Abstaining from intoxicants

There's no confusion in Buddhism that drugs and intoxicants are frowned upon by all Buddhist schools. The fact that some Buddhists don't sweat it doesn't mean anything. In all cases one should be wise and use moderation by knowing their capacity. Namkhai Norbu says that one of the main problems of drugs and alcohol is that one wants more and more. Kunzang Dechen Lingpa told a story about the Maras after Buddha vanquished them vowing to return as the drugs of abuse. Padmasambhava said drugs would destroy the entire world. In any case, drugs and alcohol are fowned upon by tantrics outside of the religious setting. And these are the only Buddhists which allow this sort of use at all, and only alcohol, and not drugs.

On the other hand, a layperson and Buddhist may refrain from taking vows to abstain. It is nowhere written that all Buddhists must adhere to the five precepts. They may however chose to do so and even make a vow to do so, in which case they damn well better keep it.

 

well i have consumed alcohaul and other neurotropic substances but not to where they ever became any kind of big part of my life. they never really graitified anything nor did i expect them to. and THAT, not trying to be any kind of a saint or anything, is why i don't consume them now.

because this is so difficult to get some people to accept, i have even joined religeons that frown on such consumption, at least partialy to be able to offer a reason they can understand to beg off.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I'm busy adopting a lot of buddhist philosophies right now. I don't really concern myself with whether or not I ought to call myself a buddhist, though.

I was reading a book by Lama Surya Das, who gives a very western perspective on buddhism, which I appreciated. I appreciated most the fact that he stressed an aware and understanding devotion to principles, rather than a stoic adherence to specific rules.

I look at the effects various substances have in my life. Weed has always been a negative experience for me, and I never do it anymore. Alcohol has only ever caused a problem when I haven't been moderate, but I can see myself possibly choosing to abstain in the future if I feel that it's preventing me from progressing. LSD has had extremely positive effects in my life, especially in helping me to see things more clearly and commit to important changes (like working towards going vegan and meditating regularly, for example).

In the end, everything must pass or fail this test: does this thing help or hinder me in my goal of becoming more aware and awake?

 

Thats a good attitude to have.

You'll probably find that you're entire view will shift when it comes to drugs the more you practice and you'll feel they become more of a hinderance than a aid...But LSD/Psilocybin certainly pushed me in the direction of buddhism so I have to thank those two substances for that (I even had a couple of trip reports published on erowid lol)! Though i'd never do them again because I know now they are unnecessary. Like acid would give me glimpses of 'emptiness' but now I can save money and a comedown by meditating!

 

i occasionally drink and use drugs.

 

I'm used to do drugs but now I abstain from that and I hardly drink (only on geology field trips!)

Peace and love

 

I think it is wrong to simply categorize LSD and similar substances as 'intoxicants'. As you testify, there is a lot more to it than that.

I'd say if it helps you and doesn't harm either others people or your own body, then why not.
However - IMO opinion veganism can be a step too far - but obviously that's a different story.

 

I think the categories in this poll are too general - wtf is 'drugs'? Indiscriminate use of all and everything that comes along? Or sensible and moderate use of substances which are less toxic than many foods?

 

You're right...

Drugs - Any psychoactive chemical (illegal or legal) or plant taken for recreational, non-medicinal purposes. This includes psychedelic drugs (even if used for therapeutic/spiritual purposes). Anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, benzos (xanax, diazepam, tamazepam), opiod-painkillers count as medicinal unless taking them for recraetional purposes (e.g taking codiene tablets for the buzz, taking valium on a cocaine comedown etc).
Alcohol - I felt it was best to seperate alcohol from drugs because the going trend in society seems to view alcohol seperate from 'drugs' (ridiculous but thats the way it is). But also many people drink alcohol but don't take other drugs as well. They just stick to alcohol.

