Are you a believer?

[jay6785]

I never express my worry to her, just always remind her she is using mind alterating drugs and while it may very well be a spirit or some kind, it may also be a delousion. I don't mind when the spirit panther shows her ancestors, but it has given carer advice among other things and I would be worried if it asked self harm or something of that nature (which I doubt it would)

Telling my girlfriend to believe %100 the voices in her head under the influences of drugs would be an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do.

Edited June 30, 2010 by jay6785

[holymountain]

Telling my girlfriend to believe %100 the voices in her head under the influences of drugs would be an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do.

i get what you mean but maybe you shouldn't assume these are just voices in her head. you might be dragging down legitimate spiritual experiences with these assumptions. which could also be irresponsible. especially if these visits have meaning to your girlfriend.

if aboriginals have totem animals, shamans have spirit guides and the books you read on mayan history have information about a black panther than i'd be inclined to believe what she is experiencing is legitimate rather than trying to dismiss it as a delusions or hallucinations. the ability to contact a higher spirit guide is within each and every one of us. it should be a natural part of life like puberty but of course over time we've lost a lot of our inbuilt psychic abilities. some of us can do it naturally, others need help to open up the doors and some wander through life with no idea of their potential.

i get career advice from my spirit guides all the time. they are incredibly helpful and nothing to be afraid of.

[holymountain]

wait a second...you don't mean these black panthers do you? tell her to be careful these cats mean business ;)

Edited June 30, 2010 by holymountain

[jay6785]

haha yea those guys mean business, I acually was the one who said it may be valid and got her onto the mayan texts about the black panther, so I am not one of those kill joy science geeks, I just think she should always question it a little bit.

As stated before I am jealous because I went into pyscs wanting spiritual encounters, she wanted fun. I get fun, she gets spirtual encounters

[mutant]

i find it hard to believe you have much of an insight into what mckenna might have been talking about when he referred to self transforming mechanical elves.

sure i don't have

I love all kinds of cats.

maybe I should really focus on than on my first aya / large dose attempt...

just thinking aloud here

[note, to alcohol dismissers... this doesn't make me appear good+shiny. this makes me a 'fool'. but it has me share my current fucking thoughts]

maybe it IS good/better to fantasize something in particular from a dose and upwards / something expected/believed....

maybe it is a must

woohooo

I love guessing hypothetical reckoning fuckzzz

just got banned from a greek atheist forum tonight, but I got a new girl so who gives a fuck?

====

oh oh oh

did I ever fuckin tell you I am a believer too?

fuck I believe in psychs

only in another way maybe than most than voted for the 1st choice

[devance]

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1121661/pg1

'Not a bad idea, if the exploding bubbles from ultrasound.

More complicated I would think. But if a disruption of small amounts of cancer stem cell could create a immediate immune reaction from ultrasound waves.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1121665/pg1

no manned, well i respect russian lesbians.

[mutant]

i get what you mean but maybe you shouldn't assume these are just voices in her head. you might be dragging down legitimate spiritual experiences with these assumptions. which could also be irresponsible. especially if these visits have meaning to your girlfriend.

so voices in the head cannot be legitimate spiritual experience [talking with the other half of yourself that is] but talking to spirit guide can? What difference does it make for spiritual enhancement and all whether the voices are internal head voices or external spirits , if the message is legitimate?

huh?

[ThunderIdeal]

your extrapolation isn't really justified. you're putting words in his mouth.

[mutant]

i am not doing that

not going into any conclusions... I am just trying to discuss specifics, if you didn't misunderstand me all the time it would be great

I am suggesting he is taking it to the other extreme kind of

jay6785 suggested to her it might be this it and it might be that. You know, all kinds of possibilities open, as opposed to 'stick with the spirits plot'

In the end, each one will chose what suits/profits/whatever him the most.

I am trying to discuss specifics, especially if psychotic-like behaviour has been observed or diagnosed...

I understand these 'waters' and the terminology involved [f.e. psychosis, psychotic break, psychotic symptom] is very very negatively coloured by social norms.

I am not a racist against mentally unstable people. I always liked 'madness'. I have been studying neurosis, but psychotic-like situations are totally another cake, only affected by some common with neurosis factors. Other than that, these states certainly are largely uncharted.

So I do not dismiss the notion that some such people [with 'psychotic symptoms'] may have access to info/data/abilities . Nor do I accept the notion without questioning. Hence the arguement...

