Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 199 posts

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#141

Post by 1000units »

deno wrote: post #109
gepi79 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Promoting psychedelics as strong medicine to be used only by medical experts is very different from legalizing psychedelics because some people claim less potential for harm than alcohol or tobacco.

By any objective assessment they are not even in the same league[1]. Should you be prescribed alcohol by a doctor, as well? After all, a significant number of people can’t be trusted to use it responsibly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness

Alcohol can safely be enjoyed in moderation, as countless humans have successfully managed for thousands of years.

A single LSD trip can ruin you, as many people have proven in these past tens of years.

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#142

Post by nfoz »

philliphaydon wrote: post #133
blubb-fish wrote: post #127

For me this is a simple philosophical question. An adult should be allowed to do whatever s/he likes as long as it is not harming others. If harm to others is done - even under the influence - then punishment is due. But as long as somebody just does something in private - it must be okay. I have plenty of experience with psychedlics - be it LSD, Psilocibin, DMT or 4-ACO-DMT. I know from own experience that a bad tri…

If an adult does things that harm himself and not others he should also forfeit free healthcare. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for the personal bad choices of others.

Even if it were somehow possible to implement such a mechanism, correctly (no false positives!) and efficiently, this sounds like a terrific lack of compassion. Have you never made a mistake? Can you not imagine a life in which you might have made such a mistake?

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#143

Post by maxerickson »

kimdotcom wrote: post #139
philliphaydon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an adult does things that harm himself and not others he should also forfeit free healthcare. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for the personal bad choices of others.

We would need free healthcare to be able to forfeit it. Since we don't and insurance companies seem pretty decent at modeling risk, this would be included in the model. Look at how people who smoke are financially penalized by health insurance. The same is not true for alcohol consumers.

In the US that's a matter of law, the insurance companies aren't allowed to adjust prices based on alcohol consumption.

I guess casual drinkers (and more than casual drinkers) are a pretty big lobby group though.

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#144

Post by ryanmercer »

kimdotcom wrote: post #134
ryanmercer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to the person you replied to, homebrewing alcohol was illegal in the US until 1978 and you still aren't allowed to distill at home (for human consumption) without a distilled spirits permit or (for fuel use) a federal fuel alcohol permit.

Yet, a Hillbilly Flute can be purchased legally online and delivered to your home. https://www.hillbillystills.com/hillbilly-flute-s/190.htm

Well duh obviously everyone that orders a still is going to use it in their living room as an art installation.

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#145

Post by ryanmercer »

viach wrote: post #117
ryanmercer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal. They'd be taxing the sales of everything used to create it, they could require testing for purity, they could create an LSD tax, etc just like with tobacco and alcohol (and if they'd get their head out of their backside, THC containing products).

Take into account that alcohol comes in comparably big bottles and you need quite some of it to get drunk (if you are a professional of course). So, it is easier to control it's traffic than hunting for small pills which can be in everyones pockets.

Drug manufacturing isn't easy, most of the stuff is controlled and purchases of quantities of many required compounds will often immediately involve one or more government agencies, generally the DEA.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEA_list_of_chemicals

I see this a lot at work, I clear international freight through Customs (and any other applicable government agencies) for a living, and a lot of tariff numbers will flag as potential precursors by DEA.

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#146

Post by stef25 »

crypt1d wrote: post #105
stef25 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After experimenting with psychedelics in my late teens (mid 90s) I wanted to know more and got a Bsc in Neuroscience from Manchester University. My thesis was on how research in psychedelics can help us learn more about schizophrenia (I wasn't interested in any of prescribed topics so my lecturer said I could do whatever but it would have to be without guidance). Scientific knowledge won't help much in the way of ste…

Thank you for clarifying that, now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. My question to you is, do you think psychedelics should be more controlled than alcohol? Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip. I'm also wondering if we can create a set of metrics, free from anecdotal evidence and any political context, by which we can use to categorize different dru…

I like the idea of psychedelics being free to use but only in recognised centers or "retreats", under professional guidance

Holland did the OTC experiment already and there must be interesting data about this somewhere. I don't think OTC would be a good idea, maybe I'm just overly cautious.

At the moment, anyone with sufficient motivation can get psychedelics at the click of a button and here in W-Europe nobody will really face any serious legal consequences for personal use. Testing kits are widely available. The current situation is not a bad one.

> Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.

I don't think (bad) trips would cause much social harm at all actually. Psychedelics have an unpredictability to them that warrants caution in a way that doesn't apply to alcohol (or sky diving, rock climbing ...)

Medical prescriptions are required (in part) because of the potential side effects. If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through a mental hell scape, it wouldn't be available OTC either.

Just some thoughts, the discussion is a difficult one.

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#147

Post by deno »

1000units wrote: post #141
deno wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By any objective assessment they are not even in the same league[1]. Should you be prescribed alcohol by a doctor, as well? After all, a significant number of people can’t be trusted to use it responsibly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness

Alcohol can safely be enjoyed in moderation, as countless humans have successfully managed for thousands of years. A single LSD trip can ruin you, as many people have proven in these past tens of years.

A single drunken escapade can ruin your life. What’s your point?

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#148

Post by Sir_Substance »

AstralStorm wrote: post #62
J-dawg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are they anything other than speculative? Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.

Some actually were evidence based, such as opium laws. There was a big public health problem with opium a few centuries back - complicated with politics and economics of opium trade. Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.

Errr...none of those are psychadelics?

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#149

Post by dzelzs »

ada1981 wrote: post #124
anoneemouse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the consensus is psychedelics can trigger or exacerbate mental illness you're already predisposed to. If your family has a history of mental illness you should probably avoid psychedelics. Even if they don't it might be wise to wait until your late 20s to see if any signs of mental illness appear. But that's not really any different than people predisposed to heart disease smoking or drinking alcohol or eatin…

“New Studies Fail To Find Associations Between Psychedelic Drugs And Mental Health Problems“ http://www.iflscience.com/brain/new-studies-fail-find-associ...

The psychodelics will not cause the illness in any way or form - rather the "experience" might trigger an existing one (that potentially can be caused by anything). Although thats still fits with the point about having a disposition to something and acting accordingly. AKA using common sense :D

Re: Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

#150

Post by AstralStorm »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #148
AstralStorm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some actually were evidence based, such as opium laws. There was a big public health problem with opium a few centuries back - complicated with politics and economics of opium trade. Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.

Errr...none of those are psychadelics?

Technically they are all psychoactive, but not chiefly or solely psychoactive - and usually also not hallucinogenic.

Psychedelic is not a right category anyway. It is a label given by users based on perceived effects.

Post reply on HN