Dharma Wheel

Those sacred medicine is a way to heal drug addicts. It is studied by scientists from all over the world, and statistics show they have much better results than what modern medicine use on those subject.

Metadone and subutex and just legal drugs labelled medicine, and socially accepted.

You deny traditions which have much to give to our modern world. You should cultivate yourself.

Soma999 wrote:Those sacred medicine is a way to heal drug addicts. It is studied by scientists from all over the world, and statistics show they have much better results than what modern medicine use on those subject.

Metadone and subutex and just legal drugs labelled medicine, and socially accepted.

You deny traditions which have much to give to our modern world. You should cultivate yourself.

So you are saying that your knowledge of drug abuse, derived from years of studying tinfoil hat new age websites, is more valid than my studies and experience in the field?

You maybe have high diploma, but you seriously lack knowledge and openess.

You are deceiving yourself.

Soma999 wrote:You maybe have high diploma, but you seriously lack knowledge and openess.

You are deceiving yourself.

Jesse wrote:So I have been struggling with a drug addiction for many years now. Mainly I use it as a means to cope, to self medicate. The problem seems to be no matter how much I want to quit, ( I really dont want to ). I use opiates, and it really feels as if without them I can never have a semblance of happiness or contentedness in my life.

Obviously drugs cause many other problems, and I really need to quit, but Im at a loss how. I have many mental health issues and without opiates I can not maintain any sort of emotional equilibrium. In my experience doctors don't recognize or respect the fact that they do work for me (emotionally), and thus are unwilling to treat me while im still using.

So I guess im looking for support/advice from previous addicts, how did you quit? How long did it take before your emotions balanced out? Did you use any other drugs/herbs to help with the process?

I realize that drugs cause many problems, they aren't a solution, but an escape etc. But I cant shake the idea/reality that without them my life contains no happiness what so ever, it's been a very hard time for me. Though recently I've begun trying to finds other means of happiness (Volunteering, getting out and around people etc.) I'm just not sure I have the willpower to stop using still!

Thanks for reading.

I would say sing the Song of Vajra as much as you can.

There is a rehabilitation center in Thailand run bu monks. They give the addicts some type of herbal medicine as well as teaching some basic Buddhism and meditation techniques. I don't know the name of the centre but it's quite famous. They claim a 50% success rate which if true is far better than anything in the western world.

Grigoris wrote:

Soma999 wrote:Those sacred medicine is a way to heal drug addicts. It is studied by scientists from all over the world, and statistics show they have much better results than what modern medicine use on those subject.

Metadone and subutex and just legal drugs labelled medicine, and socially accepted.

You deny traditions which have much to give to our modern world. You should cultivate yourself.

So you are saying that your knowledge of drug abuse, derived from years of studying tinfoil hat new age websites, is more valid than my studies and experience in the field?

You don't convince anyone by bullying with your credentials or belittling others. In fact, it makes people question your "credentials" as a buddhist. And calling someone "homicidal" because they suggest that there are medicines that can help with addiction is beyond hyperbolic. It's just kind of silly.

There is no resident addictions counsellor remit on this board. Better for you to argue your points by substantiating your position with facts, research, etc. Nobody gives a damn about your credentials if you can't formulate an argument beyond ad hominem.

Karma Dorje wrote:You don't convince anyone by bullying with your credentials or belittling others.

Yes, you are correct, credentials (gained from 5 years of study) and experience (about 25 years worth) mean nothing in comparison to internet facts gleaned from pseudo-shamanic websites, because it is bullying when you base your view on scholarship and experience. Right?

Welcome to the post-fact era!

In fact, it makes people question your "credentials" as a buddhist.

Is this the same people that also do not accept formal credentials, scholarship and professional experience as the basis for valid opinion? Coz if it is those people...

Nobody gives a damn about your credentials if you can't formulate an argument beyond ad hominem.

I think you will find I have engaged in a little more than ad homs.

Exactly how much work and scholarship have you engaged in regarding drug addiction?

