chi chi wrote:If those weirdos didn't scam people by selling that poison then people wouldn't lose their money and life.
I’m guessing in this case it’s anyone who isn’t white, European, Judeo-Christian, and instead are indigenous and have cultural practices different than their own. They don’t wear suits and ties, some not "traditional" Western clothing (though some wear jeans and t-shirts), but in some cases (not all) clothing more traditional to their culture, so they must be “weirdos." People and cultures who the OP doesn’t understand and makes zero effort to learn about. How shortsighted. How phobic of “others.”
More scare mongering. There are far better sources for information on ayahuasca than The Daily Mail (which to be fair offers no information or opinion in this article) or the OP on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about, other than what he reads in “journalistic” rags that specialize in sensationalism. There are far better sources than The Daily Mail for just about everything, except for “news” sensationalized for those with no intellectual curiosity or capacity. Here are a few, far more informative sources on the subject:http://www.ayahuasca.com/https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ayahua ... asca.shtmlhttp://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... /peru.html
I also noted reading the article that it states “Staff from the retreat claim Ms. Logan was drinking a tobacco purge tea at the time of her death, not the hallucinogenic ayahuasca.” Interesting how that wasn’t mentioned or conveyed in the original post. Why did the OP needlessly twist the facts? If you’re going to twist facts it might be smart not to link to the story whose facts you twist. Had he been honest, he would have mentioned that it was claimed the woman drank a tobacco based tea, but instead he chose to follow the spirit of the sensationalist Daily Mail, whose headline never stated the woman died from using ayahuasca, but from an unspecified tea that it later identifies as being claimed to be a tobacco drink. How sensationalist do you have to be to be even more sensationalist than The Daily Mail? Ask the OP.
It would be just as accurate to say that all doctors who prescribe pain killers and the companies that manufacture them are responsible for the thousands of annual deaths attributed to prescription pain killers. That the makers and sellers of alcohol are responsible for the thousands of annual alcohol deaths, whether from alcohol poisoning or innocent victims of drunk driving. And the tobacco companies who manufacture cigarettes and all the stores who sell them are responsible for the thousands of annual tobacco deaths of those who choose to smoke. But that would be sensationalizing a serious issue instead of being honest about a complex subject, trying to assign blame in a tidy, sensationalist sentence for those who seem incapable of rational discussion and can only absorb information in tabloid sized and flavored bites. No mention of personal responsibility on the part of people who actually use drugs, be they nicotine, alcohol, prescription pills, or ayahuasca. Do people die from imbibing ayahuasca? Yes. Do far more people die from imbibing alcohol and using tobacco? Yes. Is the subject more complex than the below simplistic quote whose intent seems to be to try to summarize?
chi chi wrote:Anything that makes you vomit can only be poison.
Having used both DMT and alcohol at various points in my life, I have definitely vomited far many more times using alcohol than DMT, but never once have I received any of the benefits ayahuasca offers after vomiting from drinking too much. Go to any University frat house or local bar and you’ll find far more people vomiting because of alcohol use, so why doesn’t the OP create posts about this far more prevalent and used “poison?"
Why doesn’t the OP crusade against drugs which are responsible for far more deaths and cause far more harm to society? Maybe because the users of these drugs aren’t “weirdos” in his eyes? Maybe because they are white, non-indigionous, and come from a culture he understands? Maybe he’s just too lazy (since he's claimed to only read The Daily Mail) to bother investigating further on subjects and cultures he knows nothing about before making unsubstantiated statements? Maybe doing actual research from respectable sources is far too arduous and time consuming compared to reading the average Daily Mail article which offers no information at all on the subject? Maybe because he uses some of these drugs himself? Whatever the reason, he’s all over the map. Last year he was advocating starving and execution for two British girls caught smuggling a very small amount of cocaine compared to Pablo Escobar, who a month or so ago he praised (in the thread on charity; his comment retracted less than a day later) for providing for the people until the unjust (implied) US government overstepped their bounds and took him down. Really? The guy responsible for literally tons of cocaine being supplied, the King of Cocaine, is praised as a populist who helps people while two girls who made mistakes should be killed for selling poison ultimately supplied to them by people like Escobar? Do you have no consistency or integrity at all or is it just that you like to make outrageous statements?
Here’s a recent article I came across on what the most deadly and destructive drugs to society are:http://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/th ... ally-legal
It’s sources are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, based on UK drug use, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, a Columbia University study, and several other sources that the article is not afraid to mention and provide links to. Why doesn’t the OP ever have anything to back up his accusations about subjects he has no experience with and no knowledge of? Why is he unable to cite sources for anything he posts other than the epitome of crappy journalism and sensationalism known as The Daily Mail? Is it because it’s all he admittedly reads? Why should I take opinion of a person who has no experience in the subject over that of scholars and those who do have experience, some of which have made educational and scientific studies of the subject. I’ll take the opinions of Dennis and Terrance McKenna, Alexander Shulgin, Richard Evans Shultes, and other, highly educated people who are experts on the subject with both experience and scientific backgrounds over someone who calls that which he doesn’t understand as being practiced by “weirdos” and whose only source of information is The Daily Mail.
Anyone can easily find scientific studies on the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs and the effects they have on the body and society. I challenge the OP to link to a source of a scientific study that shows ayahuasca is anywhere near as dangerous as the drugs I just mentioned.
Based on past requests for sources to back up claims I’m not expecting the OP will list a single source or study - if anything just some more sensationalism from The Daily Mail. He won't because he can't. All he seems capable of on this and pretty much every other subject is talking out of his a$$. I just did a Google search on “scientific studies on the danger of ayahuasca” and the first hit (see below) states under the section titled “Safety” that studies showed ayahuasca use to reduce minor psychiatric symptoms and cause positive changes in behavior, found reductions in the scores of panic and hopelessness, and improvements in several psychological measures in a six month follow-up study. No psychopathological alterations nor neuro-cognitive deficits were found. One recent study found that ayahuasca users take less drugs of abuse and concluded that the ritual use of ayahuasca does not seem to be associated with the psychosocial problems that other drugs typically cause. No harm to neuropsychological functions, does not cause psychopathology nor personality alterations. No neuropsychological damage and not neurotoxic. The site has a seperate section citing references. Sure, you vomit, but I’ve yet to read about or experience personally any of the benefits of ayahuasca after vomiting from drinking too much alcohol; only a bad hangover with nothing positive to show.http://iceers.org/science-interest-ayah ... NRStWTF88Y