Obviously there will be grey areas (like caffiene, alcohol in food, nutmeg and so forth) this is a limitation of surveys and polls and I think it's okay to leave it to the discretion of the individual. Just a general idea is okay. This isn't a serious sociological survey. It's just a bit of fun.

 

I realize that - but I also think the issue is an important one, as I think some chemicals can be extremely useful for some people.
Since drugs like LSD etc were so crucial in the inception of 'hippyness' I wonder if without them we'd have this forum at all?

 

Illegal rec...psychedelics & weed...prescript drugs useable for rec (i.e.painkillers), tobacco, and booze...this old body completely stopped tolerating 10 yrs+ ago.

Coffee and diet soda are my main vices these days, and I'm pretty moderate with them.

Ah, to be 30 again...

 

I doubt very much we would.

Sure it's a very important issue. I think I mentioned I used to experiment with drugs in this thread (i'm not sure though this isnt the only internet board I post on so I lose track!). Psychedelic drugs never gave me any problems (unlike my amphetamine/alcohol use) and I actually think they greatly assisted me in sorting my life out as well as reigniting my 'spiritual' urge...I actually decided to go travelling over asia by myself halfway through a mushroom trip! Turned out to be the best decision ive ever made...You hear whacky acid dealers sometimes saying "yeah, one hit of this stuff will change your life!", well I think a well planned trip potentially can.
That said i'm not going to say everyone should go around taking them. They are definitely not for everyone. A lot of people can't use them responsibly or just can't swing with them. For others its positively dangerous (mentally ill or with psychological traits that are unsuited). I also feel for me that they are unnecessary now, I wouldnt find a couple of hits of acid as useful as I once did. I think because I went through a fairly long period of high dose trips their potential eventually just fizzled out...I feel I owe erowid and those online mushroom vendors!
I'm all for legalising the tryptamines though...

 

I think it's quite a common scenario fro people to take acid etc for a while and later cool off. That's certainly my own experience. It isn't something you need to keep doing over and over. But it can and has started many people off on a path towards seeking for spiritual knowledge etc.

Myself I'm for legalization of psychedelics, cannabis and ecstacy. I know little of tryptamines - do you mean things like DMT?

 

'Tryptamines'

Substitutions to the tryptamine molecule give rise to a group of compounds collectively known as tryptamines. The most well-known tryptamines are serotonin, an important neurotransmitter, and melatonin, a hormone involved in regulating the sleep-wake cycle. Tryptamine alkaloids found in fungi, plants and animals are commonly used by humans for their psychotropic effects. Prominent examples include psilocybin (from "magic mushrooms") and DMT (from numerous plant sources, e.g. chacruna, often used in ayahuasca brews). Many synthetic tryptamines have also been made, including the migraine drug sumatriptan and its relatives. The table below lists some commonly encountered substituted tryptamines.

The tryptamine backbone can also be identified as part of the structure of some more complex compounds, for example: ergoline alkaloids like LSD, ibogaine and yohimbine.

A thorough investigation of dozens of tryptamine compounds was published by Ann and Alexander Shulgin under the title TiHKAL.

TiHKAL is a 1997 book written by Alexander Shulgin and Ann Shulgin about a family of psychoactive drugs known as tryptamines. A sequel to PiHKAL, the full title of the book is Tryptamines I Have Known And Loved: The Continuation.

TiHKAL, much like its predecessor PiHKAL, is divided into two parts. The first part is a fictionalized autobiography, continuing where PiHKAL left off, but it then continues into a collection of essays. These essays range from psychotherapy and the Jungian mind to the prevalence of DMT in nature, Ayahuasca and the War on Drugs. The second part of TiHKAL is a detailed synthesis manual for 55 psychedelic compounds (many invented by Alexander Shulgin), with dosages, chemical structure and qualitative comments.

