Mraijuana and Hypnosis

[kaylatgsunshine]

I was wondering how being under the influence of marijuana and similar drugs woud affect going into trance. If you guys don't want to answer, I'll understand

[Jack]

First, trance is an altered state. Second, marijuana puts you into an altered state. So if you were to go into a trance while high from smoking some mj, that would have to be taken into account by the person doing the hypnotizing. They would have to bridge from the trance to your normal state, otherwise the effects would generally only occur whenever you got high. However, that's not saying that it hasn't been known to happen that people are flexible enough to do the bridging themselves, subconsciously or consciously.

[cardigan]

I would think that any mind-altering drug - such as marihuana, alcohol, narcotics, sedatives and so on would lessen one's ability to concentrate - thus reducing one's potential to go into a trance - or at least get an outcome from it.

I would reccommend that you were sober when trancing, if you wanted to control the outcome. I think you would only want to mix "drugs" and hypnosis under strictly controlled circumstances. Otherwise it would remind me a bit too much about "The Manchurian Cadidate" and brainwash.

[sandy82]

I was wondering how being under the influence of marijuana and similar drugs woud affect going into trance. If you guys don't want to answer, I'll understand

So far, you have received two responses to your question. They vary widely in content and tone. If you were forced to choose between the two, which one would you choose? What criteria would you apply in making your decision? Only you can make these decisions, and they are important. In the words of a national scholarship fund, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Especially your own.

I have some very clear ideas on the subject, but those are my ideas. What are yours? Would you invest your life's savings with a broker you have never seen before? In 1999-2000 some people did, to their lasting regret.

At the very least, you can go back and read the earlier posts of the two people who have given you advice. That may give you some insights. What will you look for in those earlier posts? You could also go to a bookstore or library and get a book written by someone with an M.D. or Ph.D. from a university whose name and reputation are familiar to you.

If I were in your position, I would ask myself a few common-sense questions.
--For most in-patient surgical procedures, you are allowed nothing by mouth for 12 hours before surgery. Two basic reasons. You don't want to throw up while under anesthetic and risk choking to death on your own vomit. You don't want something you have ingested to cause the sensitive medical monitoring equipment to give misleading readings to the operating room staff. Do you think it's wise to follow the hospital's guidelines on taking nothing by mouth for 12 hours...or are you willing to risk possible brain damage and death because you thought the hospital wasn't really serious about the guidelines that patients are supposed to follow?
--Would you smoke marijuana during those 12 hours?
--Would you feel comfortable if your surgeon had smoked marijuana during those 12 hours?

I don't know enough about the effects of hypnotic trance to give you advice about its effects on mind and body. I don't know enough about the effects of marijuana on mind and body to advise you on that either. Admissions of ignorance should carry high credibility with you...you hear them infrequently enough. I suspect that, like me, you don't know enough to evaluate the substantive medical and/or neurological merits in any response you receive. Why do I suspect that? You asked the question in the first place.

If you take the time to read the previous posts made by those offering you advice, you can look for signs that a layman like you and me can understand. Does either of the two show a pattern of advising caution? Does either make medical or neurological claims without reference to medical or neurological reference works? Almost giving medical and neurological advice without a license is almost as bad as actually doing so. Does either leave you with the impression that he cares about the well-being of the persons he counsels and the accuracy of the advice he gives? If he doesn't know an answer, does he say so?

Those are just some of the questions I would ask myself.

If you don't look out for yourself in these days of greed and vainglory, nobody else will.

[loony28]

everyone on this site is on drugs already

:twisted: That must include you because you are still on this site. :twisted:

[loony28]

I know you have to be on drugs, I mean, who doesnt want to get pregnant or become a girl? Psh, youre a loser

:twisted: I figure that you don't. But then again I'm just an idiot so more than likely I'm wrong. :twisted:

[Domineek]

I know you have to be on drugs, I mean, who doesnt want to get pregnant or become a girl? Psh, youre a loser

Hey, Some people want to know what it feels like...Stop spamming and go away if you don't want to be hypnotised...don't waste EMGs...Or anyone elses time with your pointless posts.

