For more in depth discussion of the kind of insights I'm referring to, consider the Theravada tradition's map of the progress of insight, specifically stages 5-9.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.h...
Those familiar with Christian mysticism will see the parallels with St John of the Cross's "dark night of the soul."
Personally, I believe that issues I mention above apply to psychedelic use as well, i.e., it's possible to stumble into early stages of insight via drug use. This can be even trickier than when it happens via meditation, because typically drug users are not equipped with a framework to make sense of what's happening.
Does meditation on its own ever lead to things like psychosis? Well, I've practiced at a number of meditation centers in the U.S. and Asia, and I've certainly heard plenty of stories of what happens when psychologically unstable people come to do an intense period of practice...
The rest of us haven't. What do the stories say?
Fair, but this is a problem with any kind of learning. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It applies to going off to college as well.
Personally, I believe that issues I mention above apply to psychedelic use as well, i.e., it's possible to stumble into early stages of insight via drug use. This can be even trickier than when it happens via meditation, because typically drug users are not equipped with a framework to make sense of what's happening.
With drugs, you can't get out of the experience easily. High-power dissociatives can lead to a state where the person forgets being on a drug entirely, and time dilation can make a few hours of hell feel like months or years. That's the dangerous part. Drug use in an unwise setting or with the wrong people can lead to a panicky thought-loop that characterizes most bad trips. In the worst cases, it causes HPPD or even PTSD, both of which can be long-term afflictions.
If you're meditating and it becomes uncomfortable, you can stop, open your eyes, and come back to a normal state within a couple of minutes. Meditation can lead to difficult emotions (as can reading a book, taking a walk, etc.) but one isn't stuck in the experience for hours. Meditation, over time, gives you control over your state of consciousness; psychedelics hand that control over to a chemical.
Does meditation on its own ever lead to things like psychosis? Well, I've practiced at a number of meditation centers in the U.S. and Asia, and I've certainly heard plenty of stories of what happens when psychologically unstable people come to do an intense period of practice...
Disclaimer: I'm not a psychiatrist.
A few things. First, a lot of psychologically unstable people use "Eastern" approaches like meditation and yoga in lieu of proven psychiatric treatments. Bad idea. That's quite dangerous. Accomplished zen masters may have no need whatsoever to pursue mainstream psychiatric help, but that doesn't apply to the rest of us. The idea that one can overcome biological mental problems through "spiritual" means alone is dangerous, wrong, and no meditation teacher worth his salt would insinuate such a thing.
Most Buddhist adepts that I've known have said they would never advise someone to stop taking psychiatric medications, any more than they'd advise someone to stop taking heart medicine.
There's a misconception about Buddhist attitudes toward "suffering", the first noble truth being quoted as "All life is suffering." Actually, it's closer to, "There is suffering." The word for suffering, dukkha, just means painful emotion. Painful emotions are a part of human existence because we grow old and die, because we long for permanence in a dynamic world, and because we're biological organisms prone to Hamlet's "thousand natural shocks". That doesn't mean that clinical depression should go untreated. Not in the least. It means that even psychologically healthy people are prone to unpleasant emotions as long as they are in cyclic existence (which is not depressing or "dark", just obvious.)
Second, dramatic lifestyle changes are always risky for unstable people or even stable ones. That could be moving to another country, having a child, changing career, or (yes) starting a spiritual practice. It's best to ease into such things gradually if possible.
Third, going from no meditation at all to 2-week retreats is not a good idea. It's not a sign of spiritual progress. To me, it looks like a sign of mania. Again, the danger there is not from the spiritual practice, but from the frenetic, manic state of mind that produced the sudden change in spiritual orientation.
In my experience, contemplative and analytical people (such as the typical hacker) can truly reach the extremes of the psychedelic experience. If too anxious or unwilling to cede control, you're likely to find yourself on a slippery slope. If however, you have a rich spiritual life based on honesty (mostly with yourself), you can explore the edges of human consciousness and open doors that most will never see beyond.
Walk softly and leave the stick at home.
+1 for the idea that psychedelics accelerate and condense mental experience. Based on my 'travels' that seems correct.
In fact, on my first trip I listened to "Handlebars" by Flobots and the music (without the lyrics) accurately conveys what I experienced.
Just wanted to point out that despite selling grown versions is usually illegal, in many countries it's perfectly legal to buy and sell the spores of psychedelic active mushrooms (like the Psilocybe cubensis), since they don't contain the psychoactive compounds. There are a few reputed online shops that ship them to many countries. Of course, you must be willing to grow them yourself.
