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

Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 209 posts

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#51

Post by crazygringo »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #27
crazygringo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". I don’t see how this is at all equivalent, given that “psychedelics” is a well-known term that can be found throughout decades of literature and that gibberish word you just made up has no attached meaning. If you’re equating random gibberish words to well-known words in literature then why does anything have any meaning? Why would a new word…

Because the term found through decades of literature isn't attached to legal categories, as I explained. It's the same way the term "drug" doesn't have much legal distinction, as I can't think of any legal commonalities spanning coffee, alcohol, Lipitor, cannabis, and heroin.

> Regardless, the laws... refer to specific chemicals by their name.

Not directly, very often. I doubt there's any specific law around Lipitor. Rather, drugs are grouped into categories and then the laws that permit or restrict them are mostly around those categories. Otherwise it would all be incredibly redundant (with exceptions for certain incredibly common drugs like alcohol). And the question here is how to categorize pyschadelics for legal purposes. And saying that we just call them psychadelics answers as many legal questions as saying we call them quooquaquams -- i.e. zero.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#52

Post by bozhark »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #48
coderintherye wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erowid is a great resource for these sorts of questions: https://erowid.org In fact they have an answer specific to your question on mushrooms: https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 In short, there is very little risk but whether or not someone should choose to take something should still be an informed choice. As far as risk to life, there's been few or no reported deaths purely due to ingesting psilocybin. How…

I think there's a lot more nuance than even that. Many psychedelics can trigger or exacerbate undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life.

Nah, they don’t cause undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life. Your “trip” is about 6-8 hours on a typical 3.5g dose.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#53

Post by bozhark »

colecut wrote: post #13
nemosaltat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we’re speculating. I would imagine like just about all human experience, framing, priming and setting matter quite a lot.

I agree that set and setting are huge factors in your psychedelics experience. I am 'speculating' but also do have a lot of experience in a variety of psychedelics. 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 ex…

Anxious or depressed people benefit from the experience more so than someone of speculatively sound mind.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#54

Post by bozhark »

renewiltord wrote: post #11
nemosaltat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we’re speculating. I would imagine like just about all human experience, framing, priming and setting matter quite a lot.

Given that, it seems like fun and pleasure are probably safer than medicinal.

Recreational will happen despite the restrictions. Why not tax it an apply the funds where socially needed?

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#55

Post by crazygringo »

bozhark wrote: post #49
crazygringo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is not licensing or authorization for religion. There is no application for approval required to be a “church”, ie: religion. Thinking there could be some “authority” for a religious institution’s practices is beyond measure.

There absolutely is both for tax purposes as well as for legal religious exemptions.

You can't just arbitrarily call your house a church to avoid paying property taxes. Government authorities have to make decisions all the time over what they deem to be a legitimate religious organization.

You obviously don't need a license or authorization to engage in otherwise legal religious practice, but as soon as you want legal exemptions, the government most certainly has a say. And the ritual consumption of otherwise illegal drugs couldn't be a more perfect example.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#57

Post by s1artibartfast »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #34
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #19

About two months ago I was at a festival with friends and a I had a psychedelic experience. What’s funny is earlier that day I had just told my friends “I know this sounds boring but I don’t like dancing that much.” Then while I was tripping I found that I was really enjoying the dancing. I felt like I was tapping in to a part of myself that had been dormant for a long time. I felt really confident and cool and sexy…

I totally agree that: > 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. But our blues haven't appeared from nowhere. We have significant cultural institutions that function primarily by dividing the populace against itself. Getting healthy likely means waking up to the fact that we're under attack and doing somethi…

>Getting healthy likely means waking up to the fact that we're under attack and doing something other than "self care" about it.

I pretty strongly disagree with this sentiment. The vast majority of misery in this country is self-inflicted from buying into a worldview and lifestyle that is inherently unfulfilling. The self care of conferring oneself from that mindset goes a long way.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#58

Post by emptysongglass »

otherme123 wrote: post #42
ImAnAmateur wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that gatekeeping? I'm trying to ask about what the risks are for people who take it at a party or a festival or at home for fun. >Psychedelics like psilocybin have a remarkably benign safety profile relative to other Schedule One drugs, not to mention very different social, cultural and historical roles. Lumping psychedelics together with powerful opioids like fentanyl misdirects resources, diminishes buy-in f…

There are some studies, and LSD is quite safe. Way safer than alcohol, for example. But being on a very tight Schedule I (like MDMA, also quite safe), worse even than morphine, good luck researching the risks. It's a catch 22: we don't know the risks, so we ban studies about the substance. We don't have studies about the risks, so we cannot unban it. When LSD was liberally consumed (1960's), there were almost no deat…

MDMA is not quite safe. We have decades of research to prove otherwise now. r/DrugNerds have been putting out study after study pointing this out. The protocols required and safety measures for how often to dose are not what folks are going to be doing generally. It is neurotoxic.

LSD on the other hand, yes quite safe (and even good) for your brain, unless you're prone to mental illness or currently suffering from mental illness.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#59

Post by kayodelycaon »

bozhark wrote: post #52
s1artibartfast wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a lot more nuance than even that. Many psychedelics can trigger or exacerbate undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life.

Nah, they don’t cause undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life. Your “trip” is about 6-8 hours on a typical 3.5g dose.

That’s not what they said, psychedelics can trigger preexisting vulnerabilities to mental disorders. A psychotic break can do enormous damage.

Re: Shifting views about psychedelic drugs require a new category for them

#60

Post by bigyikes »

jokoon wrote: post #56

Whatever you do please don't advocate to replace ssri with psychedelics. Listen to a doctor or psychiatrist, just like it was for vaccines. And avoid personal anecdote, they have little value compared to what a doctor says. Thanks in advance.

I agree with your main point, but the bit about anecdotes is tricky. We live in a society where research and information on these substances has been suppressed. As a result, anecdotes, to a large degree, are all we have.

This is gradually changing as we see new studies emerging with the relaxation of regulation. However, the picture the data paint is still quite limited compared to the wealth of personal experiences that have been recorded over the decades.

Post reply on HN