[spudamore]

my uncle is a drug user he has started to go into psychosis and had a hypnosis session while he was on drugs and started to remember false memory implants. now he thinks everybody around him is delusional because they can't remember anything that he has supposedly remembered.

i used to be a drug user espeically pot, my concentration was even more sharp while i was under the influence, could meditate, tantric breathing creating unreal energy bursts through out the body but then with such a high and all the prana ones body is taking in the mind cannot keep up, one can start to flip out and ride on the edge of psychosis this is one of the reason i gave up smoking.
after a year of giving it up i tried it again to see what it was like again. same thing comes around.

so lesson learnt drugs are ok but not with constent mind alteration exercises on top of that.

[BobbyS]

OK, personally drugs = BAD.
The only 'safe' drug I know of is unrefined marijuana/cannabis. A lot of cannabis today is seven times as concentrated and can lead to schizophrenia and psychosis. If you are having trouble with hypnosis, the nxt logical step should not be to try using drugs while listening. Try the subliminal reinforcement file. If you're still desperate at least use something safe like caffeine.

[DaytonaMaster]

The only experience I have had with the use of marijuana and hypnosis was when I hypnotized a friend of mine. He was high at the time, and when he went into trance, he went fully asleep. He was upset with me later because he missed out on his buzz.

[asdf]

Sedative drugs help. Opiates help.

Please be careful.

[joecamel]

.................

[aeroue]

I get high almost every night before bed, then listen to lucid dream curse.

It has been working though taking a while, but hypnosis really isn't very effective on me, and yes I have tried listening to files whilst sober.

BTW for all your sterotype supporting fools it doesn't make you stupid and only makes you crazy if it's likely you will anyway. I got 2 A and 2 B at A level and im going to do an MA in philosophy after my gap year.

And BobbyS

As Sandy would put in a very long post :P

Don't talk about what you are not aware of.

Firstly weed is not 7 times stronger nor is it concentrated, although you can, I have never in many years of smoking encountered it.
Though some strains are stronger that is only through selective breeding and few people get weed that good.

Also even if it was true what does it matter.

Averagish beer = 4% X 7 = 28%

Is the average vodka at around 40% evil?

Also just because it is stronger doesnt mean you get more messed up, you smoke less...Who drinks their vodka in pints?


Also caffeine = bad, it blatantly can't help trance...surely

[sandy82]

I get high almost every night before bed, then listen to lucid dream curse.

It has been working though taking a while, but hypnosis really isn't very effective on me, and yes I have tried listening to files whilst sober.

BTW for all your sterotype supporting fools it doesn't make you stupid and only makes you crazy if it's likely you will anyway. I got 2 A and 2 B at A level and im going to do an MA in philosophy after my gap year.

And BobbyS

As Sandy would put in a very long post :P

Don't talk about what you are not aware of.

Firstly weed is not 7 times stronger nor is it concentrated, although you can, I have never in many years of smoking encountered it.
Though some strains are stronger that is only through selective breeding and few people get weed that good.

Also even if it was true what does it matter.

Averagish beer = 4% X 7 = 28%

Is the average vodka at around 40% evil?

Also just because it is stronger doesnt mean you get more messed up, you smoke less...Who drinks their vodka in pints?


Also caffeine = bad, it blatantly can't help trance...surely

Who me...long posts?

aeroue, as to getting high every night, you can't fool me. I know that you have the top bunk in a triple-decker. :wink:

I'm not advocating or condemning anything. I think that these days, with limited resources and some realism, the words "comparative" and "relative" are worth considering. One of the strong points for alcohol is that it has been around for thousands of years and it doesn't seem to cause genetic defects. I can't make the same ironclad statement for marijuana, but it's been around for a long time; and if we're going to have a sensible anti-drug policy, it's wise to start with the most dangerous drugs first. PCP, for instance. I've seen some pictures of people hooked on meth, and they are not a pretty sight.

Marijuana. Good? Bad? As compared to what? The last is a real-world question.

[aeroue]

hehe my cover is blown, i was enjoying my posing as an all around drug junkie :P

However I do agree with what you say, but consider this.

To smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana.

To get drunk

You get some hops, you get some water, you come up with a way of keeping it at least near air tight preferably with a one way valve you wait a long time.

I don't know for sure but doesn't this suggest that weed came first :)

Your point is moot :P

[Jack]

I don't want to go off on a rant so...

Organize an effective system for teaching responsible drug use and standardization/labeling. Legalize all drugs.

I don't really want to hijack this thread, but: Didn't anyone learn anything from Prohibition?

[sandy82]

I don't want to go off on a rant so...

Organize an effective system for teaching responsible drug use and standardization/labeling. Legalize all drugs.

I don't really want to hijack this thread, but: Didn't anyone learn anything from Prohibition?