Like PiHKAL, the Shulgins were motivated to release the synthesis information as a way to protect the public's access to information about psychedelic compounds, a goal Alexander Shulgin has noted many times.[1] Following a raid of his laboratory in 1994 by the United States DEA[2], Richard Meyer, spokesman for DEA's San Francisco Field Division, stated that "It is our opinion that those books are pretty much cookbooks on how to make illegal drugs. Agents tell me that in clandestine labs that they have raided, they have found copies of those books." This attitude emphasized Shulgin's need to release the information to ensure its preservation, and led to the release of TiHKAL and his other publications.

Common Tryptamines;
AET
AMT
serotonin
DET
DiPT
DMT
DPT
melatonin
5-MeO-AMT
bufotenine
ethocin
iprocin
5-MeO-DIPT
5-MeO-DMT
Miprocin
psilocin (active chemical in magic mushrooms)
psilocybin (active chemical magic mushrooms)
sumatriptan
LSD


So yeah, i'm all in favour of legalising most of these. The reason is because compounds such as DMT, psilocybin, LSA (a close relation to LSD, found in morning glory seeds and hawaiin baby woodrose seeds) and 5-MeO-DMT are all present in nature and have been used for thousands of years by humans for spiritual purposes and compared to other man made drugs are realtively safe and low risk. I feel they are a part of human culture, our heritage and grouping these chemicals with substances such as methamphetamine and crack-coacine is an absolute travesty.

Cannibas should undoubtedly be legalised simply because theres no way the government can justify keeping it illegal as a class C drug whilst alcohol and tobacco remain legal. I do not feel safe walking through town at weekends at night and have been assualted on several occasions walking home from a late shift. Every single time it was unprovoked and was alcohol related. You have to wonder if we had a regulated cannabis market would we see the same level of violence. Alcohol is also physically addictive and damages liver and other internal organs. It can cause death with overdose. It costs the NHS millions each year to stitch up people who got into fights whilst drunk every weekend, as well as the costs to rehabilitate alcoholics...Many of the psychedelics tryptamines and cannibas have none of these problems. It's virtually impossible to die from an overdose, most do not harm the internal organs in any way and are non-toxic. They leave no lasting damage whatsoever if used wisely. Most do not cause people to go around starting fights with other people for no reason (unliek alcohol) or make people agressive. Psychedelics are great for creativity, inspire art, and open up people to new philosophical ideas. Alcohol slows down every cell in the body, causes an inability to make judgements, and destroys all creativity. That's not too say psychedelics dont have negatives. They make psychological impacts, sometimes negative, and can cause great distress in a very small minority of people. But this could easily be controlled if there was a restricted market and proper education, education based on facts giving a neutral and balanced approach, rather than just anti-drugs propaganda we are bombarded with today.

Ecstasy i'm still undecided on. But I think every psychoactive chemical should be judged on it's own negatives and positives and then jugded at the cost of harm caused by being banned and illicit (thus creating a black market, crime) vs legalised and sold in a controlled open market.
Maybe I still feel they should just legalise every drug in a controlled market, I think that everytime I hear the statistc; "Around 50% of crime is drug related". Maybe the harm legalisation would cause in cost of increased number of drug users, drug-driving deaths, overdoses wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as what we have now with the creation of a black market that funds mafias, arms dealers, even small armies...You have to ask yourself, could legalising all psychoactive chemicals really make it any worse?

I suppose we will never know because no government has had the balls to try it yet (the dutch are as close as we'll get) and because the drug suppliers want it to remain illegal so they keep the money and the power. Hell, the governments in most countries are in on it too. They make money through bribes and agreements with the big suppliers, so its beneficial for both of them. The governments keep on with there unwinnable drug wars (colombia, afghanistan, laos etc) and teh cash just keeps flwoing in for the corrupt and for the suppliers. The suppliers who can afford the bribes are safe from the government, the ones who are not make great showpieces for the governments anti-drug propaganda. The public remain ignorant of the issues and 'drugs' remain taboo, 'dirty' and illicit. Which works great for both sides.