Is the Spirituality Forum actually any good?

Jeremy Palmer said:The psychedelics being discussed can seriously mess with a young person's personality and mental health. Even just recreational use can be risky for anyone under 24, since the brain is still busy building those crucial neural connections, and substances can interfere with that process, potentially triggering psychosis.

Kenneth Peterson5 mentioned the findings from these studies in a few different threads, and I've come across the same data in at least five different places myself. For instance, about 90 percent of young people hospitalized for schizophrenia in major US cities had used cannabis. Once they stopped using it, the symptoms subsided.

So, Richard Walker79, regardless of how much you celebrate cannabis, the scientific facts point in a different direction. Speaking as both a mother and someone with a conscience, I feel I have to speak up to the moderators of this forum:

STOP GLORIFYING DRUG USE

If I had my way, I’d tell them: USE YOUR OWN BRAIN AND STOP TRUSTING AUTHORITY FIGURES BLINDLY.

We aren't just mindless pets waiting for orders; we are rational human beings!

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I am of the opinion that Richard Walker79 is quite correct on this matter; if we are going to have a discussion on such a topic, then we ought to call things by their proper names. Especially since there are individuals among us who are well-versed in these terms, and they remain significant (to us).

The real issue is how the word "drugs" creates this massive misunderstanding. Instead of having a deep, spiritual discussion, the whole thing devolves into endless arguments about substance abuse, health risks, and youth. It’s been a mess—leading to user bans, nasty insults, threats, and constant censorship.
Please, can we stop sabotaging this thread? I suggest renaming it so we can pick up where we left off. Let's focus on using psychedelics for spiritual growth rather than getting bogged down in debates about drugs, prohibition, public health, or legal rights...

casualtiger2 said:Look, people can't possibly read everything posted here.
The current title works fine for me, and there are a few reasons why.
1. My (more experienced) fellow moderator changed it.
2. I don't have any personal experience with drugs—and honestly, I'm not a big fan of using them for spiritual purposes (maybe in extreme cases, during specific developmental stages, under strict supervision, and for very select individuals)
3. It's good that this topic exists and that we're discussing it, but don't expect me to be particularly sympathetic—the damage people suffer is just too high (I've seen it firsthand in my own circle) for me to easily buy into the whole "using drugs for spiritual growth" idea—especially since some teenagers probably read this forum too.
4. In my view, there are no shortcuts on the spiritual path, and drugs aren't going to help you get there.

The title stays.

Because of these perspectives—particularly that last sentence—this PDF could truly live up to its title. I suspect many more users here will start contributing higher-quality content to this thread because of it.
I haven't been registered on this forum very long, so I'm not entirely sure what your previous posting style was like, but I think and hope you'll step up as a decent moderator based on how you've started out. Good luck! 🙂

Drake said:goldeneagle2,
what’s your take on actually changing things?
Like, what if we brought in some new people—spiritual, experienced, smart, people who actually lead with love?!

PS
Back where I grew up in Comanche, they have this rule—you only get a seat at the table to criticize if you
a ) genuinely believe you can do a better job and
b ) are actually putting in the work to make that happen.

The logic in Comanche is pretty sound, honestly. There isn't really a way to "fix" things here. People should just pick what works for them. Personally, I just stick to the first few topics at the top of the list. I glance at what Mona uploaded in those PDFs, skim through the new announcements, maybe chip in a thought here and there—and that's about it for me.

Richard Walker79 said:Research isn't objective—it’s all a lie funded by Big Pharma. If you want an actual objective look at the connection between psychedelics and spiritual experiences, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0RRTG2WWY

If you were paying close attention, you probably caught what she was saying at the end. She made it clear that these substances are strictly prohibited. They were only used during this experiment under incredibly controlled conditions, with every single participant being closely monitored. It’s worth noting that some people in the study actually experienced fear, anxiety, hallucinations, and other nasty side effects.

Besides, you can't just label a study "subjective" or "biased" without actually laying out the facts. You have to explain exactly why those findings would be considered false and what specific advantage the pharmaceutical industry gains by highlighting the risks associated with cannabis.

