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

The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#51

Post by akvadrako »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #33
NickC25 wrote: post #5

There was an NYT article not too long ago whose entire point is that "true" psychedelic drugs are too dangerous to go mainstream, but isolated chemical compounds that provide some of the chemical effects of LSD / Mushrooms / Ketamine without the "trip" were a much better way to go. The reasoning was that they could engineer a way to chemically induce neuroplastic change in the brain without the liability of visual or…

Well, I love my therapist, and research suggests that psychedelic assisted therapy is effective. I've never taken a large dose of mushrooms because I am nervous about where it would take me, so personally doing that with my therapist could be pretty nice. Tho expensive lol. I've only really done LSD once tho and it was interesting, and seemed more low key than shrooms, so maybe I should try that again.

Well you can get a guide (or just an experienced friend) for less than a therapist.

Also, LSD is not lower key than shrooms; maybe you took a smaller dose or personally have a tolerance. But with high doses they can both be very intense.

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#52

Post by gjs278 »

criddell wrote: post #14
game-of-throws wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really what "normies" want? Or is it just what drug companies/lobbyists want?

I think at least some normies want that. I'm pretty much as normie as it gets and I've been watching Michael Pollan's series on Netflix How to Change Your Mind . One day I might want to try LSD, psilocybin, or MDMA (those are the episodes I've watched) but probably wouldn't until I could buy from an FDA regulated company. I don't trust dark web sources or the neighborhood guy who knows a guy.

No post body was provided.

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#53

Post by NickC25 »

danaris wrote: post #23
NickC25 wrote: post #5

There was an NYT article not too long ago whose entire point is that "true" psychedelic drugs are too dangerous to go mainstream, but isolated chemical compounds that provide some of the chemical effects of LSD / Mushrooms / Ketamine without the "trip" were a much better way to go. The reasoning was that they could engineer a way to chemically induce neuroplastic change in the brain without the liability of visual or…

> Dosing myself in a therapist's office sounds terrifying. The best experience I've ever had was taking a hit of LSD in my living room and spending the day with a pen and paper, writing down thoughts as they came to me. And I personally know people for whom the exact opposite is the case. I'm very much looking forward to the rise of psychedelic therapy.

And that's a good thing! I am in NO way advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach. There should be many different avenues available for those who wish for different experiences. For people who aren't experienced with psychedelics, doing it in a place they are comfortable in is of utmost importance. The same logic applies to those who are experienced with the substances.

If you want to trip in nature, or on your couch, or in your therapist's office, or wherever else you might find to be the optimal set/setting for your experience, you should be able to do so.

That said, I'm all for taking whatever works in a setting that works for the user.

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#54

Post by sianemo »

zionic wrote: post #37
heap_perms wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Talk about missing the forest from the trees. The whole transformative experience is the "trip" itself. " I couldn't agree more. In fact, the trip itself is not a nice side effect, it's the precondition to get measurable, long-term positive changes.

>long-term positive changes. Proponents frequently mention things like this, yet _no one_ who publicly admits to psych use is someone I want to be. All the people I've ever met, and friends who didn't but started down that road, aren't "all there" anymore. They'll preach day and night about the "benefits", but from the outside looking in it's obviously a coping mechanism.

While I may not be someone you want to be for specific reasons relating to our individuality, I am a long time psych user and I'm demographically and overall culturally someone that is presented as desirable to be. I'm in a reasonably high income percentile, I lack unsecured debt, I'm happily married, I have a diverse social circle and several personal hobbies, I stay physically active, and I enjoy intellectual pursuits.

I'd be very curious to know what specifically about me, or about something you assume about me, would make me someone you don't want to be?

