31–40 of 171 posts
Hi, I'm the author of the article. Thanks for reading, and if anyone has questions, I'm happy to answer them.
I must say I take a huge amount of joy watching a corporation try to bend over backwards to monopolize a fungus that has been enjoyed by humans for millenia. Is it a surprise that a capitalist industry is more motivated by profits than by the production of useful goods and services? Of course not: but it is good comedy. Maybe laughing at the absurdity of for-profit healthcare will be what saves us all from crippling…
Hi, I'm the author of the article. Thanks for reading, and if anyone has questions, I'm happy to answer them.
You could write it the other way, where an immigrant-founded[1] startup is disrupting the mental health industry.
Frankly, most of this seems like par for the course. Of course the company is seeking to push their product to market and commercial viability--and the potential downsides to that rush. And it's (unfortunately) not surprising that the legal term pursued by the company are more onerous than standard--that seems to be a common over-step, and I'm glad attention is drawn to it. A good portion of this seems to be (and excuse my ad hominems) hand-wringing by crunchy-granola "psychedelic experts" worried about the "community".
([1] I'm assuming Ekaterina Malievskaia is Russian based on her medical degree from St Petersburg Medical Academy, and bring it up here because of similar discussions.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.
It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.
It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
What is the solution in this case ? All the situations here are riskier.
Many people die after they wake up and leave their room. So its risky to leave their room.
You are not a genius.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the downsides of legalizing Psilocybin and/or using it for treating depression?
Disclaimer: I'm pro-legalization. I think the only downside of legalizing it will be increasing the number of users, and therefor the number of possible bad trips/stupid actions while high. Being that we let ~88K die in the US due to alcohol, I think we can handle that a couple dozen misadventures from shrooms as well.
Hi, I'm the author of the article. Thanks for reading, and if anyone has questions, I'm happy to answer them.
I found your article very interesting. Thank you very much. One question I had is what and how COMPASS obtained their IP. Surely “distillation” of the psychoactive substance is widely known? It would be a bit like me trying to patent pancake mixture.
This is a natural product. One can grow it in the basement of one's home. One can gather it where it grows wild. (Ask me how I know!) No user of this product has ever harmed anyone else as a result of using it. Any restrictions at all on this product could only ever be tyrannical. Let's not abide tyranny, ok?
The blind spot here is that no one really understands how it works or the long term implications. It may have a use for patients with treatment resistant medical conditions where the alternatives have failed or side-effects are intolerable. Why should healthy adults take this substance? Many of the so-called experts interviewed in Michel Pollan's new book took psilocybin and believed the experience revealed the inner…
What I've found interesting in his book is that the suggestions of the therapist lead basically influence the result. So if someone says what will happen on shrooms you basically have a similar experience. That is interesting.
Further along the meta magical thinking idea is the stoned ape hypothesis which basically tries to explain how we were able to transcend "primitiveness" and develop abstract reasoning and as such technological progress by using psychedelics. Whether there is evidence for this or not I don't know.. haven't read the stoned ape book.. It does seem more plausible that magic mushrooms led to religion. I've been reading Pollan's book as well and the part about AA 12 step and Bill's wanting to use magic mushrooms as part of the process is very interesting. Turns out that the board allegedly wanted to keep the straight religion aspect in it for control vs surrendering yourself to mushrooms. This is partly why psychedelics are being tested on reducing alcoholism.
If it can help alleviate depression and anxiety I am 100% behind it. So much time, energy and life is lost to that mindfuck of a state.
* also we don't really understand the long term implication o f a lot of things we eat or drink or the legal drugs we take. Should you eat eggs? margarine? wine? tea? how much coffee? etc..