[The Dude]

Mutant, I never said anything personal against you. If you think I am and you register this as proof you 'must be doing something right' then tell me what are you trying to do except for cause negativity? I remind you I never said anything personal against you and don't want to lower this to such a level. Don't want the argument to turn into who can provoke the other person more, like that would validate their points somehow?

I mentioned vampires because they have no self-reflection and compulsively leech other peoples energy for their 'fix' only to need more, those they bight become hooked on this fix too... sometimes these conversations feel a lot like that. Compulsive, draining and pointless... yet I must respond!!! Argh!

On the question of the legitimacy or truth of entities... does it matter if they're externally real or only in your mind? what is the external world if not your own projection anyway?

A high enough dose of a psychedelic should make it apparent that the voices in your head are everywhere in everything and there is no dichotomy of internal voices / external spirits, these divisions cease to exist as your world (as you know it) ceases to exist and all becomes one.

Of course this is a hallucination, one i can never quite recall, although I've got this fading memory of it being far more lucid and convincing in its realness than your normal sleepwalking reality (consensus reality).

The same reality which insists that the other must be fake because drugs are baaad mckay. And hallucinations are 'voices in your head'

The realness of an experience cannot be recorded in matter, so it doesn't matter?

The spiritual truths and understandings gathered are hard to quantify and count.. so they don't count?

[Psiloman]

On the question of the legitimacy or truth of entities... does it matter if they're externally real or only in your mind? what is the external world if not your own projection anyway?

My take on it :

To judge if it matters or not, one has to view not the belief (or lack of) but the actions that stem from it. This may be more influenced by the personality of the one experiencing it ,rather than the belief itself -but here one can raise the question if belief in something is "indicative" or a "predictive/predisposing element" of character.

To simplify it: One can consider the "advice"/"meaning" of what the "entities" show one way or another. If one believes them as externally real will he/she be more prone (or predisposed) to act according to them with less questioning of the course of action about to be taken, than one who doubts they are externally real?I am afraid of the possibility a believer might be more prone to question less, hence be more of a "follower".

Is it that bad to "follow"? Not when the advice is nice and can lead to fruitful results, but its even better in my book to think twice generally before acting out on whatever an "entity" shows or whatever the "meaning" of a psychedelic experience might be.

I do not say that a hardcore believer in voices/entities will follow whatever he/she is shown without critical thinking, but as i see it even non-believing people tend to be amazed by the "exotic" the "unknown" the "novel" thus tempted that what they came in contact with might be followed as if its some sort of "wise sage" : let alone people that believe 100% that they just made a "dimensional contact" or whatever else that breaks the mundane of everyday life.

[holymountain]

sometimes these conversations feel a lot like that. Compulsive, draining and pointless... yet I must respond!!! Argh!

i know exactly what you mean.

On the question of the legitimacy or truth of entities... does it matter if they're externally real or only in your mind? what is the external world if not your own projection anyway?

thats what i say too. the entities are no more real than this everyday world of ours is real. both inner and outer space become the same thing and the whole 'it's just inside your mind' argument turns to shit. everything is inside your mind!

[drugo]

thats what i say too. the entities are no more real than this everyday world of ours is real. both inner and outer space become the same thing and the whole 'it's just inside your mind' argument turns to shit. everything is inside your mind!

 

laws tend to govern the material plane, just as laws govern the mental plane and astral plane. and sure, they interpentrate each other like crazy.

I remember reading about when Castanada was at some discussion with his fellow UCLA anthropologists, he was pushing the 'social constructionist' theme screaming 'reality is but a construct of the mind, what makes any of you think this world is really real!!??' and then someone slapped him in the face.

i prefer to think multiplicities rather than dualities when it comes to how we comport with world. It seems to make more sense to me. Many levels, or planes; physical, astral, mental spiritual, interpersonal (including other-than-human persons), transpersonal, etheric.

[Moses]

so how many peeps here have seen something??

maybe need a nother poll?

[holymountain]

I remember reading about when Castanada was at some discussion with his fellow UCLA anthropologists, he was pushing the 'social constructionist' theme screaming 'reality is but a construct of the mind, what makes any of you think this world is really real!!??' and then someone slapped him in the face.

ha ha. thats classic.

[Distracted]

so how many peeps here have seen something??

maybe need a nother poll?

