drugs
Michael DeBusk
> the "experts" say that ecstasy use is linked to depression. it
> lowers your serotonin levels, and people become depressed.
Actually, this makes sense. A decrease in serotonin certainly can cause
depression. It's just that such things don't take place unless they're
induced chemically. LOTS of physical conditions can lead to the
symptoms of depression, such as diabetes, hypoglycemia, anemia,
hypothyroidism, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease...
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
David Gould
<m_de...@despammed.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:54:29 +0100, James Kerr <u...@reply.to> wrote:
>
>> the "experts" say that ecstasy use is linked to depression. it
>> lowers your serotonin levels, and people become depressed.
>
>Actually, this makes sense. A decrease in serotonin certainly can cause
>depression.
Or relieve it:
http://www.tianeptine.info/tianeptine/tianeptine-fluoxetine-7.htm
PStuart
>the "experts" say that ecstasy use is linked to depression. it lowers
>your serotonin levels, and people become depressed. not just during
>the "comedown" -but it can actually cause longer term depression.
The "experts" are full of shit, basically, and use very skewed correlations to
come up with this "finding," if you take the time to read the actual studies.
Good resources include http://maps.org/ or http://dancesafe.org
In fact, there's a great deal of interest - in other countries where research
into these things is still encouraged - in using MDMA to treat post-traumatic
stress disorder. So far the evidence has been very promising that using
empathogens to create resource states - IN A CLINICAL SETTING - can alleviate
depression over the long term.
>.what happens, is
>that people who take it, and become depressed, are merely the people
>who have less skill in "running their brains"
Could be... the studies that "proved" depression as result of MDMA use involved
very uncontrolled groups of multi-drug users culled from raves and other
events.
Set and setting - including the "set" factor of INTENT - has proved, time and
again, to be the major factors in the outcome of an empathogenic or psychedelic
experience.
MDMA has been used for years in psychotherapy with enormous success.
Unfortunately, almost all that clinical use in the USA has been clandestine and
it is impossible to publish such results. However, there's a great book called
"The Secret Chief" by Myron Stolaroff, that chronicles a good bit of this...
Definitely worth reading.
93 93/93
Phil
http://members.aol.com/pstuart/
PStuart
>Great post! Many thanks, Phil!
>
>On 01 Jun 2003 15:33:32 GMT, pst...@aol.com (PStuart) wrote:
>
>>The "experts" are full of shit, basically, and use very skewed correlations
>to
>>come up with this "finding," if you take the time to read the actual
>studies.
>>Good resources include http://maps.org/ or http://dancesafe.org
I noticed that MAPS has a great review of the clinical studies, here:
http://maps.org/research/mdma/litupdates/
93 93/93
Phil
How to be a Megalomaniac LIVE, June 14, 2003
http://members.aol.com/pstuart/
PStuart
And a good article here:
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v09n3/09304dob.html
Eto Demerzel
output was...
>
> why? my theory was because some people "hold on" to this feeling. the
> ones who aren't skilled at running their brains...
>
I used to share a house with a guy who'd go out and take Ecstasy (and
sometimes Ketamine) every three or four weeks.
His 'comedowns' would usually last three to four days, in which time he'd
generally be highly irritable, and feeling sorry for himself.
I found that organising a get-together at the pub, with lots of friends
and beers aplenty on the Monday night (he'd be asleep for most of
Sunday), would not only negate the effect of the comedown for that
evening, but would also tend to end the comedown completely.
To tie this in with your theory - his comedown was cut short because in
the course of having a laugh at the pub, he wasn't any longer feeling any
comedown effect - ie - he didn't feel upset, or as if anything was
incredibly wrong, and therefore, the comedown was over.
This was my guesswork, and I have no way of scientifically backing it up
(friends don't like to be psychoanalysed).
Mais c'est la vie.
Richard Smiley
idea that the week between raves is just something to trudge through until
the next rave.
The drug itself helps to perpetuate this idea by throwing the user into a
blissed-out trance-like state...one that occurs very rarely in most people's
everyday reality.
