Illegal drugs and this forum

[Javier]

I understand where the view that rejects my point of view as valid is coming from. There are many dangerous substances out there, many of them are legal prescriptions drugs.

This just shows that one has to be careful and mindful in what one puts into one’s body.

[dharmacorps]

I don’t know you and can’t comment on your character, nor was I trying to. I am simply disagreeing with your interpretations and emphases.

It is seriously worth examining our intentions for talking about this (and anything) my asking your intentions were genuine and was not an attack in any way. I shared some of my experiences as a way of opening that dialogue. These are serious issues, but since it sounds like the discussion is no longer productive, so I’ll bow out.

[samseva]

One must have the intention of taking the substance, yes, but the perception (knowing and understanding) of it being a drug that causes heedlessness, is irrelevant to the breaking or not of the precept (what is meant by intention, is, for example, if someone injects a drug against your will; which in this case the factor of intention would negate the breaking of the precept).

Also in line with the factor of perception is being deluded that taking a drug, like ayahuasca for example, will cure you of many ailments.

@Javier

It’s irrelevant to the biological process, yes but it is not irrelevant when it comes to Dhamma, which takes intentions as central to ethical concerns.

No, it’s relevant to the biological process, but it’s irrelvant to one’s perception (supposed understanding) of the drug (if one is deluded that such-and-such a drug can cure such-and-such ailments, the delusion does not undo the breaking of the precept).

And regarding heedlessness, the meaning of pamāda has in no way the same meaning as modern words such as ‘intoxicated’ or ‘inebriated.’ Regarding the precept and Buddhist teachings, if a substance give rise to only a small amount of anger or greed or delusion, this is pamāda.

[samseva]

@Javier

And Shamanic ceremonies are quite the rage in the US at the moment, here’s something from another major publication:

There is quite a difference between careful monitoring in a health establishment, with a trained professional, compared to buying a plain ticket, searching for a Shaman in a country you do not speak the language, in hopes of curing various ailments (and possibly only finding someone untrained and who would not know what to do in a bad situation).

I am not saying that these don’t work, or don’t have any benefits. It’s just that, with such ceremonies, you need to know what you are doing, and to really look deep down to know what your intentions are and if you really think this will cure you of what you are looking to be cured from. And even then, what if things go bad? There are many horror stories about this since it became very popular in the last 10 or so years.

[samseva]

@Javier

You’re misrepresenting me and leaving out the part where I said it must be medicinal (which I have backed up with citations from the Vinaya).

Here is Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s explanation of the allowance regarding the rule about alcohol (Pācittiya 51):

As for alcohol cooked in oil, this refers to a medicine used in the Buddha’s time for afflictions of the “wind element.” The Mahāvagga (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for use only as long as the taste, color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible. From this point, the Vinaya-mukha argues that morphine and other narcotics used as pain killers are allowable as well.
— Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s Buddhist Monastic Code I [PDF], p. 348

@Javier

Also, do you disagree that one’s intention is a key factor in the ethical nature of an act? Because that is basic Buddhist ethics.

Intention is important, but it doesn’t absolve one from the breaking the precept. Even with the most noble of intentions, if someone thinks a psychedelic will cure him/her, when this person might very well be deluding himself/herself (and there are many people like this, especially with psychedelics), then that person is deluding himself/herself and breaking the precept (if the precept was taken).

I get your points regarding the medical use of psychedelics in recent years. This could, under medical conditions and supervision, be considered medicine. However, you have to see that the whole movement of trying to cure ailments with various illegal substances, dating all the way back to the 1930’s, is not new at all—and while many have done this, surely a lot more harm has been done than ailments cured.

[samseva]

@dharmacorps

Have you reviewed your intention in publicly advocating drug and alcohol use as acceptable as long as the intention isn’t bad? What about your intention in publicly claiming it is not breaking a precept?

Worth considering.

I am well informed I believe. I own and operate a medical practice, my wife is also a practitioner-- a therapist. We’ve seen doctors and therapists in our area go to jail for unethical use of drugs in therapy, and severe damage to patients minds and lives by things like this under the rubric of medicine. You have to be very careful with what you are suggesting. There are serious consequences which you are likely not aware of…

I think this post is very relevant to the situation and discussion at hand—and the whole issue of if the discussion of drugs should be allowed on the forum, which is what the thread is about.

Regarding the recent posts discussing the use of ayahuasca and psychedelics (even if presented as for medicinal purposes), this clearly illustrates the issue with, in a way, the indirect promotion of drugs—which could result in physical or mental harm to others who might think this to be beneficial information.

[Pasanna]

Hey friends,
Let’s keep this thread friendly and to the OP.
If you’re interested in talking about other spiritual paths and drugs it’d be an interesting new thread.