Jack, I don't consider your comment to be even the beginnings of a rant. It's a fair comment. It's one that our increasingly fundamentalist-soaked society won't buy, but (should I say: therefore) it's a fair comment.

Especially at the outset your view and the one I expressed to aeroue are not at loggerheads. Let me rephrase mine slightly, for the sake of discussion.

If/if the country is to have an effective anti-drug effort, then it makes sense to start with the most potent, most addictive, most destructive, and least prevalent drugs. PCP, in my view, falls into most of those categories.

One night in recent years a TV camera crew happened to see an inner-city woman walking down the yellow line in the center of a major six-lane city street. They rolled the cameras. She had a butcher knife. She was following the yellow line as she stabbed herself repeatedly in the stomach. Apparently she felt nothing, as she began to leave a broader trail of blood in her wake.

If she can do that to herself, imagine what she and PCP can do to others. I haven't heard of marijuana having a similar effect. That statement is not an endorsement of marijuana. (We have 17,000 registered users now, and I am the careful type. I would be willing to bet that some of them are DEA agents, reading this site and others as part of their eight-hour day. I don't want them to think I back pot. If you look at the previous sentence, notice something. It contains only one-syllable words. I hope I've made my case to the DEA.) This is a condemnation of PCP.

I generally share your view on victimless crimes. But heavy addiction to heavy drugs is not victimless. If a robber points a gun at me and takes my wallet, we all agree that's a crime: handing over one's money while life and/or [additional] property are at risk. Heavy addiction adds an intermediary to the theft. The drug addict, if he is still sufficiently sensate, goes for drug treatment. The local government will treat him for free. Then the local government puts that cost into the tax bills of the local jurisdiction's residents. If they don't pay, first there's a lien and then there's a sheriff's sale. Their house is gone. Heavy addictions, whether through the cost of treatment or through additional crimes committed to underwrite the continuing addiction, are not victimless crimes.

How best to handle the drug scourge? I have toyed with an idea in my imagination. It would provide pleasure. It would cut out the narcotics kingpins. It would reduce crime. It would make redundant social workers in no position to help themselves, much less others. It would indirectly improve the school systems. This "fantasy notion" [FAN] would incorporate your proposal for standardization and labeling.

- - - -

The government would buy all narcotics in bulk, domestically or from Colombia or from Afghanistan--where opium poppy production has skyrocketed under "democracy". The government would open and maintain SHELTERS (FROM LIFE). A buffet line of free drugs and sufficient cots to handle those wishing to relax after tripping down the buffet. An increasing hunger would be accommodated. Experimentation would be no problem, nor would multiple addictions. Food and water would be the responsibility of the visitor. Finally, some would just lie on the cots and get increasingly large and varied hits. Food, what's that?

Sooner or later this current crop would die. No problem. The staff would disinfect the cot and throw on some new sheets. Two burly employees would carry out the corpse and throw it in the dumpster. Each morning the mechanized garbage truck would carry the contents to the dump.

A constant rotation of available cots would allow wide access.

- - - -

After a while several refinements might be introduced, in line with our current points of view:

1. Drug treatment would be available at hospitals on a cash-only basis.

2. A system akin to Selective Service would be introduced. Physics majors with 4.0 averages at "name" universities would be forbidden access to shelters. They would be deemed draftable in case of a national emergency. Literature majors with 3.5 averages or lower from "extra" universities would be encouraged to use the shelters.

- - - -

I'm not mocking your proposal in the least. It contains some very positive philosophical elements: personal responsibility, provision of information which a recipient is expected to understand, an effort to confine the effects of the activity to the persons indulging in the activity. I think I've added one corollary that you didn't mention. In fairness, you may have assumed that the reader would understand that one behavior can lead to another. I have learned, in that regard, to assume nothing; and I applaud your continuing faith.

Here's the corollary. Drug use is a victimless crime as long as the drug is free and readily available to the addict, with no time or amount limits.

- - - -

Two quick thoughts.

1. Teaching responsible drug use. A useful prophylactic, not in R/L so much as in restrospective CYA debates. The public schools in this area now teach responsible sex. Many of the high schools--even some of the middle schools--have day-care centers, for the illegitimate children of these middle-class suburban students.

2. Under the prevailing philosophy, people now have to pay for parking at national parks and forests. Using the same arguments, government would probably look for ID on the dumpster corpses and send the NOKs a bill for transportation to the landfill.