 

I've seen 'something', that's kind of a vague admission though

[mutant]

hey Dude, cheers...

Mutant, I never said anything personal against you. If you think I am and you register this as proof you 'must be doing something right' then tell me what are you trying to do except for cause negativity? I remind you I never said anything personal against you and don't want to lower this to such a level. Don't want the argument to turn into who can provoke the other person more, like that would validate their points somehow?

discussions spin, peak, have moments of pausing, insight, rethink, evaluate.

we're over the peak now. I am not into this 'believers VS non-believers' thing right now, it was just a cheap marketing trick

If I have brought a sense of negativity with some of my comments, I certainly never extended them a lot, on the contrary I have set myself as a target , or as a scapegoat for the same unholy thoughts I delivered. Having myself voluteerly shot by some more warmblooded believers is a show. And then again, you can't have only positivity. All colours are important.

Also, not everything that is gained from any discussion is clearly stated and written in the forums, especially not in the same thread.

Naysayers may not like me or feel a natural aversion for my overscepticism or my intensive questioning the norms of psychedelic community [they have a point as psychedelic use is a much defamed thing] but they may well be affected by my thoughts, especially in the long term.

So I am not only doing that, promoting ambiguous ideas or bringing forth controversies and the answer is I don't think 'I only promore negativity'. Sometimes, yeah, I fight, but I fight ideas, not people. When ideas become people, it's a bit more battle-y and claims are more freely handed out. It's fun and it's interesting content-wise.

On the question of the legitimacy or truth of entities... does it matter if they're externally real or only in your mind? what is the external world if not your own projection anyway?

does is matter if they're external or not? Boy this is a philosophical and theological and religious matter. Of course it matters! If you feel it does...

If you feel it doesn't, then go ahead and pick the version that suits you, good for you. For I, cannot do this. It's the way I am. Cannot pretend cannot lie to myself consciously.

Yeah, psychs bring god or 'the other' closer to some people, probably a good percentage of psych explorers in the community. To me? They bring conscsiousness to my exploration. They promote body and mind calibration , and healthy state of mind, if used right. That's were I stand. Because most of these psychoactive tools we are so fascinated by are multi-tools. They can do/catalyse a range of different activities and explorations, not just one.

I really do not mean to be disrespectful , if it's a religious matter for some people, which I think it is.

A high enough dose of a psychedelic should make it apparent that the voices in your head are everywhere in everything and there is no dichotomy of internal voices / external spirits, these divisions cease to exist as your world (as you know it) ceases to exist and all becomes one.

i find this statement very interesting

Some other member even told about regular use for a couple of years, until you 'see' the other or the entities...

So, I have two questions about that... first

1) OK, stuff and thoughts seems pretty convincing in these states, but it's a given that these states and thoughts occur while under the influence. Doesn't it count , for you, that we're talking about BIG doses of drugs than can be overwhelming and life changing, even with a single normal dose ????!??!??!

2) What would you have to say, if I answered:

"A high enough dose of a psychedelic could generate an experience remeniscent of the psychotic state. The experiencer cannot tell the differense between consensus reality and dellusional thinking similarly with a person on a psychotic break f.e. having dellusion of grandeur that are actually experienced but are not according to phenomenal reality.

See any similarities?

Of course this is a hallucination, one i can never quite recall, although I've got this fading memory of it being far more lucid and convincing in its realness than your normal sleepwalking reality (consensus reality).

sure, it's more lucid and convincing because you're seeing, hearing and thinking all these stuff under the influence of powerful drugs, in powerful doses, as I understand! That's what they do! They make stuff 'make sense'! They make us more conscious in what we perceive. Well, what will happen if you take a super dose? Well, I am not really inclined to check it out myself

The same reality which insists that the other must be fake because drugs are baaad mckay. And hallucinations are 'voices in your head'

no I am talking about the reality of stumbling on a column despite being utterly convinced you could someway workout a way and pass through it.

The realness of an experience cannot be recorded in matter, so it doesn't matter?

recording or proof of the scientific type are not aspects I am demanding in understanding certain aspects of human perception. You can perfect or alter the perception temporarily to see new things, to see things in a different aspect, but at the end of the experience, you will be returning to the same world, hopefully revitalised, with new ideas and whatever it was you were searching for.