Also, Douglas, I have to say—looking back at your writing from about a year ago, things felt different. Your posts used to have this incredible clarity and punch; you were concise, sharp, and your logic was always rock solid. Now, it feels like something is missing. I’m not saying that maybe getting a little high gave you some new perspectives, but I highly doubt it stripped away your drive or left you feeling totally ungrounded. As a careful reader, I can tell a whole dimension of your voice has vanished. It honestly feels like the spirit of hemp has completely taken over your writing style.

Jeremy Palmer said:If you were paying close attention, you probably caught what she was saying at the end. She made it clear that these substances are strictly prohibited. They were only used during this experiment under incredibly controlled conditions, with every single participant being closely monitored. It’s worth noting that some people in the study actually experienced fear, anxiety, hallucinations, and other nasty side effects.

Besides, you can't just label a study "subjective" or "biased" without actually laying out the facts. You have to explain exactly why those findings would be considered false and what specific advantage the pharmaceutical industry gains by highlighting the risks associated with cannabis.

Also, Douglas, I have to say—looking back at your writing from about a year ago, things felt different. Your posts used to have this incredible clarity and punch; you were concise, sharp, and your logic was always rock solid. Now, it feels like something is missing. I’m not saying that maybe getting a little high gave you some new perspectives, but I highly doubt it stripped away your drive or left you feeling totally ungrounded. As a careful reader, I can tell a whole dimension of your voice has vanished. It honestly feels like the spirit of hemp has completely taken over your writing style.

And what didn't cause that in others? It isn't the fungus; it's just people being terrified of having their perception altered. Honestly, you get enough anxiety and fear just by turning on the TV and watching the news—way more than any mushroom could ever cause.

Furthermore, you can't just call a study "unobjective" without providing actual facts as to why it would be fraudulent, or explaining exactly what benefit Big Pharma gains by highlighting the dangers of cannabis.

Of course research funded by the government or the pharmaceutical industry isn't objective! It's designed solely to spread fear and propaganda to protect power and profit margins.
Cannabis is incredibly mild; you're more likely to die from too much coffee than from cannabis. It's all lies and propaganda. Cannabis is incredibly healing for humans—it's truly an amazing, divine miracle.
Do you have any idea how much the pharmaceutical industry rakes in from painkillers (opioids) and depression meds (psychiatric drugs) alone? And cannabis treats all of that far more safely and effectively.
Synthetic THC has been used in medicine for over 20 years now (costing about $1,300 a month), yet the plant itself is much more medicinal and completely free—it grows everywhere, regardless of the climate.

Also, dear Richard Walker79, your posts from a year ago were quite different from how they are now. Your writing used to have more lucidity, more strength, and your thoughts felt sharper, more concise, and clear. What you said had solid logic. I don't doubt that weed gave you some insights, but I highly doubt it stripped away your strength or withered your roots. A careful reader can see that an entire dimension has vanished from your writing, almost as if the spirit of cannabis has possessed your posts.

If you're referring to my writing on psychedelics... you probably are. The truth is, I just stayed quiet because I didn't want to look like a lunatic, but the movement is growing and consciousness is evolving here in the USA. In Western Europe and America, it isn't a big deal to risk your reputation by speaking up for psychedelics. Maybe things are slightly different here, especially among the spiritual crowd, but using psychedelics is inevitable for true spirituality. Spirituality without psychedelics is like trying to dig a hole with your bare fingers instead of a shovel. Human history has always involved the use of psychedelics, and those in power have always banned and persecuted them. Meditation and other spiritual paths were essentially invented by people to substitute for natural psychedelics.
I have to tell you the truth, no matter how crazy it might sound to you.

Richard Walker79 said:Well, I don't actually have those democratic rights, which is exactly why I'm telling you that using the word "drugs" isn't scientific; it's just a derogatory term. Why would we use offensive language when there's a perfectly valid scientific term like psychedelic?

Quincy:

Maybe you're one of those "drugs elevated me, thank goodness" types, but hundreds of thousands of others have been ruined by them. Similarly, I'm not banning "free speech"—after all, you have various threads, and you're free to say what you think right here. So, you're just making things up. As far as I'm concerned—the end.

Please understand that "drugs" is an insulting word. How would you react as a Christian if wine was labeled a drug and associated with addicts?