Lacking the ability to recreate this state at will, it's like the user is
given a glimpse of heaven every so often, and the huge peak effect of the
drug makes "regular life" seem very ordinary, dull, and depressing to the
user.
I think there is something to the serotonin levels, though. Our brains, in
the end, are chemical machines, and anything that drastically changes that
chemistry can have a similarly drastic effect on brain functioning. And I
think that at a certain point, no amount of conditioning can return the
brain to its previous state; it's just chemically impossible. I know people
who just can't be happy anymore because of years of ecstasy abuse.
daytripper
(who's new around here but has lurked for a long time)
James Kerr <u...@reply.to> wrote in news:6miidv4oek8ip9kjjlvncfehgif89n0o2b@
4ax.com:
> right... leading on from my last thread. here's my theory now:
>
> presupposing that everyone agrees with what was being said in that
> thread...that lack of "skill" was the culprit of depression -that the
> better you know how to "run your brain" the less chance you have of
> "getting" depression, here's what i'm now proposing:
>
> the "experts" say that ecstasy use is linked to depression. it lowers
> your serotonin levels, and people become depressed. not just during
> the "comedown" -but it can actually cause longer term depression.
>
> well. here's my counter-theory:
>
> ecstasy doesn't actually *cause* the depression...what happens, is
> that people who take it, and become depressed, are merely the people
> who have less skill in "running their brains" -it changes the brains
> chemistry so much, that it almost "opens the door" for you to become
> depressed. it tries to lead you into a trap if you like. imagine
> someone who experiences depression for a long time after a family
> member dies. someone who has never experienced depression before then,
> now "has depression" -funny.......do dead people lower serotonin
> levels in the brain too then?!
>
> the same with cannabis. although, the experts have caught onto what is
> maybe really going on with this drug. they say it may increase the
> chance of someone who smoked it developing psychosis, or in those who
> are **predisposed to it**....
>
> maybe only because it opens new doors which the user had never thought
> of before though. and if you're not skilled at running your brain,
> you'll be drawn into this dark new world...the tables will be turned,
> and you'll be pushed onto the wrong path. a path which leads in the
> opposite direction of what we regard as "normality"
>
> another analogy....it's like a drug itself. cocaine. cocaine is an
> evil drug. it sucks you in, and you become addicted to this evil, even
> alhough you know it's wrong. you can't help it. you're being sucked
> into a black hole. you are stuck going down an endless linear path.
>
> the depression of ecstasy, the psychosis of cannabis...may those be
> preventable by someone who is skilled at running their brains? they
> say a third of ecstasy users go on to seek mental help. are a 1/3 of
> ecstasy users unskilled at running their brains?
>
> could someone who practises nlp, use ecstasy without becoming
> depressed, cocaine without becoming paranoid, cannabis without
> becoming psychotic?
>
>
> this is all hypothetical of course :-)
>
--
PStuart
>it doesn't quite all add up to me, and I sense a lot of filters are in
>use when people say "depression can be cured by thinking the correct
>way" - but they can also say "ecstasy may cause long term damage to
>serotonin levels in the brain" -if this can be possible due to a drug,
>then why couldn't it be possible naturally?
Sorry, but your logic is off. It's like saying if a car accident can smash you
to bits, it's possible to fall to pieces without the cars. While that may be
*possible*, the connection between those things is very, very tenuous.
And, again, the evidence that MDMA cause permanent changes in serotonin is very
questionable. See the studies I cited in earlier posts.
>they say that cannabis can induce schizphrenia, yet some people are
>"born" with schizophrenia, apparently.
"They" also say that cannabis has no medical use, even with terminal patients.
Of course, we know about "them."
>"positive education, always corrects error"
Get cracking with the research on these... you've limited yourself to
government-sponsored and politically-motivated drug studies as your source
material. There's a lot more out there, most of it much more interesting. More
than one error to correct here, IMO.
Adam Sargant
news:e77ndvgq7um6c15qg...@4ax.com...