Grigoris wrote:

Karma Dorje wrote:You don't convince anyone by bullying with your credentials or belittling others.

Yes, you are correct, credentials (gained from 5 years of study) and experience (about 25 years worth) mean nothing in comparison to internet facts gleaned from pseudo-shamanic websites, because it is bullying when you base your view on scholarship and experience. Right?

In fact, it makes people question your "credentials" as a buddhist.

Is this the same people that also do not accept formal credentials, scholarship and professional experience as the basis for valid opinion? Coz if it is those people...

Nobody gives a damn about your credentials if you can't formulate an argument beyond ad hominem.

I think you will find I have engaged in a little more than ad homs.

Exactly how much work and scholarship have you engaged in regarding drug addiction?

This isn't a pissing match over qualifications. You haven't put forward an argument backed up with referenced research. You just expect everyone else to shut up because you went to university and tell us you had a job. Sorry, but that's not very convincing. You have a very dogmatic position on addiction and its treatment, I get that. If you want to convince others, present your argument not just your credentials. If you are arguing against a viewpoint, do so with more than just aspersions cast on its sources. I don't even know if I disagree with you, because you haven't argued for anything. That you belittle others without attempting to understand their point of view is unfortunate. It doesn't even clear the bar of common courtesy, let alone speech between fellow practitioners. You don't own this subject; you don't get carte blanche to make unquestioned pronouncements.

Surely if you went to university, you know how to formulate a convincing argument. Surely if you are a buddhist, you can do so in a kind and respectful manner.

Grigoris wrote:

Soma999 wrote:Those sacred medicine is a way to heal drug addicts. It is studied by scientists from all over the world, and statistics show they have much better results than what modern medicine use on those subject.

Metadone and subutex and just legal drugs labelled medicine, and socially accepted.

You deny traditions which have much to give to our modern world. You should cultivate yourself.

So you are saying that your knowledge of drug abuse, derived from years of studying tinfoil hat new age websites, is more valid than my studies and experience in the field?

For what it's worth, not everyone who suggests certain compounds found in various traditional forms of medicine have their opinions rooted in 'tinfoil new age websites'. There's a growing body of legitimate research out there if you weren't already aware.

http://www.maps.org/research/ayahuasca/ayahuasca-canada

http://www.maps.org/research-archive/ay ... l_CDAR.pdf

You know, I get how this conversation can turn contentious.

On the one hand, I get where Greg is coming from, I just had a friend pass away due to complications years of Heroin abuse, have a uncle who went the same direction and OD'ed. In fact, I've had people's addictions touch me very closely throughout my life, and am going into addiction counseling myself.

There is nothing quite as obnoxious to me as someone who has read some webpage on Ayuhausca, Mushrooms etc., and now thinks that all the people who spend their education and time on addiction treatment are somehow "misleading" others, and that someone else has developed a panacea for addictions that somehow the people doing the work just don't know about. It really is exceptionally idiotic behavior to talk this way to people who have watched others directly die and suffer due to addiction.

The thing is, there really -ARE- valid criticisms to be made of the prevalent models of counseling and treatment, they just tend to come from people who actually know what they are talking about and have experience in the field, rather than people who have done "research" by digging up positive data on whatever substance or theory they are into. Or conversely, people who are convinced that all of modern health care is some grand conspiracy to defraud or not truly treat addiction. Here's a news flash for you:

Addiction is hard to treat. No panacea exists for addictions of any kind, that includes ayuhausca, methadone, etc. This should be a simple to understand truism for anyone involved in Buddhdharma, frankly. Those who don't get this are just indulging in fantasy, which comes off as really juvenile when one is around the actual fallout of addiction.

It is in fact possible to recognize that 1) there are issues with many models of addiction treatment, 2) there are positives within many models of addiction treatment, 3) there are alternatives to treatments worth looking into, sometimes. Those three things are not, and should not be mutually exclusive.

