I've only tried cannabis on a few occasions. They were effective doses but I haven't been mofo high on it so I can't gauge the full effects.
For the most part, you only get it once or twice before you start inadvertently chasing the dragon (although it should depend on your reasons for delving into it). Possibly, it may vary from person to person. Lower doses are practically safer or arguably more preferable, certainly more manageable. In my own personal experience I just received synaesthetic phenomena. Only occurred the first two or three times I got stoned and it noticeably drifted away each time. Music was able to induce hallucinations in that it allowed the sound to be seen. Other senses were apparently mixed up as well, particularly taste and touch. This occurs naturally and pot merely induced it. I believe it to be more so the full effect of marijuana. Since the window for it isn't accommodating and the phenomena itself even optional, it makes sense why a lot of importance isn't reserved for it, as those effects are usually associated with more hardcore experiences. Pot is considered only a mild psychedelic. With more use your body quickly becomes adjusted to the high and the intensity naturally diminishes. It might be possible with an abstinence of say ten years to reset the acquaintance and conduct phenomena similar to how it was before. However with more developed use hallucinations are immediately less pronounced and visual illusions can be nil. What can then occur are closed eye visuals modulated by external and internal stimuli but nothing as overt as in the beginning. This is generally in addition to the mild hallucinations. What is more important here though is that in most contexts pot is done as a group activity where the people are more relaxed, possibly more content, and overall less inhibited. This is highly variable ground, though, and it is simpler to say emotions are perchance more exaggerated. In other words, it seems the synaesthesia and overall hallucinations manage to take a backseat role when it comes to getting intoxicated, particularly in groups. How fun it can be may largely depend on set and setting, of course. And so, whatever people do on alcohol they replace it with marijuana and may do it stoned instead. Seems mostly a misconception, in my opinion, although gauging for various personalities and tolerances one may be more or less comfortable in any given context. The extravert may feel, for a while, more at home at a party whilst stoned than say in an area with two or fewer people, to use a crude example. It depends. In a more crude manner what essentially is happening is this: dopamine. Marijuana isn't really a psychedelic, as you have seen it dubbed a 'mild psychedelic'; etc, but it is more of a dissociative. It can even be in its own category. Mostly, "psychedelics" take the form of alkaloids, but marijuana hasn't any. Instead, the active ingredients are cannabinoids and terpenes - not really alkaloids! A vaguely similar notion however is that the psychedelics induce a schizophrenic like state which pot has been known to do as well. Huxley claimed that with substances (he took mescaline) the doors of perception open and he became fascinated with the idea that we as a people inhabit a few hidden universes. The downside to this is that it can be difficult to function, hence why early I mentioned lower doses may be preferable. When those too many things are occurring, that is usually likened to a schizophrenic state. Largely being dose dependent it wears off after a day or two and the person who got stoned returns to baseline, although metabolites may persist in the system for as long as a month (although really, it is more like a week. In heavier smokers it would be at least as long as a month...). As a matter of fact, most people that I have seen, at least, aren't really susceptible to those reactions. They usually just get high and attempt to socialize. Again, set & setting. For first time users... It is generally recommended to put a good record on or if that is not feasible, a good film. When the dose is too high and it becomes hard to move, that is probably due to extra dopamine, triggered by the ritual of preparation as well as the drug itself. Usually those symptoms are caused by a lack of dopamine but the schizophrenic acts with stores of excessive dopamine. And, sometimes side effects of schizophrenia are similar to those of Parkinson's. I must merely state that it is an analogous relationship suggesting the adage of any normal thing being able to have a toxic limit (you can, in fact, die from smoking too much weed but the amount is too great to practically be reached. If attempted you may end up dying from something else before the weed actually causes respiratory failure). And so while some people feel lethargic while others more energetic off the same weed, the underlying reasons could be related to what they are wired to enjoy compounded with any temporary mind altering associations the subject may employ. But even that depends. There are various strains of the plant each with specific ratios of the active ingredients thus presumably having slightly unique effects. An arbitrary association - it's easier to get stoned with people who share similar notions! Although being able to relate to an assortment of different types of people is something that is valued. "I'm in the coolest driver's high."
If I was with friends and I had the option between alcohol or cannabis the latter would be more enjoyable imo. I doubt I'd ever use it much on an individual basis though.