(From what I understand, most marijuana users don't proceed to stronger, heavily addictive drugs. I have heard that 90 percent of cocaine users started on marijuana, but that illogic tells you a lot about the person using it. You can't argue causation backwards. After all, 100 percent of cocaine users started out on milk. So, recreational marijuana use is not endorsed, but it is not a source of the FAN above.)
.

[sandy82]

hehe my cover is blown, i was enjoying my posing as an all around drug junkie :P

However I do agree with what you say, but consider this.

To smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana.

To get drunk

You get some hops, you get some water, you come up with a way of keeping it at least near air tight preferably with a one way valve you wait a long time.

I don't know for sure but doesn't this suggest that weed came first :)

Your point is moot :P

LOL, aeroue. Excellent post!

:!: Do philosophy and more. I can see an Inn or a Temple in your future.
.

[aeroue]

Thanks,

Although your idea of free drugs i feel would not work in reality, it doesn't sound bad :)

What I feel would work better, is government controlled shops which sell drugs, but in a rationed manner and a cheap price.

They would undercut the dealers so the majority would stop selling.

Of course some people might take advantage use someone elses ration but if your going to be put away for a few years if you do....

That way the dangerous and addictive drugs can be severely rationed so as to prevent addiction and less dangerous ones can be more like tobacco or alcohol.

[Jack]

It's a fair comment. It's one that our increasingly fundamentalist-soaked society won't buy, but (should I say: therefore) it's a fair comment.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

If/if the country is to have an effective anti-drug effort, then it makes sense to start with the most potent, most addictive, most destructive, and least prevalent drugs. PCP, in my view, falls into most of those categories.

That seems backwards to me. Even if it might be easier to study the effects of implemented policies due to a smaller population.

I generally share your view on victimless crimes. But heavy addiction to heavy drugs is not victimless. Heavy addictions, whether through the cost of treatment or through additional crimes committed to underwrite the continuing addiction, are not victimless crimes.

Currently. However, were drugs legalized and assimilated into the system there would be much more controls on them. Labels for dosages. Leaf(book)lets of what to expect. People wouldn't have to go to the black market dealers to get your drugs. People wouldn't have to worry about policemen battering down their doors to arrest them. The prices would plummet(can you imagine paying $5 for an ounce of KB[that's a strain of high quality marijuana for those who don't know], and $3 of that being the tax paid to the federal government?), because there would be no more artificial inflation due to primarily religious laws. Also, drug use would then be out in the open, so people who have problems with using drugs(addiction) would be able to get help above the board. People wouldn't get fired for testing positive for drug use, so there wouldn't be a need to steal to support ones habit(again, remember the greatly decreased costs). People wouldn't get arrested for using drugs, so they won't lose their jobs, so they won't have to steal or deal drugs to pay for their own habits.

The government would buy all narcotics in bulk, domestically or from Colombia or from Afghanistan--where opium poppy production has skyrocketed under "democracy". The government would open and maintain SHELTERS (FROM LIFE). A buffet line of free drugs and sufficient cots to handle those wishing to relax after tripping down the buffet. An increasing hunger would be accommodated. Experimentation would be no problem, nor would multiple addictions. Food and water would be the responsibility of the visitor. Finally, some would just lie on the cots and get increasingly large and varied hits. Food, what's that?

Bad idea. Any time the government is involved in anything.. they find some way to fuck it up.(The S.N.A.F.U. effect) Plus, this is a burden on the economy due to having to support such shelters.

1. Drug treatment would be available at hospitals on a cash-only basis.

You don't make it clear whether you mean drug treatment as in they get drugs for cash-only or they can get treated for addictions on a cash-only basis. I'm assuming the first one. I think it should be both.

2. A system akin to Selective Service would be introduced. Physics majors with 4.0 averages at "name" universities would be forbidden access to shelters. They would be deemed draftable in case of a national emergency. Literature majors with 3.5 averages or lower from "extra" universities would be encouraged to use the shelters.

This policy would never work. We need those literature majors to do the heavy lifting, teaching, and cleaning. Plus, who else is going to work at the local landfill disposing of all those bodies the shelters you proposed generated?

Here's the corollary. Drug use is a victimless crime as long as the drug is free and readily available to the addict, with no time or amount limits.

The question is.. what is a victimless crime? Or even more succintly.. what is a crime? And I would submit a definition that I believe I've posted in the Idle Chatter forum once before, in some form: A crime is any act by any individual or group that violates the personal freedom(s) of any other individual without that individuals' consent or the consent of the individuals' guardian.