The spiritual truths and understandings gathered are hard to quantify and count.. so they don't count?

they're not so difficult to quantify and count! I say we can talk right here right now the criterions for the worthyness of these spiritual truths. I agree they're important if they feel important to a person, so if a person says it's big, yeah it's big.

Another criterion I like to put, is how big is to the 'everyday walking life'.

what is brought on when the drug ceases to alter your perception. It matters to some people, especially to those that don't find frequent use such a good idea...

pS: having said all this, I am a believer myself, yet what I believe is fundamentally different to these ideas about entities. I trust this materials, which is picked or grown by me. And as I feel I am slowly learning them better, I trust them more. This is a kind of faith. I believe in them, even if I don't use so often. I have also been doing the sitter and providing the material for others and can easily claim that these materials are trustworthy and consistent useing more or less in my own approach style.

Edited August 9, 2010 by mutant

[holymountain]

Doesn't it count , for you, that we're talking about BIG doses of drugs than can be overwhelming and life changing, even with a single normal dose ????!??!??!

this is where things get tricky. some us don't use the word 'drug' as it's loaded with all sorts of negative connotations. what about if the 'drug' is actually a vegetable or an endogenous chemical that is already found in the human brain?

pS: having said all this, I am a believer myself, yet what I believe is fundamentally different to these ideas about entities. I trust this materials, which is picked or grown by me. And as I feel I am slowly learning them better, I trust them more. This is a kind of faith. I believe in them, even if I don't use so often. I have also been doing the sitter and providing the material for others and can easily claim that these materials are trustworthy and consistent useing more or less in my own approach style.

sounds good mutant. 3 months and 6 pages into the topic and its good to hear.

i'm with you on not using these things too often and also agree with using them in your own approach and style.

[Psiloman]

what about if the 'drug' is actually a vegetable or an endogenous chemical that is already found in the human brain?

 

For me ,its a false dichotomy that is partly excused because people have this kind of fear for a)"synthetic substances, b )"drugs" both in the "illegal psychoactive" meaning and "pharmaceutical" meaning.

It goes without saying that there are many endogenous or natural compounds that if i administer them to you i can cause enough deviation in the physiological "modus operanti" of your body. Cortisone, testosterone,domoic acid,strychnine,iodine,table salt,sugar,insulin,adrenalin, hell even water can be used to such an effect. Heh, for example insulin shock therapy was rather interesting, rather dangerous and rather natural.

Here if one makes another subdivision on the above, disagreeing that the substance apart from natural must also have a high therapeutic index (i.e. drop the natural poisons from the list,also dropping non ordinary doses of anything for example water) where ED50 would be the dose needed for effects of the substance, then it will signal that it is "yet another subdivision" with no real substance except getting a meaning across : that there are simply some substances believed to be endogenous that one has no second thoughts using because "they are natural" or "they are present to the body" as if this guarantees lack of side-effects or any danger or them being arbitrarily better than others.

If the original quote alludes to DMT, then one must take into account strassman's work as well: the commentary on the longterm effects of the DMT experience (i think even to his disappointment he didnt find any longterm positive effects), the thing that endogenous DMT is abit of a controversial issue let alone the whole pineal story. As far as the last statement is concerned strassman has made Cottonwood Research Foundation to research the whole endogenous hallucinogen (look at the project list). Propably DMT exists in human body, but in WHAT concentrations? This could make a whoooole lot of a difference in its action in physiology as endogenous vs as externally supplied in doses that brain concentrations could reach values orders of magnitute higher than "normal DMT levels" (if present). Here we revert back to an insulin megadose or a cortisone megadose kind of concept.

they're not so difficult to quantify and count! I say we can talk right here right now the criterions for the worthyness of these spiritual truths

They can be more easily qualified that quantified, given that they are the...definition of "subjectivity"! Still, my criteria might be like that :

a) How big/meaningfull is in everyday life: its of no use being a king in an alternate dimension and here being a psychiatric ward inmate.

b ) The effect on the person : Its of no use/limited use if it makes the person malfunction ,such as being paranoid, withdrawn etc.

c) As an adjunct or direct consequence of point "a", being able to stand in sober thought and reality checks.

If i want to go a bit more "general" on the issue, as a rule of thumb, i think that first of all a "spiritual truth" or "meaning" must not be detrimental to the person or to others in the long term (for example an existensial crisis might be fruitfull in the longterm whereas rather worrying in the shortterm). If it helps or helps one go forth, then its a good indication that the "truth" or even better its "intergration" is on a nice track.