To the individual or to the group? Yes, a notable strategy is to never get pot and just wait until you hang out with someone as they usually carry pot then you can get stoned for free. Otherwise, saving funds and time would be the main concern, probably.
OP wise. I have a friend with bi-polar disorder who went into a full psychotic episode from trying cannabis once. You likely don't, but if there's any possibility you have a latent condition I wouldn't risk it.
Not for everyone. Everyone gets stoned though, and they realize how intoxicated they may have been later on - similar to having fun with alcohols. Even in some people it could just be an immature unstable emotional reaction and not an actual episode induced by pot releasing a latent condition. However, I too have heard of cases similar to the bi polar one. He went crazy and his cousins had to physically restrain him. It's hard to say whether every exposure to pot would make them react thus. Yet of course to be on the safe side it is suggested that those people just simply don't try pot. It can cause anxiety but is also used to curtail it in those who suffer from a social anxiety. But, people aren't open to drug consumption and there may be other therapeutical alternatives available should they face a desire to seek it. Recently the foundation has come under scrutiny. A few studies have shown that, although they defined psychosis vulnerability as having experienced an episode or two within the last couple months, and in those affirming individuals it was just suggested that the more acute intense effects of cannabis were more likely in those individuals than in lower psychosis vulnerable subjects. In a similar study subjects were more likely to report stoned like symptoms after given pot, although they were less likely to report hostility and more likely to find the atmosphere and people welcoming. Almost everyone tends to think they are "schizophrenic" or "schizoid" though and of course no one should really run around recommending pot to people who may have a serious condition.
Same. I've been underwhelmed by most regular cannabis users I've met, and the psychedelics community generally.
For the most part, understandable. There seems to be a lot of propaganda that was put out and I wonder how much of it could be related to that. As I've said a lot of people are using it as party drugs and are hippies and people might find that annoying or distasteful.
I basically agree with Aldous Huxley when he said that psychedelic experiences are most useful for people who have already cultivated a certain degree of intelligence, self-insight, and creativity in their lives. There's no real substitute for dedication, hard-work, passion, developed skills, et al, in this regard. You might have a profound experience, or attain useful insight, but unless you can translate it into skills, language, intelligence, direction you've already cultivated, chances are it will go to no real use.
Not a huge fan of Huxley but I can recall him saying Professors would probably be the bunch to most likely get worthwhile experiences from psychedelics. This is because it would expand their mind and they would hypothetically be more likely to let go of institutionalized dogma. I think what he meant is that they would become better or more creative at their job. On the other hand this subject seems more related to artists and how they may function in society.
That seems to be the case of most into psychadelics that I've come across. I don't see them building anything of value generally. The people who experience some profound catalysis as a result of a psychdelic experience generally do as it catalyses or builds momentum upon something they've already been working towards.
Recreational is fine if done responsibly. I see the value as there are powerful tools available, I just find the majority who use them uninspiring.
Similarly, for a while the most promising avenue was to cure alcoholism, similar to one of the earliest uses of opium. Otherwise you can do something like what Steve Jobs did with his drug use and launch a company. But, indeed, the conclusion Strassman drew from his DMT study was that he does not recommend the drug for inducing any life changing actions but that could have been due to any of the limitations he was faced with (reduced to a hospital setting; etc). Nonetheless many maintain the avenue to be one with still further research to be done, and look at them as plausible sources for the origin of religion. But psychedelics are different from other drugs, typically... Take ecstasy for example. And this could be a source of some confusion but that substance has been shown to actually cause brain damage with frequent use, and it is
not a psychedelic. The psychedelic community, I don't think, doesn't try to be more than what it is. It's just more like a minor office in a larger building. There have been many cases of people becoming grateful for their sessions, having positive changes noted, and presumably going on to lead fulfilling lives but this was mostly due to the experimental therapy that was allowed. Seems to have a particularly powerful effect on the religious. And, of course, any amount of the available trips can be frightening at first but as it goes on and the effects decrease the intoxicated person can take more control and realize it isn't so bad and they aren't scared, leading to a more positive experience... Otherwise they probably wouldn't try it again. I do wonder, though, about the amount of good anythings there are and how substantial actually only a few of them end up being, or how lackluster most are compared to the unique few which happen to be under the same category.
Uhhhh... no... of course not. That's not I. Me. Your mom. nope.