Teaching responsible drug use. A useful prophylactic, not in R/L so much as in restrospective CYA debates. The public schools in this area now teach responsible sex. Many of the high schools--even some of the middle schools--have day-care centers, for the illegitimate children of these middle-class suburban students.

I think you remember a lot of my views on the educational system. Personally, I say lower the age of consent to 16.

Under the prevailing philosophy, people now have to pay for parking at national parks and forests. Using the same arguments, government would probably look for ID on the dumpster corpses and send the NOKs a bill for transportation to the landfill.

What you're talking about seems to me to be cases of murder(corpses in dumpsters). The NOK should be notified and an investigation begun. Btw, If consensual crimes were legalized, this would free the police force do what it's actually there for: protect people from non-consensual crimes(like murder, rape, burglary, assault, GTA).

(From what I understand, most marijuana users don't proceed to stronger, heavily addictive drugs. I have heard that 90 percent of cocaine users started on marijuana, but that illogic tells you a lot about the person using it. You can't argue causation backwards. After all, 100 percent of cocaine users started out on milk. So, recreational marijuana use is not endorsed, but it is not a source of the FAN above.)
.

*nods*

[sandy82]

Jack, you are trying to score small points in a larger context on which we basically agree. If that's what you want, it's fine with me. Go to it.

I have toyed with an idea in my imagination. It would provide pleasure. It would cut out the narcotics kingpins. It would reduce crime. It would make redundant social workers in no position to help themselves, much less others. It would indirectly improve the school systems. This "fantasy notion" [FAN] would incorporate your proposal for standardization and labeling.

That earlier post ended with the following language:

---"So, recreational marijuana use is not endorsed, but it is not a source of the FAN above."

Most of my post was clearly labeled a fantasy. It was no proposal at all. There's nothing there to argue about. I suppose that many children read Barrie and dream about flying. Fine. But a R/L debate on the subject is not on.

In terms of hard numbers, paragraphs 7 through 17 (out of 18 paragraphs in total) dealt with an imaginary situation. Six of the excerpts you pulled come from paragraphs 7 through 17. I'm a great believer in sporting events. If you want to box, maybe we can rustle you up a shadow.

I know one of your favorite topics is "victimless crimes." I fear there are fewer than you would like. And putting labels on hard drugs for addicts to read and follow is a non-starter. But it's still one of your favorite topics. What book were you reading recently? It was on this topic, if I remember correctly.

I say again: you're having an argument where there's not only no fundamental disagreement, they're no facts on the table.

Your former governor is now our president. Presumably you're as familiar with him as anyone else is. You're also familiar with his favorite exterminator (of insects) Tom DeLay. Do you think your proposals, however noble or practical, stand a chance as long as people like them populate the political landscape?
.

[sandy82]

.
LOL, aeroue, my fantastic notion was never meant to work. Only to bring up ideas, reasonable or not, and--one hopes--cause people to think about the issues. You have a good knowledge of economics: you can't price a commodity at zero unless you have an inexhaustible supply. How many pages of A1 graph paper to draw those supply and demand curves? :)

I agree with you that the government would have to be heavily involved.

The bottom line, I think, is that relatively soon marijuana will be have to be decriminalized on a broad scale--whether moralizers like it or not. There's a simple reason. Governments can't afford to lock up the marijuana users anymore. The social benefit is almost zero; the monetary cost is huge.

We have a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, the Goddess Shiva pointing fingers in and at Washington and New Orleans, an aging national electric grid, a large number of illegal workers that nobody seems able to find, that good old reliable fund-raiser Ken Lay who is yet to be tried, a White House being investigated for exposing an employee who liked her anonymity, an anthrax mailer is still at large....

With all this, and the rebuilding of houses for about 400,000 people, we're supposed to spend money on additional prison space for people who smoke marijuana?

I don't smoke it, but I can't get excited about people who do.

Perhaps we could solve the whole matter at little or no cost. We can ask Bill Clinton how to smoke the stuff without inhaling. :wink:
.

[Jack]

*roflmao* smoking without inhaling...

My jaw dropped when he said that, and then I burst out laughing. Then for about three weeks after that I would still think of it and laugh.

Thanks for reminding me of how 'special' a person he was.