I won't even bother commenting on those hundreds of thousands who were supposedly ruined by psychedelics because that is 1000% a lie. But now I see you're talking about drugs...
This is the perfect example! I am discussing psychedelics, yet you are bringing up all kinds of drugs and just creating confusion. Where is the freedom in that? And why is the topic regarding the spiritual use of cannabis closed? Why can't we specify that we are talking about psychedelics rather than just any old drug?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_use_of_cannabis

First off—just to be clear—this isn't a discussion about psychedelics or using them.

What democratic rights am I missing here? Most people in the United States have already voted for their representatives—who, in turn, passed the laws that govern this entire forum. As far as I’m concerned, those rules are more than enough direction for me.
If you want to talk about psychedelics—and honestly, why should the word "drug" be considered offensive or unscientific when we're talking about heroin?—go for it. No one is stopping you. You’ve got at least two other threads open right now that cover that ground perfectly. As for me? I’m definitely not going to be the one to unlock a thread that my colleague already shut down.
If you’re trying to spark some kind of revolution or force your views on people—basically insisting you're the only one who's right—then you've picked the wrong place to hang out. Think whatever you want and lay out your arguments, but people are going to say what they're going to say. That's just how it works.
Look, if you’ve got a specific take on what defines a psychedelic versus what’s just straight-up a drug—make a dedicated thread for that. If you want to argue whether people should accept them or not, stick to those specific discussions. Don't mix the two.

Look, I think it’s great that you shared your experiences with psychedelics—really, it is—but don't expect everyone to see it through the same lens you do. People interpret things differently.
I honestly think there’s a direct link here to spirituality—to the point where things like meditation, yoga, chanting mantras, or even just falling in love actually change your physiology. It really does—your body starts pumping out its own natural "happiness hormones."
The whole point is that we're talking about hormones inherent to the body—things that don't wreck your nervous system, your physical health, or your psyche. Beyond that, they’re essentially just a direct byproduct of a person's own willpower, mental drive, and emotional state.
In that sense, I’d have to go with what Sanja said.
Quincy:

If what you're saying actually holds water, then hemp is one hell of a teacher. Look, the whole point of being a teacher is to eventually make yourself obsolete—to get those students to a point where they’ve truly mastered the material and can fly solo without needing you anymore. A teacher's job isn't to make students dependent on them—it's to make themselves obsolete. So, are you actually suggesting that one of the logical outcomes of using weed for spiritual reasons is... just quitting the whole thing?

And one last thing—this isn't a thread about psychedelics. Nor is it some deep dive into global conspiracies.

goldeneagle2 said:The logic in Comanche is pretty sound, honestly. There isn't really a way to "fix" things here. People should just pick what works for them. Personally, I just stick to the first few topics at the top of the list. I glance at what Mona uploaded in those PDFs, skim through the new announcements, maybe chip in a thought here and there—and that's about it for me.

Honestly, it sucks that things turned out this way and that so many of the old guard—the good ones—hardly show up anymore. I know how hard it is to change a community like this; usually, all that effort barely moves the needle.
Still, I want this place to be worth reading—not just for the veterans, but for anyone just starting their spiritual journey.
I want it to be educational, engaging, and, frankly, fun. I want someone who's thinking about heading out to a bar or a club to think, "Actually, let's just check out the spiritual forum first!" 😁
And I'm willing to fight for that—for a little while, anyway—with everything I've got.