EROWID's law pages[1] are useful, but do proper research before buying.
[1]: http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml#law
The one time I tried 'LSD', it wasn't.
There are also testing labs which process anonymous samples sent by post and determine the active agents. For example, http://www.ecstasydata.org/ Due to the complicated issues of the legality of illegal drug analysis, they can provide only ratios of active agents, rather than quantifiable values[3].
A quick look doesn't turn up any testing kits for LSD detection (or rather, the only ones that do are intended for testing people, rather than the drug itself)
[2] http://dancesafe.org/products/testing-kits/complete-adultera...
if it's shrooms, you can tell whether something looks like mushrooms right? that means there's three options:
1) it'll kill you 2) it'll do nothing or make you nauseous 3) it's the real thing
nobody's gonna sell you poisonous mushrooms or they'll be in big trouble and be out of clientele really fast.
shrooms that look like proper shrooms but do nothing, I don't know if they even exist.
in both (unlikely) cases, it's not harder or more expensive to obtain mushrooms that actually do what they're supposed to do, than to get poisonous or ineffective ones, so what would be the incentive to do that?? shrooms is shrooms. they're not even that hard to tell apart, if you got a book with pictures.
it's a whole different thing if you got a blotter (LSD) with a drop of god-knows-what impregnated on it. then you need to be careful and really know who you're buying from.
I don't think you'd got much to worry about.
This is dangerous advice. The range in dosage between species of psychedelic fungus varies by around 10x, and a lot of them look fairly similar.
From a dealer, you're very unlikely to get toadstools, for the reasons you described, but non-psychedelic mushrooms (even from the grocery store) are frequently dosed with cheap and often legal, but dangerous "research chemicals" and sold as psilocybin mushrooms. This was done with LSD back when it was cheap and readily available as well.
- who you're writing for - what aspect of the drug experience you're trying to emphasize
In Griffith's study he uses the term hallucinogen, most likely just to expedite IRB/FDA/DEA approval. In general though the preferred term seems to be entheogen now at least for conversational purposes, because people find it less objectionable than hallucinogen or psychedelic for obvious reasons, and it also tends to be a good conversation starter for people who haven't heard the term before. The downside is that while most atheists seem not to be bothered by the term, a few are. And it's not always appropriate, e.g. it wouldn't make sense when dosing rats with LSD or whatever.
Legality doesn't always define harm. I think THC (active psychedelic ingredient in cannabis sativa) is much, much safer to do than DXM.
Another interesting one is kratom. It's an opioid drug which is highly illegal in Thailand but perfectly legal in US (can be ordered online, which is awesome). It is also much more addictive than marijuana (being a pseudo-opiate and all) but obviously not close to being as addictive as diamorphine/oxycodone.
Seriously, why is marijuana illegal again?
I'm someone dominated by anxiety and guilt and this is also my experience. Psychedelics are a fast and often cruel way to change one-self while meditation is safe, manageable and pleasant.
They also have discussions on personality antecedents to different types of relationships to drugs (abstaining, experimenting, abusing), esp. social anxieties.
The actual substances used in any of these roles are to some degree interchangeable. Those who consume psychedelics for the purpose of examining themselves from a different mind-state differ quite significantly from those who use the same molecule to zone out and watch the internal light show. The primary factors would be intent, and responsibility.
Is "Adolescent drug use and psychological health. A longitudinal inquiry." ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2350080 ) the article you're referring to?
First, these drugs aren't "hallucinogens". They're psychedelics (mind-revealing). A hallucination is a false perception which the person believes to be real; visuals are perceptions that the person knows are not real, such as "light shows". Except at very high doses, these drugs don't produce hallucinations per se. Other drugs can, but LSD and psilocybin generally do not. Ok, that may be a pedantic note but the term "hallucinogen" is incorrect and I think it's important to point that out, because much of the stigma associated with these drugs is the misconception that they generally produce true hallucinations (which are extremely dangerous, except for the kind that occur in the 8-hour-long catatonic state that the body and brain require each day).
Second, I'm 28 and I've known a lot of people who've used these drugs. The dangers are real. I'm not saying, "Don't do them." I am saying that if you choose to do so, you're on the frontier of something whose upsides are intensely personal and difficult to measure (this doesn't make them "not real", not in the least) and whose dangers are serious. Then again, so are the dangers of alcohol, which is legal and socially accepted.
