(all links are to Erowid, a very informative non-profit educational site on drugs)

The *drugs I use most are coffee, marijuana, alcohol, benzodiazepines (valium, xanax etc.), in frequency of use respectively.

The drugs that have given me the most profound experiences are:
Salvia (legal), LSD, MDMA (XTC), DPT, 2c-i/2c-e, psilocybin mushrooms. I have tried nitrous (N2O)(legal) in combination with all except for Salvia and DPT and let me tell you that nitrous boosts them to a whole new, though sadly very fleeting, level for a few minutes.

I really want to have a good mescaline experience. But my last attempts at consuming the most horrid, bitter, slimy, and vomit inducing cactus goop only yielded threshold experiences. I really need to do an extraction on cactus and get some crystal mescaline for a measured and less yucky dose.

Another drug I really want to try is DMT or ayahuasca. Ayahuasca, though also reportedly horribly disgusting, is easily made out of legal plants and DMT can be extracted from them.

Yes I consider myself quite a psychonaut. I do thoroughly research these drugs before use and consider myself a responsible drug user. I only use these psychedelics very infrequently, like once every 3 months or so. They are quite self limiting.

>> ^Xaielao:
Since when is Pot addictive? Last I knew THC had zero chance of forming a chemical addiction.


As addiction is becoming better understood, there is an increasing gap between "addiction" and "physical dependence". The more recent definition of addiction is "anything that someone continues to do despite negative consequences". People can become "addicted" to any action, such as gambling, video games, or even checking e-mail. It is a psychological issue, not a chemical one (well, not directly chemical at least).

People can become addicted to marijuana without the presence of physical dependence. People become addicted to World of Warcraft as well. The old definition of addiction included physical dependence, but that was because of a lack of understanding on the subject.

Of course substances that cause a high degree of physical dependence (ex- meth) can lead to rapid habituation. Physical dependence can certainly lead to addiction, but it is not a requisite.






Edit: As an aside, it is also worth noting that many psychedelics (lsd, psilocybin, etc) actually diminish the possibility of habituation. They cause a very rapid tolerance, meaning that taking the same amount two days in a row could lead to only half the effect on the second day. This tolerance also disappears quickly, so after 5-7 days you have no tolerance at all. This basically means that taking these substances on a daily basis quickly leads to them having no effect, though they could still be enjoyed on a "weekly" basis.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
High, on (check all that apply):
_weed (Fedquip)
_cocaine (blankfist)
_heroin (kulpims)
_acid (choggie)
_oxycontin (MarineGunrock)
_modeling glue (dystopianfuturetoday)
_paint thinner (dotdude)
_permanent markers (critttter)
_viagra (none of your business)

expanding the list:

_ MDMA (IssyKitty)
_ crystal meth (quantumushroom)
_ DMT (rottenseed)
_ all of the above (jonny)

and I suspect choggie is more of a psilocybin kind of guy

No. I'm saying that what the clip says is in the paper, isn't in the paper. So, you seem to have made the mistake of thinking that I was saying the precise opposite of what I was actually saying. That must be my fault. The blame must lie with the impenetrable way in which I posted the quotations. I'm sure the fact that you advocate imbibing of psilocybin tea before sitting down to evaluate the meaning of a political paper can have nothing to do with it.

Having first consumed handfuls of psilocybin mushrooms, I totally get what choggie is saying.

But it is telling that modern history is completely ignored.