feralheron17 said:First off, good luck with the mod gig. I wish the same to your new team.
By the way, I think the philosophy sub-forum is in a serious crisis.
And yeah, you might remember me from a few posts: I think you're a solid choice for moderator.
I've been on plenty of forums (many offered me mod roles, but I turned them down—I don't have the heart to lecture or ban people), and there's no debating taste: personally, I believe the more rules and bans there are based on the principle that unprovoked insults from any side are punished, the calmer the atmosphere stays.
As you get older, you stop judging people by how they present themselves and start watching how they react. In places like the American South, you only have to scratch the surface to see people sink much lower than anyone would ever dream.
If someone crosses me, I give it right back to them. I have to be honest about that, even if it means I cut off any chance of ever speaking to that person again. They usually end up going to the mods or...alive parents seeking to return to their primal state: I think the vibe on American forums has shifted radically for the better since the late '90s. I’m seeing moderators on certain boards who actually do an incredible job at policing the chaos.
You’re still chasing shadows, Epure.
I haven't spent much time hanging out in those spaces, especially regarding philosophy topics. I took a quick look at alim's profile: nothing irritating there. He writes in that cryptic, gnomic style. If you want to read it and find value, go ahead. If not, just skip it. It’s easy to know exactly what you’re getting into without having to be cynical about it.
The American Internet has everything. With all due respect to opposing views, I have to distance myself from the idea of harmlessness: there are losers, people with massive inferiority complexes, thugs, hunters of all kinds, and female masturbators who are far worse than the men—mostly because it’s beneath them, especially when they start joining the guys: I believe I have every right to say that. The Internet played a vital role in my life: chatting with the opposite sex, finding information, exchanging views with mature people ready for actual discussion...
This spirituality-religion forum doesn't have to be bad. Whenever I have the time, I’ll post something useful, which most of my previous posts here already prove.
Regardless, I think this subforum, with casualtiger2, his associates, and the regulars here, offers its own unique perspective.
🙂

Just being honest, direct, "insider," constructive, and coming from a good place... 👍

I want more posts like this—from anyone on the forum. 😍

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Listen, folks,
Looking at your post above, it really brings up a massive question regarding the entire spirituality PDF—specifically how we improve it.

You go on about what they say "back in my hometown..."
So, does that mean you're part of some little missionary sect out there led by Aba Aziz Makaj—aka Francis Miller?

Best regards,
Kenneth Peterson5

Well, look at that sudden shift in tone—though you nailed it, blue really is my color. 😍
No need for the formalities. We usually keep things casual here.

I actually thought you were one of the more informed folks on this board, so it’s a surprise you didn't realize that our great Mod is from way out in rural Comet!
Since this isn't a thread about Comet, or about me or my affiliations, you can check out what I've said here and here.
Feel free to continue the dialogue on those specific threads, whether it's with me or anyone else.
As a moderator (which feels a bit weird to admit), I won't be proselytizing for my spiritual community, but naturally, I'll share my own experiences and the views held by that school—as I've understood them.

Your post actually reminded me of a principle I'd love to see take hold here.
We all come from different backgrounds. Some are Christians, some are TM-ers, some follow Harry Kris, Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Comet Witnesses; then there are Buddhists, atheists, or free spirits like the masters of Ivanov.
In my opinion, as long as someone is engaging with spirituality, there's room for them under this forum's roof—it's vital we develop some tolerance there.
The exception, obviously, is destructive cults. But that brings up the question: "Who decides which group is a destructive cult?" Enki, casualtiger2, or even neighbor Zeke... or should it be sociologists, psychologists, and legal experts? I'm leaning toward the professionals.

That’s why the statement
"...the Comet missionary sect..."
feels like a total zero-percent information level comment to me, and it needs some clarification.
Moving forward, in the appropriate threads we’re going to demand detailed explanations whenever someone claims another person is just talking nonsense, or insists that Sai baba is a predator/God, or that meditation is satanic, or that Jesus is the only true God, or that personalists are inferior to impersonalists and vice versa...
Both sides have the right to present their views, experiences, and info (ideally public and expert-backed), leaving it to the readers to form their own conclusions.
Any kind of slander, planting false ideas, or baseless claims will be deleted.
And it's not about protecting Comet—it's just how I think we should communicate if we want this forum to have any actual weight and seriousness. It shouldn't just be a place where everyone repeats what neighbor Zeke said about someone.
Got it?
PS
And why exactly is my affiliation with Comet "a very important question that affects the entire Spirituality PDF"?

Best,
casualtiger2

PPS
With your style and persistence, you remind me of another user here. Different topics and interests, sure, but the vibe is the same. 😁

casualtiger2 said:Well, look at that sudden shift in tone—though you nailed it, blue really is my color. 😍
No need for the formalities. We usually keep things casual here.

I actually thought you were one of the more informed folks on this board, so it’s a surprise you didn't realize that our great Mod is from way out in rural Comet!
Since this isn't a thread about Comet, or about me or my affiliations, you can check out what I've said here and here.
Feel free to continue the dialogue on those specific threads, whether it's with me or anyone else.
As a moderator (which feels a bit weird to admit), I won't be proselytizing for my spiritual community, but naturally, I'll share my own experiences and the views held by that school—as I've understood them.

