[Buddha-l] Buddhism and psychoactive substances

[Barnaby Thieme]

Hi Curt

I believe that you have misconstrued my meaning here. I did not say that the 
Strassman study was bad or poorly-executed, I said that it was limited in 
scope. Strassman speculates freely and broadly about endogenous DMT and its 
relationship to the pineal gland and the spirit, but his speculation goes 
well beyond the data gathered in his modest study. He is free to make 
whatever speculations that he wishes, but it is important to distinguish 
between speculation and experimental data. The Hopkins study specifically 
examined the mystical nature of the psilocybin experience where the 
Strassman study did not.

I certainly do not think that being motivated by Buddhist sympathies is a 
problem. Again, I'm saying we must dsitinguish between semi-empirical claims 
motivated by theory, and research data.

I am not quite sure what you mean in your discussion of dosage. Oral 
ingestion of psychoactive substances is not less precise than intramuscular 
injection. One goes in the arm, and the other goes in your stomach, but the 
precision of measurement is the same.

regards,
Barnaby Thieme

_________________________________

It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with 
stupidity, and make it work for you.
- Frank Zappa




>From: curt <curt at cola.iges.org>
>Reply-To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddhism and psychoactive substances
>Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:30:25 -0400
>
>Barnaby Thieme wrote:
>>Hi folks
>>
>>Many thanks for all the illuminating and useful replies I have gotten to 
>>this question, on and off list.
>>
>>I have two comments.
>>
>>1) Strassman's book "DMT; The Spirit Molecule" is intersting, but it must 
>>be emphasized that his discussion of endogenous DMT is extremely 
>>speculative, and that it is largely driven by his Buddhist convictions. 
>>Anyone familiar with the Bardo Thodol will understand why Strassman 
>>speculates that the pineal gland reduces DMT 49 days after birth. The 
>>actual structured research that Strassman undertook was very limited in 
>>scope.
>
>This is a rather unfair characterization of Strassman's work. In the first 
>place, his work was groundbreaking in that it was the first time since the 
>"scheduling" of LSD, MDMA, etc, that such experiments had been approved in 
>the United States.  Second of all his methodology was very well thought 
>out. In fact, his results are far more precisely quantified in terms of 
>dosage than those of the Johns Hopkins studies (which you praise later on). 
>In the JH study subjects took oral doses, for instance, as opposed to the 
>intravenous method that Strassman used (which was necessary because that 
>problem with MAO's). There really is no justification for making vague 
>statements about the "limitations" of Strassman's studies, and then 
>praising the JH study as if it represented some kind of vastly superior 
>methodology. Especially when this is combined with the innuendo that 
>Strassman's thinking is somehow clouded by being a Buddhist!
>
>- Curt
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l