> On 02 Jun 2003 13:17:18 GMT, pst...@aol.com (PStuart) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but your logic is off. It's like saying if a car accident can
smash you
> >to bits, it's possible to fall to pieces without the cars. While that may
be
> >*possible*, the connection between those things is very, very tenuous.
>
> can induce schizophrenia, yet some people are born with schizophrenia.
>
> so why isn't it possible that people could be "born depressed"?
>
> >Get cracking with the research on these... you've limited yourself to
> >government-sponsored and politically-motivated drug studies as your
source
> >material. There's a lot more out there, most of it much more interesting.
More
> >than one error to correct here, IMO.
>
> to educate us properly afterall, isn't that what they're supposed to
> be there for?
When reading research, always ask yourself, who paid for it, who did it and
where do their vested interests lie. You will find some interesting
correlations with the final conclusions of the research.
Adam
--
www.trance-formation.co.uk
Personal growth, change and health through NLP and trance work
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your edification :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 21/05/2003
Michael DeBusk
> yea, but you seem to have missed the entire point completely ;)
I don't think I've missed it. I think I don't agree with it completely.
Partially, but not completely.
> my theory was because some people "hold on" to this feeling. the
> ones who aren't skilled at running their brains...
It's possible that some of them responded that way.
PStuart
>well it's just the same as what I said about cannabis. they claim it
>can induce schizophrenia, yet some people are born with schizophrenia.
>
>so why isn't it possible that people could be "born depressed"?
It is certainly possible for people to be born in an infinite variety of
ways... But any connection or correlation between that and alleged effects of a
drug means nothing. If cucumbers make you fart, and someone farts without
eating cucumbers, it only suggests that there are other mechanisms at work,
possibly similar, possibly not. In short - unknown - with the only connection
being a very superficial observation.
Back in the old days they called psychedelics "psychotomimetic", meaning that
they "imitated psychoses." That theory derived from CIA and US Army researchers
who never took the substances themselves, but only observed that in their
laboratories, under their conditions, the people gave drugs too experienced
paranoia and anxiety. This left them quite confused a decade later when
millions of hippies took the same drugs and experienced happiness and bliss...
It shot their theory all to hell - nonetheless, the psychotomimetic model
remains the core reasoning for drug law enforcement throughout the world and
provides a (fallacious) point of view for numerous government-sponsored
studies.
>I should've been educated better then. the government are *supposed*
>to educate us properly afterall, isn't that what they're supposed to
>be there for?
No... that's what your brain is there for. If you rely on government as your
only source of information, you surrender your will to a group of bureaucrats.
93 93/93
Phil
QYFJ
http://members.aol.com/pstuart/
Michael DeBusk
> the mystery (to me) of why, when you enjoy yourself (say you have
> a nice night out, or spend the day with a friend you haven't seen in
> years, or some similar really enjoyable experience) ...then why,
> don't we feel depressed afterwards?
Because most people aren't bipolar. Most people don't believe (on an
other-than-conscious level, or otherwise) that feelings are an
all-or-nothing situation. Feelings are analog, not digital.
> well, most people in here wouldn't beleive you if you said that
> depression is *caused* by low serotonin levels in the brain
I wouldn't believe it. I would believe it's the other way around. As
long as you're talking about the emotional/psychological experience.
However, there are a number of physical conditions that can cause the
symptoms of depression and thereby elicit the associated thought
patterns. Low blood sugar, for example.
A guy came in to the ER one night, crying so hard he couldn't be
understood. He and his wife were driving from Florida to New York (or
maybe it was the other way around) and she got sick of his crying and
pulled off the highway to our hospital. The triage nurse couldn't get a
medical history and assumed he was a psych case. It fell to me to help
him change into hospital garb.
When he handed me his undershirt, I noticed it was drenched with sweat.
I looked at him and he was red all over. I said, "Sir, are you
diabetic?" He, still crying, nodded. I then asked, "Did you eat today?"