Your post actually reminded me of a principle I'd love to see take hold here.
We all come from different backgrounds. Some are Christians, some are TM-ers, some follow Harry Kris, Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Comet Witnesses; then there are Buddhists, atheists, or free spirits like the masters of Ivanov.
In my opinion, as long as someone is engaging with spirituality, there's room for them under this forum's roof—it's vital we develop some tolerance there.
The exception, obviously, is destructive cults. But that brings up the question: "Who decides which group is a destructive cult?" Enki, casualtiger2, or even neighbor Zeke... or should it be sociologists, psychologists, and legal experts? I'm leaning toward the professionals.

That’s why the statement
"...the Comet missionary sect..."
feels like a total zero-percent information level comment to me, and it needs some clarification.
Moving forward, in the appropriate threads we’re going to demand detailed explanations whenever someone claims another person is just talking nonsense, or insists that Sai baba is a predator/God, or that meditation is satanic, or that Jesus is the only true God, or that personalists are inferior to impersonalists and vice versa...
Both sides have the right to present their views, experiences, and info (ideally public and expert-backed), leaving it to the readers to form their own conclusions.
Any kind of slander, planting false ideas, or baseless claims will be deleted.
And it's not about protecting Comet—it's just how I think we should communicate if we want this forum to have any actual weight and seriousness. It shouldn't just be a place where everyone repeats what neighbor Zeke said about someone.
Got it?
PS
And why exactly is my affiliation with Comet "a very important question that affects the entire Spirituality PDF"?

Best,
casualtiger2

PPS
With your style and persistence, you remind me of another user here. Different topics and interests, sure, but the vibe is the same. 😁

Because, if you ask me, it’s basically the biggest embarrassment on all of Reddit right now.

The whole drug thing is bad enough, but having you—a member of the Comet cult and a moderator that kids actually look up to as some kind of authority figure—involved? That’s just beyond the pale. It’s pathetic.

That's why.

1. If you could just lay out your reasoning in one single post, that would be great.
2. You can either ask the admins to replace me, or I can gather enough signatures from users who agree with me and I'll step down myself—though we probably need to figure out how many active members we actually have to decide what counts as a "relevant" number.

Fair enough?

PS
Goodnight, everyone.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Because, if you ask me, it’s basically the biggest embarrassment on all of Reddit right now.

The whole drug thing is bad enough, but having you—a member of the Comet cult and a moderator that kids actually look up to as some kind of authority figure—involved? That’s just beyond the pale. It’s pathetic.

That's why.

Have you been drinking something?😍
What kind of cult are you even in, you little brat?😲
Look, even I don't follow John, and frankly, I don't see how Mike being anything other than totally unhinged makes it a disgrace to belong to a group like that.
There are hundreds of people just like them out there.
It used to be considered shameful to have this kind of mindset—all this intolerance and constant belittling of others.👎
Just give it a rest.😁

casualtiger2 said:1. If you could just lay out your reasoning in one single post, that would be great.
2. You can either ask the admins to replace me, or I can gather enough signatures from users who agree with me and I'll step down myself—though we probably need to figure out how many active members we actually have to decide what counts as a "relevant" number.

Fair enough?

PS
Goodnight, everyone.

Fair enough.

In my opinion, John's little cult is a direct threat to the integrity of the family unit.
By having you acting as a moderator for the Spirituality sub on Reddit, the platform is basically sending a message to kids that people like you are role models worthy of respect—which, honestly, totally warps a young person's understanding of what a family actually is.
I truly believe John's sect is dangerous because their whole "spiritual-sexual" lifestyle sends a completely twisted message about morality.
Plus, I’m convinced your "spiritual" leader is nothing more than a deeply disturbed individual, and here’s the proof:

-His first romantic-erotic experience was "like a three-year-old with a two-year-old" under the stairs of some old mansion in Washington, D.C., where he grew up. His first multi-partner erotic encounter happened when he was about six years old, involving two "lovely sisters" who were slightly older than him.-

What kind of "romantic experience" is that? What are we even talking about here? Do you guys realize how much of this is pure idiocy?
Don't you see how this kind of logic pushes a total lie regarding the definition of "pedophilia" and the sexual abuse of minors?
Do you realize that viewing sexual energy this way implies that any child is capable of sexual activity regardless of age?