*nods* Living in a state teeming with conservative fundamentalist republican christians.. These things irk me. I agree. No argument or debate, just.. venting. :smile:

[sandy82]

Jack, I agree completely. I've developed some nostalgia for Bill. He could walk, chew gum, and do... er..... several other things, all at once. He never ran over a Scottish policeman. (Do we have any Scots on the site at the moment? Is reckless endangerment via two-wheeler bicycle a criminal offense in Scotland? How about tricycles? :) ) He never misunderestimated the enemy in wartime. As far as I know, he never suggested to two teen-aged girls, with only the clothes on their back, that they should go to the Salvation Army store...only for an aide to whisper that the SA store had been blown away. Yep, Bill looks better and better.

I could almost understand it if Bill supported Intelligent Design. :wink:

[gork151]

as a lurker in most forums i don't generally add my two -bits but last statement about bill clinton and intelligent design is one of the funniest things i have read in sometime.......lol-- thanks

[Jack]

I agree with gork. You really know how to make people laugh, sandy. It's a sad day when we consider Clinton as being one of the best examples of a president we've had in the past 20 years. Dubya being the worst. Compare them to men like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and what do we come up with? A joke.

[sandy82]

I agree with gork. You really know how to make people laugh, sandy. It's a sad day when we consider Clinton as being one of the best examples of a president we've had in the past 20 years. Dubya being the worst. Compare them to men like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and what do we come up with? A joke.

Jack, it's interesting that you mentioned Washington and Franklin, whom I consider to have been the two most effective of the Founders.

By the way, I know you're very interested and well-informed about hypnosis....and therefore also interested in scientific matters involving the human psyche. In case you didn't see it, there's a fascinating article in the current issue of the journal Science that the Intelligent Designers won't like. It's excerpted and condensed (with free acccess) in ScienceDaily and in a release from the University of Chicago Hospitals. Use the Yahoo search engine for all news sources and enter "microcephalin" and "ASPM". Adding "Chicago" won't hurt.

Or try these urls:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909221043.htm

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050908-humanbrain.html


Genetic researchers have even more evidence now that human evolution continues. They have identified two triggers for brain growth in the human genome. One is microcephalin and the other is ASPM. The first reportedly prompted brain growth about 37,000 years ago--about the time that humans started worshiping gods and became interested in rudimentary art and music. The second is said to have caused brain growth about 5800 years ago--virtually yesterday--at about the time people started to write and to live in cities. They say they can trace the second change to Mesopotamia. Thirty percent of the present human population have that mutation. In what one might picture as an overlapping "Boolean-appearing" set of circles, 70 percent of the human population have the first mutation. IOW, some people have neither; others have one or the other; the remainder have both.
.
The implications are staggering.

[aeroue]

If that is true then....(guesstimate)somewhere above 10<?<30% of people have very out-dated brains...

rofl

I suppose it shouldnt be funny but im finding it hilarious...

<shrug>

Wonder what one i have, is it possible to find out?

[sandy82]

If that is true then....(guesstimate)somewhere above 10<?<30% of people have very out-dated brains...

rofl

I suppose it shouldnt be funny but im finding it hilarious...

<shrug>

Wonder what one i have, is it possible to find out?

Hmmmm. Let's see.

Even though still a hunter-gatherer in dank and shady forests :wink: , subject likes some kinds of art. Likes music. Knows how to write--and could have invented a system if he hadn't known. Knows how to live in cities...even between Euston and King's Cross on weekend nights (answer: run like hell and don't stop).

No question: 70-30 overlap. :idea:

[OMGWTFBBQ]

im sure everyone has heard of robo-trippin on cough syrup (tussin) (DXM)before ..... DXM is a dissassociative and basically shuts ur senses down in higher doses. its probably not all that safe but u'll trip balls and im sure ur mind will be very warped after listening to whatever file u feel like listening to.

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/otc/dxmjustafewthi179623.html

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/otc/168400.html

"For those of you who just skim articles, I will make my message clear. Do not use DXM. You have been warned. If you’ve done research on it, you know many people have horrible experiences with it, and the euphoric highs that are so exalted are rare. Stick to booze and weed, they’re safer.

With the cursory paragraph out of the way, let me begin. I first found out about DXM from totse.com, while looking through the drug section. It was very interesting to know you could get “high” from cough syrup. I checked my medicine cabinet and (thank God) I didn’t have any of the right kinds. For the next two months I off and on researched DXM, going through Erowid, totse, and other internet sources. I knew the risks, and thought I would have fun. I couldn’t have been more wrong."