On the other hand, does it really matter? Belief is something that is not famous for "being checked and proving correct". Belief is something you have, so just make sure you enjoy it and you dont go completely malfunctional on it in everyday life.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Psiloman

[holymountain]

Cool post Psiloman. I guess what I meant was 'if we see something profound and spiritual on these substances can we really give the old 'it's just a drug. it's just in your mind' stance if it's actually a bit more than that. sure insulin shock therapy is no good for us. but in the psychedelics we have found natural plants that seem to reveal previously unknown layers of the mind and the universe and also seem to do little (if any) physical damage.

sure 'natural' doesn't mean better or safer. just look at belladonna compared to LSD.

but don't you think the fact that some of these substances are so easily found in nature and ourselves that it lends to the idea that we were supposed to find them, work with them and learn from them?

also Strassman's experiments whilst being important and groundbreaking etc aren't the best to way to judge long term effects of DMT. Keep in mind he just gave them dmt in a hospital, recorded their experiences and sent them on their way. hardly a method whereby you could accurately judge the potential for positive effects of DMT.

now if he were working in nature, accompanying the doses with teachings of meditation or yoga or taking the doses within some sort of spiritual framework more akin to the work that Stanislav Grof performs we might see a different picture.

On the other hand, does it really matter?

not one bit. real life wars get fought over this sort of shit though.

peace!

Edited August 10, 2010 by holymountain

[Moses]

i've had "encounters" years before ever doing any substance, yet the "contact" was'nt there.

now with the help of substances there is quite noticeable contact

i think too many people think too hard looking for answers rather than just listening to them.

[The Dude]

i think too many people think too hard looking for answers rather than just listening to them.

 

Good posts in this thread. Cheers for starting it Mutant.

[Psiloman]

but don't you think the fact that some of these substances are so easily found in nature and ourselves that it lends to the idea that we were supposed to find them, work with them and learn from them?

In a teleonomic and anthropocentric universe , yes.

Teleonomic: Having an explicit purpose. Meaning "having a reason of existence, part of a greater plan". Many (if not all) religion worldviews are teleonomic. Also human creations are teleonomic, for example a clock you have, your pc your car, built to serve a purpose. Its the way we think, i guess and its rather difficult for one to distance himself/herself from such a concept.

Anthropocentric : Human as the center, more or less. A rather old anthropocentric idea that highlights this concept rather humorously (nowadays) was the geocentric system of the universe, that everything revolves around Earth, in other words US (us, not U.S. as it happens nowadays ).

A rather nice anecdote: I was hanging out with a friend of mine enjoying some fine seafood on a seafront shop and looking at seaguls and other birds of the sea. We had been in a discussion of evolution ,of teleonomy etc. So i asked the person to imagine the evolution of the seaguls if we were to be extinct by rise of water bodies of our planet. He gave me more or less an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric view where seaguls would have developed "talking abilities"/telepathy propably building sky cities and also developing hands. I gave him a senario where Earth would have been flooded and islets of land would only remain, seaguls there could be lighter and more slender , with bigger fat ration, more adjusted to longer travel to find the islets.

In the first view , my friend "humanised" the seagul,providing not an "evolution" senario but more of an "anthropomorphic ancescion" senario ("ascencion",going upwards of course always with anthropocentric criteria -opposable thumbs, logic, speech-, have a look at how "evolution" is portrayed in popular culture for example "evolved aliens" being superior, or Xmen...Noone would would be enthusiastic with an Xmen that has sicle cell anemia,but...that too is evolution and selection in some countries with malaria). Its rather common to think this way, my version might have seemed less exotic , and if we had other people with us they would have urged me to drink MORE ouzo because they would assume that my imagination was lacking and we would have to fix it or else i would be a total bore.Certainly this was not a battle of wits, or a device to "correct" my friend (he was not wrong, we just had different standpoints), but more of an illustration of thoughts, him being a musician ,me being a biologist.

I am not sure that universe is teleonomic ,let alone anthropocentric. I can certainly see how amazing it is we have found rather interesting plants with rather interesting molecules, although it might have not been put there/so widesptrad for us to find. This remains though only a philosophical question unless it colors the purpose of those substances, in a sense that if abudance means "being there to be found" then this might insert a "telos" , an "end purpose" of them, whereas i tend to lean more on "its what you make of them, its the human that defines the telos -hence the use the practicality and the meaning-.