-"A true tantric fucks both the heart and the spirit of women, making him unforgettable," says the man (your spiritual guru, Aba Aziz) who lives with four women (or is it five now?)—each of whom he's been in a long-term romantic-erotic relationship with for over a decade on average. On top of that, he maintains erotic affairs with about ten students every year. -

Polygamy is illegal in the US, yet your "spiritual" teacher is pushing for its legalization in a way that is incredibly blunt. Way too blunt, if you ask me.

-John's sexual record includes ten hours of making love without ejaculating, sometimes involving five to seven women at once. He's even done it twice with nine women at a time. -

Sorry, Gregory, but in plain English, what you described above is just an orgy.

-The name John supposedly comes from the spiritual realm, a name Aba Aziz allegedly received one night during a sort of auditory "vision." -

An auditory vision?
Auditory hallucinations are a textbook symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.
As far as I'm concerned, your spiritual leader is just a charismatic psychotic.

Look, being part of a cult isn't my business, and you can go talk about that in a specific thread, but as a moderator, you represent a genuine threat to American youth for the reasons I've laid out.

The admins have been notified, and frankly, they don't even know who John is, let alone understand what I'm talking about—so, as far as the administration goes, it seems like you don't have an issue with them.
Rest assured, I won't be bothering you with this or anything like it anymore. So, don't worry about any further questioning of your work as a moderator on this sub; you won't be dealing with me again.

Over and out.

casualtiger2 said:That's just not true.
1. I already said I'd get to the whole Alim thing and the stories as soon as I have a moment.
2. Honestly, I don't know, and I really don't feel like digging into why she "got hung up" on it. Sure, an injustice is a valid reason to act, but I'm not a fan of trying to fix every single bend in the Mississippi River based on every little excuse.
3. If you're expecting me to be impartial? No way.
I like some people here more than others. My criteria are pretty simple: how they write and how they behave on the forum. Because of that, my likes and dislikes shift around. Besides, I already mentioned that I actually agree with some of Kenneth Peterson5's views. Right now, though, Tatyana's vibe just aligns better with what I'm trying to achieve in terms of "fixing" things around here.

Same goes for you—enough with the talk about Alim, Kenneth Peterson5, and Tatyana.
Got anything to say regarding the pros and cons of the spirituality-religion forum?

Very well. I shall await your updates with great anticipation!

Quincy:

2. Honestly, I have no desire to waste my energy investigating why things "went sideways." While perceived injustice is a valid reason to be upset, I am certainly not a fan of trying to fix every single "Mississippi" error at every turn.

Whether you or I personally approve of something is entirely irrelevant here! What matters is bringing this platform back to an optimal, or at least functional, state. So far, the strategy of simply ignoring these "Mississippi" errors has proven to be ineffective. This doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a more efficient method—one that might or might not involve "fixing the Mississippi"—but rather that our current approach just isn't working.

Quincy:

3. If you are expecting me to be unbiased—absolutely not! I find certain users more likable than others. My criteria are based on their writing style and how they conduct themselves on Reddit. Consequently, these preferences are quite fluid. In fact, I previously mentioned that I enjoy certain viewpoints from Kenneth Peterson5. However, at this moment, Amanda Roberts21's perspective aligns more closely with my own goals as I attempt to "fix" certain aspects of the site.

Who you happen to like or dislike is a private matter! Unless it directly pertains to the topic at hand, I see no reason to bring it up—unless, of course, one is merely seeking attention. Aside from that, as long as your preferences remain relevant to the discussion, fine; otherwise, it is nothing more than spam or even trolling if used to provoke another user.

Quincy:

The same applies to you—enough about the admins, Kenneth Peterson5, and Amanda Roberts21 for now. Do you have any thoughts regarding the spiritual atmosphere of this forum?

In the thread "The Spirituality of this Subreddit's Users", several issues regarding the platform were raised, providing an answer to that very question.

casualtiger2 said:First off—just to be clear—this isn't a discussion about psychedelics or using them.

