11–20 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine the same risks as someone doing it for spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons
Since we’re speculating. I would imagine like just about all human experience, framing, priming and setting matter quite a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've got a question for you. Some people are very carefree with their use of psychoactive drugs. I'd say nearly everyone I've ever seen post online about trying mushrooms, LSD, etc. has done it for fun (or the experience) instead of spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons. What risks are they exposing themselves to? I'd hate to have a friend hurt themselves.
I would imagine the same risks as someone doing it for spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine the same risks as someone doing it for spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons
Since we’re speculating. I would imagine like just about all human experience, framing, priming and setting matter quite a lot.
I'm not sure where "intent" falls on that spectrum. The vast majority of my experiences have been "for fun" or "for the experience" at music festivals, concerts, or at home..
I have also taken ayahuasca and changa with a shaman. I was doing it "for the experience", but how is that different from someone else who was in the same room as me doing it an attempt to treat depression or anxiety? How would the risks be different?
Being an anxious or depressed person in general may increase risk factors of negative experience. This is still not related to intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article specifically refers not just to the cultural, but also to the legal and medical, thinking about psychedelics.
From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they medicines? Are they religious sacraments? I'm asking why we can't just answer this question with "They are psychedelics".
The entire point of categorizing them is to answer questions around:
- Should they be sold to take recreationally, like tobacco and alcohol? Should there be limits, like tobacco packaging and taxes, or rules similar to drunk driving?
- Or should they only be prescribed by doctors for mental health reasons, and not allowed recreationally or in religious ceremonies?
- Or should there be exceptions for certain religious ceremonies as well? Is this open to anyone (so Catholics can invent a ceremony) or only ones that have traditionally used it? Does it require licensing or authorization?
By categorizing them, we come to answers on these questions. If they fit into existing categories, we don't have to write many new laws except to state the categories. Or if we decide they don't fit into existing categories, we come up with a new category with its own set of answers and new laws to write, but part of this whole process is determining if that's necessary or not. And even if it is, the name of the label may not be "psychadelics" because we realize there's another set of non-psychadelic compounds that make sense to be included as well (e.g. empathogens like MDMA).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article specifically refers not just to the cultural, but also to the legal and medical, thinking about psychedelics.
From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they medicines? Are they religious sacraments? I'm asking why we can't just answer this question with "They are psychedelics".
Opioids are both recreational drugs and medicines.
Peyote is a recreational drug and religious sacrament.
This seems to ignore this fact.
I'm the author of the OP. Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. I also wanted to flag that if anyone is interested in some of the historical sources I cite here (such as the Jesuit talking about ayahuasca in the 18th century) I go into more detail in this journal article, which is open access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/a...
I'm the author of the OP. Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. I also wanted to flag that if anyone is interested in some of the historical sources I cite here (such as the Jesuit talking about ayahuasca in the 18th century) I go into more detail in this journal article, which is open access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/a...
I've got a question for you. Some people are very carefree with their use of psychoactive drugs. I'd say nearly everyone I've ever seen post online about trying mushrooms, LSD, etc. has done it for fun (or the experience) instead of spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons. What risks are they exposing themselves to? I'd hate to have a friend hurt themselves.
Have your friend research Erowid, a place where people have posted all possible sorts of information about mind-altering substances and their risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they medicines? Are they religious sacraments? I'm asking why we can't just answer this question with "They are psychedelics".
Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". The entire point of categorizing them is to answer questions around: - Should they be sold to take recreationally, like tobacco and alcohol? Should there be limits, like tobacco packaging and taxes, or rules similar to drunk driving? - Or should they only be prescribed by doctors for mental health reasons, and not allowed recreationally or in re…
Got it.
The point is that there are parts of us that are nearly accessible but our brain pathways need a little temporary loosening to strengthen some of those pathways, and psychedelics can do just that. They’re no panacea and it takes some experience to really gain the desired effects. But they can also just be enjoyable and they’re generally harmless, and it’s such a shame that they’re so stigmatized. I live in Oakland where they have decriminalized mushrooms and I’d like to see more decriminalization and ultimately legalization of mushrooms, LSD, and more.
I have a friend who has been doing legal ketamine therapy under the care of their therapist and it has helped them realize the ways in which they had been hanging on to old relationships which were holding them back. They’re finding out how to advocate for their own needs and they’re much happier for it.
We’ve got a crisis of unhappiness in this country and psychedelic therapies are absolutely a powerful tool we could use to help people find themselves.
Though I should say, probably because I just listened to a bunch of Noam Chomsky last night, that allowing broad swaths of the population to become more deeply in touch with their core needs threatens the status quo and current power dynamics. Honestly tho the structures of power are so solidified I’m not sure there’s really much actual risk to them from drug legalization.
I'm the author of the OP. Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. I also wanted to flag that if anyone is interested in some of the historical sources I cite here (such as the Jesuit talking about ayahuasca in the 18th century) I go into more detail in this journal article, which is open access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/a...
(LSD, mescaline, psilocybin) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756147/
(DMT) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9768567/
Ketamine and MDMA in contrast act through different pathways, the former being a dissociative anaesthetic acting via the NMDA receptor, and MDMA acting as much via dopamine receptors (though unlike other amphetamines, it also increases serotonin levels significantly). In popular use, these are so-called party drugs, and users often have no idea what they're taking (amphetamines and ketamine have been commonly sold as MDMA). I don't know why they've been lumped in with true psychedelics so frequently, but they're much more likely to be used recreationally as a replacement for alcohol, cocaine, etc.
Secondly, I think naive users should be aware that the true psychedelics are indeed dangerous if not treated with caution and respect, in the same sense that a motorcycle is. Drive a motorcycle too fast, bad things happen. Ingesting a large amount of psychedelics is similar. There are at least two particular dangers: immediately, a psychedelic overdose leaves the user ambulatory, so they can end up falling off cliffs, walking into traffic, and otherwise oblivious to dangerous situations. Secondly, some people have traumatic responses to very large doses of psychedelics that can take months to recover from (dissociation from reality, paranoia, etc.).
Still, I think these drugs can be immensely beneficial and people should be able to access them, much as people should be able to drive motorcycles. Perhaps one solution is that they should only be supplied in low dosage packaging (aka microdose amounts), such that people don't accidentally take large doses with the common unfortunate consequences. It's generally not a good idea to think of them as 'recreational' either, although many people are going to use them that way.