janiger studied the effects of LSD on 900 mostly healthy individuals using moderate doses of LSD in a psychotherapeutic setting. For the follow-up study, most of the original participants were deceased, leaving 45 people willing or able to respond to the interviews.


One subject reported mildly disturbing flashbacks that stopped after one year. Another cited psychological disturbances, but admitted to previous psychiatric issues before entering the study. Even subjects who noted “negative” reactions (eg, unexpected “realizations”), felt on balance they served a beneficial purpose. Doblin notes that these findings are consistent with other long-term studies.

That is an assessmant comprised of DECADES of research and follow-up.

Before I refer to any research, I have read it whenever available, I don't just cut and paste without knowing what is there. That would be stupid as anyone can verify what I'm posting.

That is the main reason that I am still cautious about RC's, they just have not been around or have enough actual medical/scientific research done on them yet for me to consider them safe, except mdma, and dma, they have been around for a long time, and as a result the research on them as I understand it, use in therapy= good results, risk of harm with abuse=most likely.

Well I'm being a long winded old fart again aren't I?