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

191–200 of 200 posts

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

#191

Post by denton-scratch »

Gatsky wrote: post #128
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.

These drugs clearly have risks. I know a case who took LSD and amputated his genitals during the trip (heard this first hand from the urologist who reattached said genitals). Sure, many or even most people will be fine, but some clearly won’t. Sure, he has a mental illness and took too much and was alone, but that’s exactly the issue. Do you have any suggestions how to make these drugs broadly safe without giving in…

I'm in favour of drug decriminalisation. And I had good experiences with LSD; but for many years, my attitude was that LSD specifically should remain illegal, because for people who are prone to schizophrenia-like illnesses, even if they've never before shown symptoms, LSD can provoke an extreme episode.

I suspect that psychedelics maybe appeal particularly to people who are psychiatrically marginal. In my youth I tripped a lot, and a surprising proportion of the people I knew turned out to be schizophrenic or bipolar. But maybe it's just that I found the company of people who were psychiatrically marginal engaging...

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

#192

Post by LocalH »

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…

You could say... missing the mycelium from the flowers

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

#193

Post by LocalH »

nicoburns wrote: post #136
treeman79 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 otherwi…

You won’t see benefits if your sample only includes addicts! But some people’s drug habits are objectively not addiction. For example, someone who takes LSD 3 or 4 times a year, with months in between. It seems quite plausible to me that this could be beneficial to them whereas someone taking it say twice a week would see detrimental effects.

Taking it twice a week is a waste of a dose, unless one is microdosing or threshold dosing (where tolerance, in my experience, doesn't quite kick in as hard).

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

#194

Post by LocalH »

denton-scratch wrote: post #190
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sure. Yeah I've done all that, including growing them. And I always take them on an empty stomach. The thing is that shrooms bring up a lot of deep emotions for me which can be hard to handle. I don't have much experience with LSD but that trip was more cerebral and easier to deal with than the emotional roller coaster of shroom trips I've had. Maybe it was just the dosage, I don't know.

I'm sure your LSD dose must have been low. A good dose of LSD creates the most powerful experience I've ever had, and it's not really controllable. Shrooms are much more gentle; it's much easier to "look away" from the experience.

N,N-DMT is my preferred psychedelic when my intent is a strong, "reset" trip. It's given me the absolute highest amount of focus control and seems to diminish the effects of my dopamine deficiency almost entirely for the better part of a couple of months, and the positive effects are still very slow to fade from there. Even today, three years after my last deep DMT trip, I find I still pull personal philosophy from it that guide me in the direction of kindness and warmth towards others.

Especially for such a short duration in consensus time (my trip was about 45 minutes, a bit on the long side but again I smoked a cigarette directly before consuming DMT, which I understand has MAOI properties and thus can extend the duration of DMT), DMT is one of the most powerful substances known to mankind. Perhaps 5-MeO-DMT might be more powerful, but there is physical risk involved there in such a way that isn't present with N,N-DMT.

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

#195

Post by LordDragonfang »

Gatsky wrote: post #128
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.

These drugs clearly have risks. I know a case who took LSD and amputated his genitals during the trip (heard this first hand from the urologist who reattached said genitals). Sure, many or even most people will be fine, but some clearly won’t. Sure, he has a mental illness and took too much and was alone, but that’s exactly the issue. Do you have any suggestions how to make these drugs broadly safe without giving in…

How many thousands of cases of alcohol-related injury are there in ERs every day? If we're pointing fingers at drugs where the consequences include self-inflicted physical harm, there's a much more relevant drug that society has firmly decided is fine to legalize, and your single anecdote doesn't change that.

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

#196

Post by kodah »

colinmhayes wrote: post #175
mysore wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mdma is generally even more powerful for healing trauma. Or rather MDMA can accelerate healing by released "stored unprocessed memories" LSD can help you by showing you a possibility of whats possible by dissolving the prision of identity and seeing the world from a non-local perspective.

I’ll second this. LSD provides a huge paradigm shift in a way mdma absolutely doesn’t, but if you already know your trauma causes irrational emotions or ones you’d prefer to go away mdma is where to look. Personally LSD was an eye opening experience, but mdma is the only trip I’ve taken that I can say lead to changes in my perception that I still have to this day.

My experience was a little different. I knew my traumas, I had really already reckoned with them - I just needed to let them go, but that hinged on some things that I was having trouble accepting at a deeper level. LSD let me do that. My MDMA experience was fun, but I think that's what MDMA did for me - it taught me what it was like to have fun again, maybe even to feel truly happy and content with the world again.

These things are less rigid as people put in text, I think. At a certain level of LSD it's very like MDMA, but past that level it's very different.

Between LSD and mushrooms, I'll quote one of my friends, "LSD puts you in the drivers seat; mushrooms make you a passenger."

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

#197

Post by cannaceo »

temp0826 wrote: post #131
cannaceo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ayahuasca, then MDMA.

Would not recommend ayahuasca to someone with suicidal thoughts or a history of self-harm. Especially if they have not done any prior work/therapy as to the cause. (Disclaimer, not a doctor or any kind of therapist, but have drank it myself 150+ times and worked at an ayahuasca retreat where I've seen this situation). Ketamine seems to be fast-acting for depression. A proper MDMA session with a therapist and follow u…

What about ayahuasca do you see as risky for someone with suicidal thoughts or a history of self-harm? Why does that risk not apply to these other compounds?

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

#198

Post by yndoendo »

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…

Good book about the subject matter is [0] How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence by Michael Pollan.

Set and setting are what create the good or bad experience. The therapist prepares the person for the journey while walking them out of any bad paths while on the journey. Layout and design of where the journey takes places must be soothing and relaxing.

Fun fact. Fungi growing closer to humans has higher potency in psilocybin than ones growing deeper in nature.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36613747-how-to-change-y...

Edit: wording

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

#199

Post by zionic »

sianemo wrote: post #54
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.

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 pursu…

I can’t really give you a fair shake without meeting you, but I can say that I appreciate your reply.

As a real psych user, you should accept that your post clearly has the subtext:

“I have everything most people want, so you’re wrong”

I, too, have everything most people “want”. Maybe we’re equally well off, maybe we’re not. I’ve still never met anyone on-level who indulges in this habit that kept it, and you should know that at our level it’s about keeping it not having it, at least for very long.

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

#200

Post by Gatsky »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #195
Gatsky wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These drugs clearly have risks. I know a case who took LSD and amputated his genitals during the trip (heard this first hand from the urologist who reattached said genitals). Sure, many or even most people will be fine, but some clearly won’t. Sure, he has a mental illness and took too much and was alone, but that’s exactly the issue. Do you have any suggestions how to make these drugs broadly safe without giving in…

How many thousands of cases of alcohol-related injury are there in ERs every day ? If we're pointing fingers at drugs where the consequences include self-inflicted physical harm, there's a much more relevant drug that society has firmly decided is fine to legalize, and your single anecdote doesn't change that.

Yes I agree. But this doesn't justify blithely adding another potentially risky agent to the mix.
Post reply on HN