It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up? And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.
Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#22Psychoactive drugs shouldn't be illegal, but they can be dangerous. They provide a lot of spiritual and psychological benefits for a lot of people, but have also wrecked a lot of people. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (including Rx) and alcohol are probably the worst, as far as I've seen. Psychedelics don't seem to be as damaging in general-- I think it could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocyb…
Taking a psychedelic is always a taxing and challenging experience, I don't know why anyone would want to do it frequently.
The experiences become a lot less profound for the frequent users, and they themselves also become a lot more messed up. The truth is that if you have a psychedelic experience every Friday night, it's not nearly as interesting.
With spiritual practice, you gain a sort of humility and perspective along the way. It's not only about experiences, but also community and morality. For people who use the drugs to get the experiences, but don't grow in the other dimensions, it just leads to nihilism once the novelty wears off. Acidheads' lives become empty and there's little benefit in exploring an empty mind.
Some people use LSD as a party drug, and I think this results in a lot of the bad trips. It's dangerous as well as idiotic, and indicates that a person is missing the point if you ask me, but the behavior exists.
My memory of LSD was that the first 8 hours were mind-blowing and amazing (and not particularly scary) but the last 4 were a bit unpleasant, like I had an itch in my mind I couldn't scratch (but not as bad as a bad trip or a panic attack). I dropped at 3:40 pm, peaked at 6, and started getting tired of the whole endeavor by midnight. At 1:30 am I was trying desperately to get to sleep (impossible on LSD) and annoyed that my mind kept playing tricks on itself. Thankfully, my girlfriend (at the time) was there to reassure me that this was normal and would end.
I've often thought, though, that the intensity of LSD and mushrooms is related to the duration of time one is in a psychedelic/meditative state (when psychedelics are not used in a meditative state, they're wasted). I bet that if I had the focus to meditate for 6 hours, it'd be as powerful of an experience (or moreso) than a shrooms trip; same with 12 hours viz. LSD.
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#23It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up? And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.
You need a piece of paper (degree) from an educational institution to make these claims. Otherwise you get arrested/have serious problems. Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery".
So have completely insane people. If only we had some way to tell when people were full of shit...oh wait, thanks science!
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#24It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up? And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.
You need a piece of paper (degree) from an educational institution to make these claims. Otherwise you get arrested/have serious problems. Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery".
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#25Psychoactive drugs shouldn't be illegal, but they can be dangerous. They provide a lot of spiritual and psychological benefits for a lot of people, but have also wrecked a lot of people. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (including Rx) and alcohol are probably the worst, as far as I've seen. Psychedelics don't seem to be as damaging in general-- I think it could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocyb…
That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely misguided the public is about the subject.
"but have also wrecked a lot of people ... becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea ... are exhaustingly boring people."
It's also interesting that many people can't help but view this issue through the prism of their own cultural biases, stereotypes and anecdotes.
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
There are a lot of motivations behind the anti-drug movement, many of which are ignoble, but I think genuine concern is one of them. Most people don't want their children using them, and the drugs are dangerous, at least when used recklessly as they often are. Also, most people don't make the distinction between "hedonistic" drug use, such as using cocaine, and exploratory/psychedelic drug use, which is a different l…
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#27Psychoactive drugs shouldn't be illegal, but they can be dangerous. They provide a lot of spiritual and psychological benefits for a lot of people, but have also wrecked a lot of people. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (including Rx) and alcohol are probably the worst, as far as I've seen. Psychedelics don't seem to be as damaging in general-- I think it could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocyb…
"could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin" That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely misguided the public is about the subject. "but have also wrecked a lot of people ... becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea ... are exhaustingly boring people." It's also interesting that many people can't help but vi…
I could be wrong, but as I understand it, they're different categories of danger altogether. Alcohol can kill you. Psilocybin can't, but it is at least possible that it can lead to mental illness. Although the probability of psilocybin leading to lifelong psychosis seems to be astronomically low, that's a fate I'd easily mark as 10 times worse than early death... so there's more downside to the psychedelics. At least with psychedelics, the risks are more subjective and much more poorly understood.