He said something that sounded like "breakfast" and I noted that it was
early evening. "Did you take your insulin today?" He stopped crying,
vehemently said "I *always* take my insulin!" and went back to crying.
I asked the nurse to check his blood sugar. It was so low that, if it
got much lower, he could have gone comatose. We moved him to a
high-level room, gave him some IV sugar, and he stopped crying within a
minute or two.
As far as drugs go, there is no evidence whatsoever that a "chemical
imbalance in the brain" occurs naturally in any human being in such a
way as to cause mental illness. They do happen, but not without being
induced by a regimen of drugs. If you take drugs that mess with the
body's chemistry, the body will compensate for it.
> the point is...if ecstasy *can* cause permanent lowering of
> serotonin levels in the brain, then it's hugely possible, that some
> people could be *born* with naturally low serotonin levels, due to
> some neurological defect...
There is only one test for that. It's called "autopsy". Anything else
is pure speculation. Altering someone's neurochemisty based solely on
speculation is not just irresponsible, it's reprehensible.
> it doesn't quite all add up to me, and I sense a lot of filters are
> in use when people say "depression can be cured by thinking the
> correct way" - but they can also say "ecstasy may cause long term
> damage to serotonin levels in the brain" -if this can be possible
> due to a drug, then why couldn't it be possible naturally?
Because your body adapts differently to internal change and to external
(environmental) change. Changing habitual thought patterns to make them
depressed will require greater serotonin re-uptake. Dumping an SSRI
into the bloodstream will not allow serotonin re-uptake even though the
system is demanding it. The body will compensate for that by increasing
the value by which it re-uptakes serotonin, just so it can maintain
homeostasis. That's what creates "tolerance" and eventually "requires"
an increasing dose of SSRI. And then people go off the SSRI, the body's
increased ability to re-uptake serotonin kicks in uninhibited, and the
patient "gets depressed because he want off his meds".
> they say that cannabis can induce schizphrenia, yet some people are
> "born" with schizophrenia, apparently.
Cannabis is not a hallucinogen; it cannot induce schizophrenia. Maybe
paranoia at times, but not schizophrenia.
And there has never in the history of mankind been anyone born with
schizophrenia. It just cannot happen. Generally, people don't start
until they reach their mid- to late teens.
Michael DeBusk
> I know that. what I meant was they feel more towards depressed than
> they did before. i.e. less happy if you like.
I think "less happy" is not the same as "more sad".
> did I mention altering anyone's neurochemistry? ;)
What do you think drugs do?
> why is everyone making this far more complicated than my question
> was, and going off on all tangent's which I never even mentioned?
Are you under the impression that your question was a simple one? :)
> my question was simply: why couldn't it be possible for someone to
> be born with a defect in their serotonin system, which means they
> are depressed, or get depressed much easier than other people.
To answer your question directly: any "defect" with which a person is
born will be part of them from birth, and will therefore be the place
from which they begin... NOT the place where they are doomed to remain.
I'd like to think you feel a lot different now than when you were born.
A child born with some sort of "defect" in their nervous system that
accelerates serotonin re-uptake would likely develop problems more
serious than being other-than-exuberant.
Keep in mind that "depressed" is a comparitive deletion. Depressed
compared to what? I can only say I feel bad if I've felt good... if I
have something against which to actively contrast it.
> and you say there are basically no tests that can be done to prove
> that this isn't possible...
What would be the point of considering it if it cannot be established?
> yet you still seem to want to disagree with everything I say...
No I don't! ;)
> it was only an idea!
An idea you brought here for discussion, and it's being discussed.
> cannabis in high doses IS a hallucinogen.
Water in high doses is toxic. That doesn't make water a biotoxin.
daytripper
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 01:18:22 GMT,
> daytr...@this.address.doesn't.work.net (Richard Smiley) wrote:
>
>>Lacking the ability to recreate this state at will, it's like the user
>>is given a glimpse of heaven every so often, and the huge peak effect
>>of the drug makes "regular life" seem very ordinary, dull, and
>>depressing to the user.