Sounds like a VERY bad idea from that article.

[sandy82]

im sure everyone has heard of robo-trippin on cough syrup (tussin) (DXM)before ..... DXM is a dissassociative and basically shuts ur senses down in higher doses. its probably not all that safe but u'll trip balls and im sure ur mind will be very warped after listening to whatever file u feel like listening to.

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/otc/dxmjustafewthi179623.html

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/otc/168400.html

"For those of you who just skim articles, I will make my message clear. Do not use DXM. You have been warned. If you’ve done research on it, you know many people have horrible experiences with it, and the euphoric highs that are so exalted are rare. Stick to booze and weed, they’re safer.

With the cursory paragraph out of the way, let me begin. I first found out about DXM from totse.com, while looking through the drug section. It was very interesting to know you could get “high” from cough syrup. I checked my medicine cabinet and (thank God) I didn’t have any of the right kinds. For the next two months I off and on researched DXM, going through Erowid, totse, and other internet sources. I knew the risks, and thought I would have fun. I couldn’t have been more wrong."


Sounds like a VERY bad idea from that article.

Thanks, OMGWTFBBQ, you've done everyone a genuine service with your post, above. In addition, you've stated a sensible position and, at the same time, a virtual truism.

"Stick to booze and weed, they’re safer."

There's a law out there in the universe. People make mistakes, but nobody should want to be the first to make a particular mistake. Like the manic-depressive who was convinced he could fly. He jumped from the roof of an NYC skyscraper and went SPLAT on the sidewalk, forty stories down. The second manic-depressive learned a valuable lesston: even if I feel like I can fly, I know I can't...and I'd better hang back until the feeling passes.

So, in deference to any visiting DEA agents, I won't say "Stick to booze and weed, they're safer."

I will phrase it this way. If you feel compelled to get high, at least choose a substance that's been around for centuries and make sure--to the extent that you can--that your source is responsible.

If researchers find out, ten years from now, that DXM causes slow-developing but inoperable brain tumors, you want the researcher to have discovered the problem inside someone else's head. Not yours.

There's an old invocation that sounds selfish at first glance, but actually contains a lot of wisdom.

"Lord, please let me profit from the mistakes of others."

I add a corollary.

"Lord, let me hang back long enough so that the mistakes of others become readily apparent."

[joecamel]

since my other post ive tried to achieve trance while on like various drugs to see if any would interect well with being hypnotized.... i never quite have fully achieved trance but i can get closer when just high on weed then when totaly sober.... cocaine makes u want to get into trance real bad and it would be assumed that coke is a drug that would really be hard to get trance on but it probably makes no differance whatsoever..... i tried to achieve trance on dxm (the drug i said in my last post would prob help trance) and my mind really wouldnt lock on to any of the words so i could not get very deep at all.... opiates probably help more then anything eelse since they help u relax..... and lastly when i tried it on 5 hits of acid, some fuckin good sid too... well i was too fucked up to get trance but i doubt sid would really help trance cuz ur too confused on it ..... well ya thats the conclusions i came to about drugs in relation to hypnotism, but everybody reacts to drugs differently so the only way to find out what helps u is to go out and do a shit load of drugs lol but i didint tell u to do that

[Jack]

Try everything. If something works: keep doing it. Drop everything else.

Btw, just like testing your conviction that you can fly from the ground first: do the system for each instance. Don't say "Hey! This botox really helped my skin look younger.. I think I'll inject it in my viens to see if it will make those younger too!"

[goldragon_70]

You know they say flying is just the trick of falling and missing the gound. :P
I wonder if getting munchies in the middle of a trance in the middle of a suggestion, will have a negative effect. 8O :?:

[Jack]

Might anchor whatever's going on to eating whatever the snack is, but that's about it. =)

[goldragon_70]

would be a strange pavalovian response. Hope it has nothing to do with weight loss.

[gpuppy]

I ma not a hypnotist but my voice has all the right stuff. In my younger day I hypnotized someone in Job Corps after they took about 5 hits of LD-25 LSD and for the whole trip he acted like a duck then a tripping onlooker asked me if I though i could do the same thing to anyone on lsd. !0 miniutes later he was sucking his thumb lol.

MDMA makes it very easy to trance as well as meculine. Phsyco reacitve mushrooms (both main phsyco reactive types) make it harder to trance.

9- tetra hydro-canibinol has almost no effect from achieving or failing trance states