Why do so many pot smokers like Eastern religions?

Search & Destroy said:
it's interesting. Ive been in cultures where weed is natural and looked at as, in regards too its taboo-ity, equally to tobaco or alcohol. So naturally they smoke it just as much as the two examples, and it becomes a routine drug.

But treated as special and taken with meditative purposes in mind is different in many ways.

Surely every experience is subjective, but maybe some western potsmokers like east religion because like weed, both are not mainstream western ideals. Sort of rebellion-reasoning.

grover, I would call almost anything meditation really. Or at least any moment can be an opportunity to meditate. And weed is just a very potent opportunity. Potent because it alters chemicals in your brain quite substantially, leading to an altered reality, and an easier state-of-mind to cross your legs in.

what say ye?
Click to expand...

agreed!

after all, weed grows naturally in India... paradise glimpse...
 
Some of my classmates were so much into the weeds that they met their maker prematurely...what a way yo go.....But no revelations or any profund knowledge can out of them when they were on...sounds like rats on a maze....
 
I'd have to agree that it's the 'counter culture' aspect that eastern ("Oriental" as opposed to "occidental") religions have in the west.
 
Someone gave me a good explanation a few years ago, he said that the brain starts firing neurons in random directions hitting unused parts. There hasn't been a big difference between smokers and non-smokers health wise over a long period one study has shown. Athletes like Ben Johnson and Damon Stoudamire have tried it in the past. That's because of the increase in heart rate which enables a temporary but effective performance in physical activities. Sources have shown that it's not addictive. Like every herbal medicine it should not be taken in large amounts. The health risk over a long term is pretty small compared to cigarettes and even alcohol. :m:
 
Cortex_Colossus said:
Someone gave me a good explanation a few years ago, he said that the brain starts firing neurons in random directions hitting unused parts.
Click to expand...

I have to say that this statement needs revision :p
I agree with everything else you said back there.

The fact is, there are THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) receivers alll over our nervous system, particularly in our brains.
The function of these THC receivers is unknown, except for their reaction when in contact with the external molecule of THC. So the only known function of these THC receptors is to cause the reactions in our body when the THC molecule (only found in Cannabis) come in contact with our blood stream.
There are many reactions in our body when these receptors come in contact with the THC molecules; a lot of these reactions are medicinal and relaxing effects. None of these reactions have been proven harmful, off course, there have been no deaths caused by the contact with big ammounts of THC.

These receptor go back to flyes in evolution, meaning all mammal inherently have them (in other words, all mammals can get "High" :m: ).

I want to add the following found in the same link above:

"A number of studies indicate that THC may provide medical benefits for cancer and AIDS patients by increasing appetite and decreasing nausea. It has been shown to assist some glaucoma patients by reducing pressure within the eye, and is used in the form of cannabis by a number of multiple sclerosis patients to relieve the spasms associated with their condition. Recently, cannabis has even been prescribed to adults and teens who are diagnosed with ADD & ADHD due to the drug's relaxing and calming effects."
 
[[][[[]]
[[o[[o[ _||||
[[[[[[[[ \||/
[[[[ [[
[[[[\[[[[[[/[[[[ [[
[[ [[\[[[/[[ [[ [[
[[ [[[\[/[[[ [[[
[[ [][]O[][]
[[ [[[
/ \ [[[
/|| ]]
]]_
[[][[[]]
[[o[[o[ _||||
[[[[[[[[ \||/
[[[[ [[
[[[[\[[[[[[/[[[[ [[
[[ [[\[[[/[[ [[ [[
[[ [[[\[/[[[ [[[
[[ [][]O[][]
[[ [[[
/ \ [[[
/|| ]]
]]_
[[][[[]]
[[o[[o[ _||||
[[[[[[[[ \||/
[[[[ [[
[[[[\[[[[[[/[[[[ [[
[[ [[\[[[/[[ [[ [[
[[ [[[\[/[[[ [[[
[[ [][]O[][]
[[ [[[
/ \ [[[
/|| ]]
]]_
<vv_>

Here's another one. This was supposed to be the sun, but it turned out to be more like a porcupine, still the best one yet:

\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ \ | / / / / /
 
Last edited:
John J. Bannan said:
Do drugs give you a feeling of enlightenment?
Click to expand...