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Addiction is hard to treat. No panacea exists for addictions of any kind, that includes ayuhausca, methadone, etc. This should be a simple to understand truism for anyone involved in Buddhdharma, frankly. Those who don't get this are just indulging in fantasy, which comes off as really juvenile when one is around the actual fallout of addiction.

It is in fact possible to recognize that 1) there are issues with many models of addiction treatment, 2) there are positives within many models of addiction treatment, 3) there are alternatives to treatments worth looking into, sometimes. Those three things are not, and should not be mutually exclusive.

Karma Dorje wrote:This isn't a pissing match over qualifications. You haven't put forward an argument backed up with referenced research. You just expect everyone else to shut up because you went to university and tell us you had a job. Sorry, but that's not very convincing. You have a very dogmatic position on addiction and its treatment, I get that. If you want to convince others, present your argument not just your credentials. If you are arguing against a viewpoint, do so with more than just aspersions cast on its sources. I don't even know if I disagree with you, because you haven't argued for anything. That you belittle others without attempting to understand their point of view is unfortunate. It doesn't even clear the bar of common courtesy, let alone speech between fellow practitioners. You don't own this subject; you don't get carte blanche to make unquestioned pronouncements.

Surely if you went to university, you know how to formulate a convincing argument. Surely if you are a buddhist, you can do so in a kind and respectful manner.

Do you actually have a point to make in this discussion, apart from pointing out my personal short-falls (ie engaging in ad hom arguments)?

PS I notice you did not answer my query regarding your experience/scholarship in the field of drug and alcohol addiction.

Vasana wrote:For what it's worth, not everyone who suggests certain compounds found in various traditional forms of medicine have their opinions rooted in 'tinfoil new age websites'. There's a growing body of legitimate research out there if you weren't already aware.

http://www.maps.org/research/ayahuasca/ayahuasca-canada

http://www.maps.org/research-archive/ay ... l_CDAR.pdf

I am well aware of this body of facts. Thing is that one cannot "prescribe" entheogens on an ad hoc basis, via an internet consultation, to a person with serious drug problems (exactly what is happening in this thread). You just cannot do that. Mainly because these substances (and legal medically recognized substances currently in use) are abused as well. That is why treatment is normally made under supervision. That is why it is also dangerous to send people to drug dealers to buy illegal substances in order to THEORETICALLY treat their drug abuse issues. Dangerous and (like I said earlier) bordering on homicidal.

It reminds me of a Vice news piece where a bunch of ignorant do-gooders wanted to do an expose on Krokodil. So to show how easy it is to purchase the ingredients they gave money to a former addict (one leg amputated due to the drug's side effects) to buy the ingredients and show them how to cook up a batch. Of course the no-longer-former) Krokodil addict disappeared with the ingredients and some of the remaining money never to be seen again.

Grigoris wrote: am well aware of this body of facts. Thing is that one cannot "prescribe" entheogens on an ad hoc basis, via an internet consultation, to a person with serious drug problems (exactly what is happening in this thread). You just cannot do that. Mainly because these substances (and legal medically recognized substances currently in use) are abused as well. That is why treatment is normally made under supervision. That is why it is also dangerous to send people to drug dealers to buy illegal substances in order to THEORETICALLY treat their drug abuse issues. Dangerous and (like I said earlier) bordering on homicidal.

That really is my issue with threads like these also, it's one thing to discuss research on alternative treatments, another to suggest that people should simply ignore treatment recommendations based on some PDF's and random arguments they read online. I don't believe Vasana was doing that at all, but others (further back) in the thread have.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:You know, I get how this conversation can turn contentious.

On the one hand, I get where Greg is coming from, I just had a friend pass away due to complications years of Heroin abuse, have a uncle who went the same direction and OD'ed. In fact, I've had people's addictions touch me very closely throughout my life, and am going into addiction counseling myself.

There is nothing quite as obnoxious to me as someone who has read some webpage on Ayuhausca, Mushrooms etc., and now thinks that all the people who spend their education and time on addiction treatment are somehow "misleading" others, and that someone else has developed a panacea for addictions that somehow the people doing the work just don't know about. It really is exceptionally idiotic behavior to talk this way to people who have watched others directly die and suffer due to addiction.