It's important to understand, even though that attitude is mostly wrong, why society holds negative views toward this sort of drug use. It's because the upsides (positive personal experiences) are invisible except to the user, while the downsides (psychological damage) are quite visible and affect other people. Also, most of society sees absolutely no distinction between pleasure-seeking, stupid, and possibly self-destructive drug use (cocaine, heroin, inhalants, methamphetamine) and exploratory drug use (LSD, psilocybin). Most of us know that there's a world of difference between those two patterns of use and the types of people who pursue them, but most of society has no clue. They think people use LSD because it's "fun" and as a party drug, not as a means for growth.
Guilt and anxiety are two psychological hurdles to positive drug experiences. As for guilt, I explained why society considers drug use to be "morally wrong", not because that attitude is right but because one needs to understand it. If you've internalized it, it's something you're up against and need to resolve before you touch a single drug. You should examine your own morality and make sure you're 100% OK with what you're about to do. If you have reservations, don't do it. Don't ever use drugs because of "peer pressure" either, because it's always OK not to use drugs (you're not missing out on that much). But if you do decide to use a drug, don't spend a single second of thought on that guilt. It's now in your body, and it will leave, and there's not much you can do. But I'm prepared to say that, no, drug use does not make you a bad person. :) It may be unwise in many circumstances, but it doesn't make you "bad".
Anxiety is more of an issue. If you have issues with anxiety, depression, or panic, you should probably stay away from psychedelic drugs outright. This includes alcohol. I developed panic disorder in the least "druggy" means possible (working on Wall Street through a nasty throat infection that eventually put me in a hospital) and aside from an occasional beer (and I limit myself to one) I haven't touched a substance like this since then (that was March 2008). My PD is manageable at this point (about 2 attacks per month, with frequency and intensity continuing to decline) but I have no desire whatsoever to roll the dice.
I would also note that legal drugs exist. This is important because one of the worst things about some illegal drugs is that they are illegal; this is (1) conducive to paranoia and guilt, and (2) a factor that means you will likely have to form relationships with some pretty ugly people in order to get access to these drugs. So, if "breaking the law" is an issue for you, there are legal drugs out there. Psychoactive lotus is interesting and mildly psychedelic, and seems to be innocuous. "Mind machines" (not a drug) can have similarly interesting effects. Salvia I would advise people away from unless they know what they are getting into. Don't be fooled by its legality: it's extremely intense, and high-power extracts can produce a very unpleasant experience.
Ok, now some personal thoughts. If I had to describe psychoactive drugs in one word, it'd be: unnecessary, at least for most people. Their therapeutic potential really should be investigated by mainstream psychiatry, but I don't think most people need them in order to have powerful, beautiful spiritual experiences. There's an arrogance in certain drug-using communities about the power and singular importance of these experiences, mostly a reaction to society's (unjustly) extreme negative attitude toward their behavior. Those experiences can be interesting but are not a necessary part of a deep, spiritual life. Not at all. Really, a lot of people use psychedelic drugs and learn nothing. Timothy Leary was an outright mess (and an alcoholic) toward the end of his life. Psychedelics can certainly show what's possible, and that shouldn't be entirely discounted, but I don't think they're a good substitute for a true spiritual path that becomes a deep part of one's life, not "recreation" in 6-hour installments.
I've come to the conclusion that the effect of these drugs is to accelerate karmic processes 100- to 1000-fold, so that you mentally "age" a few months in a couple of hours. If what's ahead of you is spiritual growth, you might grow a little faster and have a very positive experience. On the other hand, if you're 3 months from a nervous breakdown that you might be able to avert (therapy) if you have sufficient time, drug use is a seriously bad idea because this acceleration makes said breakdown more likely to occur immediately and fiercely.
I think much of what gives psychedelic drug experiences their power is the duration of an open-minded state. If you have the skill and focus to hold a mindful, meditative state for one hour, much less 6, you will have a very potent experience-- probably much more meaningful than most drug trips. I don't want to give the impression that this is easy. It takes a lot of work and study to get to that level of skill. You've probably been meditating for months, if not years, before you can keep a mindful or meditative state for an hour. Once you develop this skill, however, it's very much worth it and you will have no need for (and probably not much interest in) psychedelic drugs.
One note I'll also point out is that the "failure mode" in meditation is non-experience, which is much softer a landing than the failure mode of drug use, which is an intensely negative and potentially damaging experience.
Ok, I'm done. I know that was long, but this is one of the most important decisions that young people face and most go into it without enough information, so I felt it to be worth the volume of text.