Hallucinogens

This article raises lots of questions, but I feel it does not answer to them fully. As someone I consider a responsible entheogen user (and an occasionnal recreational drug user), I will try to address to these points at the best of my capabilities. I cannot pretend to be fully objective; I am in favor of a responsible drug use, and trying to hide my position behind arguably scientific facts would be futile. As such, I only offer my opinion and my limited view. Please forgive any syntax oddities, grammatical errors or wrong spelling; I am mostly francophone, and making the effort of writing in English so that my comment can reach more people. I have to start off with a few technicalities: the tryptamine family is very poorly explained. Like LSD, ibogaine IS a tryptamine, and not neither are groups onto themselves (although its effects are very unique); most psychedelic mushrooms contain psylocin and psylocibin, again two tryptamines, though others (namely of the Amanita genus, containing GABA agonists) do not; and ayahuasca being a traditional preparation most often composed of a plant containing DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine) and a monoamine oxydase inhibitor, without which the DMT cannot be absorbed orally, it should be classed with the other tryptamines. The author is nevertheless right when putting Salvia divinorum in a class by itself; it is one of the very few powerful psychedelics which effects are not produced by tryptamines or phenethylamines. Concerning the term "hallucinogen", I think it should have never been applied to certain drugs. Hallucinations are ONLY creations of the mind that one cannot distinguish from reality, and they are fairly rare with the large bulk of "hallucinogens" that first come to mind and are mentioned in this article (tryptamines and phenethylamines, respectively the LSD family and the MDMA family). The visual "pseudo-hallucinations" are often called "visuals" within the community of users to avoid such confusion. Antihistamines and other anticholinergics, on the other hand, can cause frank hallucinations and delirium when abused; of course this is not mentioned on the Benadryl bottles, even though the sales would skyrocket. While some, mostly among the young and ignorant, will try and induce these symptoms with an overdose of anticholinergics, I can tell from experience that they are as entertaining as fever hallucinations, which might explain the relative lack of interest from the public to such abuse. I simply felt that a disimbiguation had to be made about hallucinogens. As for many effects described in the article, they unaccurately represent these "hallucinogens". "Feelings of invincibility" are much more frequent with users of dissociative anaesthetics (PCP and large doses of alcohol, namely), and otherwise very rare; the few drug-related horror stories treasured by the media are far from representative of the typical tryptamine or phenethylamine use. Then again, misinformation and ignorance can lead unprepared people to use powerful mind-expanding chemicals, and the results are often, and unsurprisingly, disastrous in such cases. Once more, my personal experience supports the fact that emotions and feelings are amplified by certain substances; this has led me to a very painful experience, but it was painful because my family situation at the moment was painful. The experience actually helped me to realise exactly what was wrong with the situation, and while still under the sublte effects of LSA, I addressed the matter with my family in a way I couldn't have otherwise. It let loose a lot of tension, and the communication problem we were suffering from is now slowly improving. Would that realisation have been attained without the use of a tryptamine, it would still have been very painful; change is always hard, and sometimes a slight psychedelic push is all that is needed. The drug-induced suicide is a very complex matter, that I will introduce with a question: does the drug simply facilitate the act of suicide, or does it create the suicidal ideations? Of course a depressed person should not use powerful drugs lightly; but stools and rope are still freely sold, as far as I am concerned (pardon me for the sophism). A suicidal person is a suicidal person, no matter what chemical might "push them over the edge", and of all drugs related to suicides, alcohol is most frequently involved. Of course its availability cannot be overlooked as a factor for that; nevertheless, drugs cannot be blamed for such behaviour, and neither can individuals be. Suicide is a social issue, and merely a symptom of a greater problem. To use Durkheim's terms, the modern suicide is an anomic one, one that is created by a lack of meaning to one's existence. It is virtually non-existent in traditionnal (i.e. pre-industrial) societies, namely because the spiritual function is still assumed by the group rather than left to the individual. I firmly believe that drugs are mostly used in our post-industrial societies to respond, consciously or not, to a need of spirituality that cannot be aswered to by religions, discredited as they were by science. As to whether this use is a good way of addressing the matter, I believe that it is the way in which it is done that is most important, and clearly very little importance is given to that in the media or so-called "informative" websites. I'd finally like to argue that there is no such thing as a "detox" from the chemicals mentioned in the article. Tryptamines and phenethylamines (as opposed to alcohol, tobacco products and many prescription drugs) induce no physical addiction; only a "psychological habituation" can occur, as with any other pleasurable activity. Withdrawal symptoms, in the strict sense, are inexistant, and psychological effects of discontinuating use are similar to those of breaking an habit such as playing video games or masturbating... although daily use of psychedelics is quite rarer than daily indulge in the other two aformentioned activities. As for using medicine to terminate a frightening or otherwise unpleasant experience, I strongly advise against it unless the situation is physically dangerous. Like any other strong experience, a "bad trip" that is not resolved properly is much more likely to lead to ulterior psychological disorders than one where the problem is recognized and steps taken to solve it. Antipsychotics are, after all, strong drugs; they should as such not be used lightly. Without falling into a legalisation argument, I will simply mention the fact that many of the drugs demonized in this article do have other uses than recreative ones, such as the strong potential shown by ibogaine for interruption of chemical dependence. Sadly, they are often overshadowed by the risks associated (rightfully so or not) with their abuse. All in all, I wouldn't tell people to say no to "hallucinogens". I would tell people to read up, ask experienced users, and question themselves; the information is everywhere, and just "saying no" would be passing up a great opportunity. It is a matter of balancing risk versus freedom, and I feel many of the issues to come in our society will revolve around this axis. Thank you for reading this rather long, but, I hope, complete enough comment.

nice info guys good job guys nice work great great hardwork