What democratic rights am I missing here? Most people in the United States have already voted for their representatives—who, in turn, passed the laws that govern this entire forum. As far as I’m concerned, those rules are more than enough direction for me.
If you want to talk about psychedelics—and honestly, why should the word "drug" be considered offensive or unscientific when we're talking about heroin?—go for it. No one is stopping you. You’ve got at least two other threads open right now that cover that ground perfectly. As for me? I’m definitely not going to be the one to unlock a thread that my colleague already shut down.
If you’re trying to spark some kind of revolution or force your views on people—basically insisting you're the only one who's right—then you've picked the wrong place to hang out. Think whatever you want and lay out your arguments, but people are going to say what they're going to say. That's just how it works.
Look, if you’ve got a specific take on what defines a psychedelic versus what’s just straight-up a drug—make a dedicated thread for that. If you want to argue whether people should accept them or not, stick to those specific discussions. Don't mix the two.

Look, I think it’s great that you shared your experiences with psychedelics—really, it is—but don't expect everyone to see it through the same lens you do. People interpret things differently.
I honestly think there’s a direct link here to spirituality—to the point where things like meditation, yoga, chanting mantras, or even just falling in love actually change your physiology. It really does—your body starts pumping out its own natural "happiness hormones."
The whole point is that we're talking about hormones inherent to the body—things that don't wreck your nervous system, your physical health, or your psyche. Beyond that, they’re essentially just a direct byproduct of a person's own willpower, mental drive, and emotional state.
In that sense, I’d have to go with what Sanja said.
Quincy:

If what you're saying actually holds water, then hemp is one hell of a teacher. Look, the whole point of being a teacher is to eventually make yourself obsolete—to get those students to a point where they’ve truly mastered the material and can fly solo without needing you anymore. A teacher's job isn't to make students dependent on them—it's to make themselves obsolete. So, are you actually suggesting that one of the logical outcomes of using weed for spiritual reasons is... just quitting the whole thing?

And one last thing—this isn't a thread about psychedelics. Nor is it some deep dive into global conspiracies.

Heroin falls under narcotics, whereas "drugs" is such a broad, vague term that usually carries a negative stigma.
Well, I actually thought you might agree that "drug" is an inadequate and confusing term here, since we're discussing psychedelics rather than every single substance out there.
So, I really don't see why it would be such a struggle for you to swap out "drugs" for a much more precise and appropriate term like "psychedelics."

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Because, if you ask me, it’s basically the biggest embarrassment on all of Reddit right now.

The whole drug thing is bad enough, but having you—a member of the Comet cult and a moderator that kids actually look up to as some kind of authority figure—involved? That’s just beyond the pale. It’s pathetic.

That's why.

Oh, come on, Kenneth Peterson5—I read what the admins had to say about those nasty little jabs you took at Gregory and his mentor.
Right here on

I have nothing more to add, and I completely agree with how that person assessed Gregory.

Just give the man a chance! Stop the gossip, stop dragging unverified rumors about his teacher into this, and just offer him a hand like everyone else does.

He’s a volunteer in this position—he’s giving up his own free time to try and do something good for others, all while exposing himself to the backlash from the very people he's trying to help. For that alone, he deserves some warmth—not to mention he’s proven himself to be a calm, level-headed, and decent guy with a real sense of integrity.

Quincy:

No, thanks. I’m the one raising my kid, not some random moderator on a subreddit.

The Admin put it perfectly here.

I completely agree. Honestly, I think you're overdoing it with this whole "protecting" children and teenagers thing—it feels more like an excuse to me.

casualmaker13 said:Long live all kinds of drugs, especially that Portorož stuff!!!😂

Well, damn.😘

🙂 casualmaker13
Kids might get the wrong idea
but I've made it very clearly understood that it's a NO

As for adults
well, sure, why not
just in moderation
every once in a while
but seriously
only occasionally
and strictly just to set the mood
a little cannabis
specifically an indica strain

That’s just how things work in my universe.
😉

This whole thing is a direct hit against the Roman Catholic Church, against the sanctity of family, and honestly, just against common sense itself!

Man, what an absolute disaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😲😲:ee k:
I seriously can't believe how people are reacting to our moderator, Comer.😕
I mean, what, are all the women on this forum supposed to become his wives just because he holds a moderator position? Or is he going to subject them to some ten-hour marathon sessions? I doubt it.😂😂😂
Don't worry, ladies, nobody's coming for you.🙂