What are your data to support the contention that there is a positive correlation between Eastern religions and "pot smoking?"

I'm wondering if your suggestion that such a correlation exists isn't merely a bigoted perspective of a very limiting fundamentalist worldview. I noticed that many of the threads you begin are with similar such questions, questions to which you seem to have already formed a conclusion and wish only to share your bigoted and undereducated worldview.

In support of my observation, your bigoted comments against Native Americans stand as testament. You assert that the less advanced aboriginals who succumbed to mass-genocide at the hands of invading Europeans, succumbed because they were "stupid." You then make the undereducated comment that this is "common sense." This is a true statement only if "common sense" equates to the undereducated and ignorant of the common person. Had you bothered to educate yourself properly on the subject (or at least pay attention in whatever social science or anthropology class it might have slept through) you might have a more informed opinion on the social evolution of cultures and societies.

The topic of this (and other threads started by John Bannan) isn't the thread title at all: the real topic is how the fundamentalist and bigoted like to come to the "science forum" where they can display pseudo-intellectual prowess and battle the "big-bad atheist" and the freethinker.

Unlike other science forums, Sciforums has a habit of allowing the kooks, fundies, woo-woo's, and all-around-nutters to stay and camp out a while. Other science forums ban them and keep their forum on a true intellectual level. Because of this, the nutters will continue to show up here and make all sorts of unsupported contentions like "Followers of Easter religions smoke pot" or "Native Americans were stupid."

The outright ignorance and deficit level of your education should be an embarrassment. Yet is is not. Therefore, the sub-topic of your threads is, how the pseudo-intellectual isn't bothered by his lack of knowledge as he pretends to be smart.
 
I'm just talking shit there. Don't go out and arrest the man. I'm 24 you idiots, not 10.

Wisdom_Seeker sucks dick.
 
Last edited:
Cortex_Colossus said:
[[][[[]]
[[o[[o[ _||||
[[[[[[[[ \||/
[[[[ [[
[[[[\[[[[[[/[[[[ [[
[[ [[\[[[/[[ [[ [[
[[ [[[\[/[[[ [[[
[[ [][]O[][]
[[ [[[
/ \ [[[
/|| ]]
]]_
[[][[[]]
[[o[[o[ _||||
[[[[[[[[ \||/
[[[[ [[
[[[[\[[[[[[/[[[[ [[
[[ [[\[[[/[[ [[ [[
[[ [[[\[/[[[ [[[
[[ [][]O[][]
[[ [[[
/ \ [[[
/|| ]]
]]_
[[][[[]]
[[o[[o[ _||||
[[[[[[[[ \||/
[[[[ [[
[[[[\[[[[[[/[[[[ [[
[[ [[\[[[/[[ [[ [[
[[ [[[\[/[[[ [[[
[[ [][]O[][]
[[ [[[
/ \ [[[
/|| ]]
]]_
<vv_>
Click to expand...

WTF?
 
SkinWalker said:
The topic of this (and other threads started by John Bannan) isn't the thread title at all: the real topic is how the fundamentalist and bigoted like to come to the "science forum" where they can display pseudo-intellectual prowess and battle the "big-bad atheist" and the freethinker.
Click to expand...

Thanks. This was a pleasure to read. Before he made his stupid statements about Native Americans I had challenged him a couple of times to make statements instead of questions. I felt like he had an agenda and it showed through in the types of questions he asked and the ones he did not ask. It isn't a problem to have an agenda, but making statements takes more responsibility for the opinions one has - instead of implying those opinions indirectly. In this thread, I believe it is this one, but it might be another one, Bannan claims to be engaging in the Socratic method. I'm not big fan of Socrates, but the Socrates was extremely smart. What we end up with is an insinuating, implying presence whose real opinions when they come out are actually worse than I suspected.

Occasionally one of his questions is good, even interesting, but in general it seems like an avoidance of taking a stand. I actually think direct is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top