The thing is, there really -ARE- valid criticisms to be made of the prevalent models of counseling and treatment, they just tend to come from people who actually know what they are talking about and have experience in the field, rather than people who have done "research" by digging up positive data on whatever substance or theory they are into. Or conversely, people who are convinced that all of modern health care is some grand conspiracy to defraud or not truly treat addiction. Here's a news flash for you:

Addiction is hard to treat. No panacea exists for addictions of any kind, that includes ayuhausca, methadone, etc. This should be a simple to understand truism for anyone involved in Buddhdharma, frankly. Those who don't get this are just indulging in fantasy, which comes off as really juvenile when one is around the actual fallout of addiction.

It is in fact possible to recognize that 1) there are issues with many models of addiction treatment, 2) there are positives within many models of addiction treatment, 3) there are alternatives to treatments worth looking into, sometimes. Those three things are not, and should not be mutually exclusive.

/thread

Hi,

I suggested practice in a profesionnal settings, with specialists, not with drug addicts in a "wild session". I gave advice about that and was quiet clear.

I met drug addicts, with shit up to the neck healed by those medicine.

There is a lot of researsh, thesis made by medicine doctorate on those subjects. And statistics. It is not a panacea, but it gives real hope for people suffering of this subject.

In my experience, the fiercest people against sacred plants are some psychotherapist, psychanalyst who feel hurt that some shaman in a few days can make a better work than them in ten years of work.

Using one's diploma as a argument of autority just show your arrogance, not your expertise. Because you have diploma and you think i don't have diploma so i should shut up... well sorry, but things does not work that way. In this subject, you lack knowledge, end of the story.

Double post

Soma999 wrote:I met drug addicts, with shit up to the neck healed by those medicine.

There is a lot of researsh, thesis made by medicine doctorate on those subjects. And statistics. It is not a panacea, but it gives real hope for people suffering of this subject.

I don't doubt this, but until these treatments are carried out in a controlled clinical/medical setting I would avoid sending people for treatment. Why? Because a) There are a hundreds (if not thousands) of charlatans out there wanting to take advantage of people in desperate need (eg recovering drug addicts). b) In a clinical/medical setting there is a legal and ethical onus of responsibility on the "healer". This means that if they screw up they are liable, something which does not really exist with all the pseudo-shamans out there.

In my experience, the fiercest people against sacred plants are some psychotherapist, psychanalyst who feel hurt that some shaman in a few days can make a better work than them in ten years of work.

For "real" shamans this may be the case, but the reality of the shaman scene is a LOT different, so due to the nature of the entheogen scene and because you did not actually refer Jesse (who is seriously asking for help) to a specific healer...

The other point is that because shamans do not belong belong to some sort of "association", or do not have an official system of recognition (unlike Tibetan medicine or acupuncture practitioners, for example), then really there is no way to gauge the level of quackery of any particular individual.

Using one's diploma as a argument of autority just show your arrogance, not your expertise. Because you have diploma and you think i don't have diploma so i should shut up... well sorry, but things does not work that way. In this subject, you lack knowledge, end of the story.

Frankly, this part of your post is embarrassing and is yet another (clear) example of the sort of nonsense one encounters on a daily basis in this wonderful post-fact era. Anyway, I didn't tell you to shut up, I am telling you to be careful what-you-say-to-who just in case you become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

For a center, located in Peru, who have some good experience in treating drug addict, there is Takiwasi. It was founded in 1992 and combine shamanism, psychoterapy and occidental medicine.

It works with all kind of drugs addicts, and also even the worst case of drug addiction.

As with everything that is out of the norm, they have some criticism, but considering statistics, they demonstrate very good results compared to what is generally done.

They have some official recognition, and they have also a worldwide recognition for their works, what the acheive and attracts scientists from all over the world who come and study their practice.