>
> hmm. i've had these thoughts before too, but no-one would agree with
> me. the mystery (to me) of why, when you enjoy yourself (say you have
> a nice night out, or spend the day with a friend you haven't seen in
> years, or some similar really enjoyable experience) ...then why, don't
> we feel depressed afterwards? once the enjoyable experience has
> stopped? surely the two are analogous, only to a much bigger degree
> wiith, for example, ecstasy.
There is actually a big difference between an everyday experience and a drug
experience. In the everyday experience, the experiencer feels "in control"
of his body and emotions. In a drug experience, the experiencer feels like
he's under the control of the drug. All the emotions get assigned to the
drug. So instead of thinking that the really happy experience is a part of
everyday life that can be experienced under normal situations, the person
thinks that the drug is the source of that happiness. It's a locus-of-
control issue, really, and it's a very important distinction.
>>I think there is something to the serotonin levels, though. Our
>>brains, in the end, are chemical machines, and anything that
>>drastically changes that chemistry can have a similarly drastic effect
>>on brain functioning. And I think that at a certain point, no amount
>>of conditioning can return the brain to its previous state; it's just
>>chemically impossible. I know people who just can't be happy anymore
>>because of years of ecstasy abuse.
>
> well, most people in here wouldn't beleive you if you said that
> depression is *caused* by low serotonin levels in the brain - as the
> "experts" claim. so why shouldn't it be possible to get your serotonin
> levels back up, like the depressed person "can", after taking ecstasy?
Well, speaking from a purely medical standpoint, of course ecstasy brings
your serotonin levels back up; it basically floods your brain with the
stuff. But depression seems like more of a self-perpetuating cycle: the
decreased serotonin levels cause a downturn in mood, lessening the need for
serotonin, so the body produces less, which makes the mood worse (lather,
rinse, repeat). This can be remedied by upping the serotonin chemically, or
by fixing the mood. We'd prefer to fix the mood without chemicals, but so
far, there haven't been very good methods to do that. Now, we've got some.
> the point is...if ecstasy *can* cause permanent lowering of serotonin
> levels in the brain, then it's hugely possible, that some people could
> be *born* with naturally low serotonin levels, due to some
> neurological defect...
>
> it doesn't quite all add up to me, and I sense a lot of filters are in
> use when people say "depression can be cured by thinking the correct
> way" - but they can also say "ecstasy may cause long term damage to
> serotonin levels in the brain" -if this can be possible due to a drug,
> then why couldn't it be possible naturally?
I completely believe that it's possible naturally. Depression seems to be
hereditary, and I don't think that you can explain that away as learned
patterns of depression. I think that some people are definitely more
susceptible to depression, but in general, these people are more likely to
have more incredibly joyful experiences, too. At least, I hope so...because
it would suck to have the downside without having an equal upside, too.
--
Richard Smiley
4ax.com:
> i've read of quite a few people who have claimed that taking ecstasy
> "cured" their years of depression. now this fits nicely. my original
> theory was that a "normal" (happy) person taking ecstasy, experiences
> a comedown, and *some* of those people. will concentrate on that
> comedown, thus perpetuating it, and conditioning themselves more and
> more for *un*happiness.
>
> now. say you've been depressed for years, never having experienced
> happiness during this time. you're almost going to have *forgotton*
> what it's like to be happy. thus falling further and further into
> depression, and giving yourself less chance of ever returning to
> happiness. if you take ecstasy you are "given a glimpse of heaven" as
> someone said. thus reminding you what being happy is like. and then,
> if you concentrate on *that* feeling. you will be able to access it
> more easily, and gradually pull yourself out of the depression...
>
Absolutely true. That's why I think it'd be a great idea if they made
Ecstasy, LSD, shrooms, etc. legal for therapeutic use, like Leary suggested.
They're some of the most powerful agents of change out there, and their
beneficial uses would be extraordinary.