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#56

Post by ActorNightly »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #33
NickC25 wrote: post #5

There was an NYT article not too long ago whose entire point is that "true" psychedelic drugs are too dangerous to go mainstream, but isolated chemical compounds that provide some of the chemical effects of LSD / Mushrooms / Ketamine without the "trip" were a much better way to go. The reasoning was that they could engineer a way to chemically induce neuroplastic change in the brain without the liability of visual or…

Well, I love my therapist, and research suggests that psychedelic assisted therapy is effective. I've never taken a large dose of mushrooms because I am nervous about where it would take me, so personally doing that with my therapist could be pretty nice. Tho expensive lol. I've only really done LSD once tho and it was interesting, and seemed more low key than shrooms, so maybe I should try that again.

You likely did a starter dose of LSD. Also, it doesn't depend on stomach processing to activate, which means its not diet dependent - shrooms very much are. Plenty of people make a mistake of taking shrooms after eating a meal, not getting anything after an hour, taking more thinking their shrooms are weak, and then when it hits they are taken for quite a ride.

The right way to dose shrooms IMO is not eating 4 hours prior, ground up fine (and optionally put into gel capsules if you can't stand the taste), and taken with OJ. This gives you a very strong and peaky trip at minimal doses, but the peak lasts for 2-3 hours, whereas LSD is generally a whole day affair event at lower dosages.

Its also worth while imo to grow your own shrooms. There is this philosophical meta element of taking charge and creating your own medicine which then you take can better your own life, which can be a very positive thought during the trip.

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#57

Post by tastyfreeze »

engineer_22 wrote: post #43
mathgladiator wrote: post #15

Do we really need new ones? Maybe, we just need to decriminalize nature and let a shamanic class arise to guide us on a spiritual journey of self-awareness.

What could possibly go wrong?

Shamanic rituals have been the cornerstone of many of the great civilizations of the past. Why are substances that induce introspection and a sense of belonging to something greater than yourself banned?

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#58

Post by [deleted] »

anigbrowl wrote: post #35
mkoryak wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds like you had a good trip. If you had a bad trip, you might feel differently about it.

It's not that simple at all. Bad trips can be more therapeutic than good ones. If you have tripless neuroplasticity, (a possibility I doubt) then what's your feedback mechanism? You might wind up selecting for shitty or dysfunctional behavior.

[deleted]

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#59

Post by treeman79 »

recyclelater wrote: post #41
zionic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>long-term positive changes. Proponents frequently mention things like this, yet _no one_ who publicly admits to psych use is someone I want to be. All the people I've ever met, and friends who didn't but started down that road, aren't "all there" anymore. They'll preach day and night about the "benefits", but from the outside looking in it's obviously a coping mechanism.

I publicly, to my peer group at least, state I have enjoyed benefits of psychedelic drugs every five or ten years, I am pretty sure I have my shit together compared to most people. That being said i know the people you are talking about, but they in my experience use drugs much more frequently. Multiple times a year, and regularly also smoke weed etc. Obviously biased when talking about myself, but I think you can sp…

35 years of dealing with friends and family addiction issues.

They all believe it doesn’t affect them negativity, that people can’t tell.

They are all wrong. We can see the changes in them. Good or bad.

The ones that make an effort to get off for awhile are usually shocked when they realize how they were being affected.

I have never seen positive long term affects in anyone of them. Even though they all claim otherwise.

My 2 cents

Re: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic drugs

#60

Post by labrador »

cflewis wrote: post #9
labrador wrote: post #2

It's sad that the only way to legalize is to force people to see a qualified therapist and take patented psychedelics in order to benefit from the experience, but that's what the normies want. I've taken them with a therapist and it was meh because the doctor/patient relationship became weird under the influence. On the other hand I've had peak experiences by myself alone in a redwood forest on a fresh clear morning.

As a normie for whom ketamine treatment was a life changer, I can attest I would never ever have taken it without specialist supervision. And by specialist, I mean someone qualified, not some dude who has done plenty and has a K dealer. I would hazard there’s a large contingent of normies for whom the difference between supervised medical treatments that happen to be psychedelics and just the act of taking psychedeli…

I'm excited by what you describe and glad for it, but my sadness is that I could still be arrested by possessing mushrooms I picked for myself in a forest. I've been confronted by the authorities over this issue and believe me it is not a pleasant or healing experience.
Post reply on HN