[Buddha-l] Buddhism and psychoactive substances

[Barnaby Thieme]

Hi Stuart

Context: we were comparing intramuscular injection of DMT (Strassman study) 
versus oral administration of psilocybin (Griffiths et al.).

Interesting to hear about the experiences of the 60s - thanks for the info. 
:)

regards,
Barnaby

_________________________________

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: "Stuart Lachs" <slachs at worldnet.att.net>
>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, 3 Oct 2006 20:32:27 -0400
>
>
>.
>Barnaby wrote:
>>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.
>
>I have not followed this thread closely. Back in the flying 1960's DMT 
>(dimethyl tryptamine) was a crystal like substance that was smoked from a 
>pipe. It was almost instantaneous in its effect. The minute it hit the back 
>of the throat, it was felt in the head. It seemed to be absorbed through 
>the mucuous membranes of the mouth, top of the throat, and probably the 
>lungs. Usually people passed the pipe as they say. A few tokes was all most 
>people could take. It was fast and furious, lasting about 15 -30 minutes. 
>DMT did, with some people seem to induce "mystical"  type experiences of 
>oneness. There was a rumor at the time, people said spread by the 
>government,  that it destroyed brain cells.
>
>There was a similar crystal like substance, DET (diethyl tryptamine) around 
>at the time that was also instantaneous, but I don't think it was as 
>popular as DMT.
>
>With both DMT and DET it would be hard to tell the exact dose taken because 
>of the way it was ingested. Was it a deep long "toke" or a short shallow 
>one, how long was it held in the lungs, ....?
>
>Many, may be most people who became involved with Buddhism at that time 
>(late 1960's), had previously taken psychedelics. Some did not stop after 
>becoming involved with Buddhism, inspite of warnings from teachers.
>
>Stuart
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
H