But the key in all of this is that the drugs should be used as tools, not as
ends in themselves. That's the difference in mentality between someone who
rolls every weekend and someone who uses it once or twice to gain personal
insight and growth. When seen as an end in themselves, the drugs become the
point of life...IMHO, it's unhealthy, and dangerous, and can very easily
cause serious depression.
However, if you use the drugs as a reminder of what it's like to be happy,
as you say, that seems like an excellent use.
--
Michael DeBusk
<daytr...@this.address.doesn't.work.net> wrote:
> Well, speaking from a purely medical standpoint, of course ecstasy
> brings your serotonin levels back up; it basically floods your brain
> with the stuff. But depression seems like more of a
> self-perpetuating cycle: the decreased serotonin levels cause a
> downturn in mood, lessening the need for serotonin, so the body
> produces less,
It isn't the amount of serotonin in your brain or your body; it's the
amount in the synapse. Serotonin is constantly entering and leaving
each synapse. An SSRI (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor) slows
down the re-uptake of serotonin, leaving it in the synapse longer,
which (it is alleged) increases the rate at which impulses travel along
the nerves. (The "selective" in there is to create the pretense that
the drug only affects serotonin re-uptake and nothing else. That has
not been found to be true AFAIK.)
> Depression seems to be hereditary
Seems to whom to be hereditary?
philip r
>
> ......I think it'd be a great idea if they made
> Ecstasy, LSD, shrooms, etc. legal.........
>
=
Meanwhile, some seem to have side-stepped the Law altogether.........
http://www.legal-highs.co.uk/legal-highs-hallucinogens.htm
=====
PStuart
>> ......I think it'd be a great idea if they made
>> Ecstasy, LSD, shrooms, etc. legal.........
>>
>
>=
>
>Meanwhile, some seem to have side-stepped the Law altogether.........
>
There seems to be a general idea that anything by virtue of being psychoactive
must be or should be illegal - When nothing could be further from the truth. In
most countries some public danger or abuse potential must be proven - although
these often reflect political motives rather than medical or psychological.
There are thousands of psychoactive and even psychedelic plants and compounds
all around us. Many of them are common, household substances. (Not to mention
the fact that our own bodies produce endogenous chemicals that are illegal in
many countries.)
I would be very careful about purchasing pre-packaged mixtures that claim to
imitate illegal substances. First off, in some countries intent to imitate an
illegal drug is itself a crime. Second, many legal substances are actually more
dangerous than the illegal ones (go figure - gotta love how governments decide
these things).
If one really wants to get high legally, a little bit of research (for
instance: http://www.erowid.org ) should provide enough information to do so
safely and happily. Instead of relying on someone else's say-so about what
kinds of mixtures are good for you... (for instance - I would be wary about
mixing baby woodrose seeds, calamus, and kava kava, as in the "druid's fantasy"
product - all are very useful substances on their own, but no information is
available about interactions.) You'll do much better to actually learn about
what substances will do what you want - and purchase them in their pure plant
or chemical form.
For instance:
http://www.kavakauai.com/
http://www.mazatecgarden.com/
http://www.basementshaman.com/
http://www.jmarchemical.com/Index.html
philip r
> 93
>
> >> ......I think it'd be a great idea if they made
> >> Ecstasy, LSD, shrooms, etc. legal.........
> >>
> >
> >=
> >
> >Meanwhile, some seem to have side-stepped the Law altogether.........
> >
>
>
>
> If one really wants to get high legally, a little bit of research (for
> instance: http://www.erowid.org ) should provide enough information to do so
> safely and happily. Instead of relying on someone else's say-so about what
> kinds of mixtures are good for you... (for instance - I would be wary about
> mixing baby woodrose seeds, calamus, and kava kava, as in the "druid's fantasy"
> product - all are very useful substances on their own, but no information is
> available about interactions.) You'll do much better to actually learn about
> what substances will do what you want - and purchase them in their pure plant
> or chemical form.
>
=
I agree - just say "know".
In any case, my trippin' days/daze are pretty much over. - Had my fill.
Green Tea & Guarana is about my limit nowadays. - Keeps me alert. :)
========