Ever have a terrifyingly bad trip? Or a panic attack? If the answer to both is no, and you haven't been to war (I haven't), you have no idea of the depths of negative human experience, nor of post-event fallout. Having suffered from panic attacks and endured bad trips, I'd be terrified to go anywhere near even a 1 in 1 million chance of lifelong mental illness, even though I take that risk of death every day just by being alive.
I don't know what the probability of having a psychotic break on shrooms is. I bet it's low, but it seems to happen. The open question is whether these psychological events were "waiting in the wings" so to speak. It has been argued that the people having these problems were doomed to have them anyway, and that the drugs merely sped them along, but the jury seems to still be out on that one.
With alcohol, we have an extremely dangerous drug but we know what the dangers are, and we're generally pretty good at dosage control (which we have to be, since the ratio between a fatal dose and the average recreational dose is so low). When I buy a beer, I know how much alcohol I'm getting and can control the dosage.
In cultures that use psychedelics for religious purposes, there's no increased risk of mental illness for users of the substances, which leads me to believe that the substances themselves are actually pretty safe, but we're talking about people who have been using the substances responsibly for decades. It's difficult to use them in our context so pristinely-- the supply comes from an illegal scumbag market that provides unreliable goods, dosage is erratic, users are generally uneducated about what they're doing and have psychological hangups (I believe that guilt/fear about using drugs is one of the causes of bad trips).
It's also interesting that many people can't help but view this issue through the prism of their own cultural biases, stereotypes and anecdotes.
Look: I've actually used these drugs, and I know that for many people, they're provide wonderful experiences. I've had a few great experiences on them, even though I don't use them now and probably never will.
The people I'm talking about are the party types who are using these drugs all the time, to the point that drugs are the only things in their lives. That's what I mean by "acidhead", "e-tard", etc. and that's a terrible road to go down. I'm not talking about the person who uses acid a couple times per year or even a couple times per month. I'm talking about the people who use them so intensely and frequently that they start organizing their lives around drugs instead of the other way around. (I highly doubt that you're in this category, seeing as you post on HN.)
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, what's irritating to me is the reason they've had to "rediscover" it: the prohibitions our government imposes on what private individuals do to their own bodies.
[deleted]
For example, if everyone started asking themselves why they are chasing the American dream or what it really is then our economic landscape would look very different.
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
"could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin" That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely misguided the public is about the subject. "but have also wrecked a lot of people ... becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea ... are exhaustingly boring people." It's also interesting that many people can't help but vi…
That anyone even entertains the notion that alcohol isn't significantly more dangerous than psilocybin demonstrates how extremely miguided the public is about the subject. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, they're different categories of danger altogether. Alcohol can kill you. Psilocybin can't, but it is at least possible that it can lead to mental illness. Although the probability of psilocybin leading to l…
That's the point. Although the relationship between psilocybin and psychosis is unclear, it's already very well established that alcohol aggravates mental disorders and causes psychosis. On top of that, all available evidence suggests that psilocybin is very physically safe, while all available evidence suggests that alcohol is very physically unsafe.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe that psilocybin is anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol, and it's a gross disservice to even entertain the myth.
Furthermore, alcohol isn't the only legal substance that is connected with psychosis; a number of prescription drugs and even caffeine are linked to it.
"That's what I mean by "acidhead", "e-tard", etc. and that's a terrible road to go down"
But do these stereotypes really provide any value to this discussion? For just about any thing there is a subculture that indulges in that thing and people who hate that subculture. Should we ban plush animals because people find furries intolerable?
Re: Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
There are a lot of motivations behind the anti-drug movement, many of which are ignoble, but I think genuine concern is one of them. Most people don't want their children using them, and the drugs are dangerous, at least when used recklessly as they often are. Also, most people don't make the distinction between "hedonistic" drug use, such as using cocaine, and exploratory/psychedelic drug use, which is a different l…
The risks of drugs are certainly real and some concern is absolutely genuine. But the dangers of drugs are treated completely out-of-context with any number of other aspects of modern life.
Secondary objection: I don't think it's ever been convincingly shown that criminalization decreases drug use. Last I'd read, the opposite seems to have been occurring in areas that have legalized drugs.