The above, do not nullify the possible uses of such substances : it just seperates the possible use from the origin.

also Strassman's experiments whilst being important and groundbreaking etc aren't the best to way to judge long term effects of DMT. Keep in mind he just gave them dmt in a hospital, recorded their experiences and sent them on their way. hardly a method whereby you could accurately judge the potential for positive effects of DMT.

now if he were working in nature, accompanying the doses with teachings of meditation or yoga or taking the doses within some sort of spiritual framework more akin to the work that Stanislav Grof performs we might see a different picture.

Ah, here is the thing with research and politics of research. First of all as ethical commities stand, under no way he would be allowed to put the people attending in "physical danger": yes, psychedelics are not famed to kill people by distrupting their physiology to such a degree that could kill them (there are exceptions to this, vasoconstriction of some compounds) , but the commity will want to know how you are going as a researcher to take care of a blood pressure spike or something that potentially could harm someone. For better or for worse, they will not give you the money needed or the approval needed if you dont hook up people in devices monitoring vital functions and if you do not have on hand personel ready and able to intervene in a medical emergency. This means hospital, they would never have approved an "in nature" protocol and to tell you the truth i wonder how "in nature" or how easy it would be if still the "hooked up to monitors" had to apply.

The second point here as why not nature and why not in conjunction with teachings of meditaion, yoga or any other form of "setting a path" would be that for data to be meaningfull -and propably publishable in a peer-reviewed community- one factor at a time should be changed. This is not always easy, for example isnt a factor the hospital setting? Of course, and a charged one, hospitals are not renowned to be visited while in good health or in nice times, so this could color the experience. Still, introducing a "path" or any other variable strengthens the question "was it DMT as a purely pharmacological action to be accounted for the results? Was it that it was given a context to act upon (the path)? Was it increased suggestibility that did it?". Hence such results would be rigorously questioned by peer community and also it might not be so satisfactory for the researcher himself/herself if at one point he/she thinks that the amount of variables introduced could skew the results.

Conducting research is not only difficult because people will not give you the permission to carry it our or because grants may be lacking, its also difficult because one has to conform a)to an ethics commity, b )to some criteria of conducting meaningful research. While a) might be a bit dubious as to what ethics might be ,we could have a whole discussion on human ethics here -a long standing philosophical issue-, B ) on the other hand has rather good reasons for existing , the method of conducting a research is one developed after long trials and errors. Of course, psychedelics and psychoactives in general have the rather interesting but rather hindering -in such cases- characterists of being very influenced if not dependand on "set and setting". While an antinflammatory could be investigated easily with such a protocol, psychoactives pose extra challenge (for example see the discussions in the scientific community of employing an ACTIVE "placebo" when conducting studies with psychedelics).

The above of course are not stating that Grof's way was not successful or promising, they just state why Strassman might have followed the road he has followed. Personally i think -which has been said in the psychedelic community many times i think, maybe by Grof or Stolaroff- that such substances are better acting when incorporated to a path. It need not be "spiritual", in the form of "spiritual belief", the path signifies targeted intention having a goal or a teleonomy or at least consciously walking a "road".

In other words, less formal, such substances might be more productive if one is already walking towards a destination.

Good posts in this thread. Cheers for starting it Mutant.

He is like black 80% cocoa chocolate: Can seem bitter at first, but you know you will love it in the end, smothered by it and lick your lips,smack them and come back for more.

Its called , Dirty Love ( i can so much , imagine Chef from southpark singing along)

Edited August 11, 2010 by Psiloman

[mutant]

So we are not so much in disagreement, rather than enjoying our conversation right?

HM don't forget I live in a country all people, users and not, absurdly call any kind of recreational drug a 'narcotic' [this goes to psychs, stims, anything really that is taken for a fix , a high], and the madness in this is that the words narcosis and narcotic are greek!

Also the words 'drug' and 'drugs' is used in english to mean exactly this, stuff to get high.

So in my country we got two main word people use to describe psychoactive substances but both are utterly incorrect.

greek planthead says peace

[holymountain]

So we are not so much in disagreement, rather than enjoying our conversation right?

quite enjoying it. indeed.