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

61–70 of 209 posts

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

#61

Post by colecut »

bozhark wrote: post #53
colecut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think by the nature of their position, they have more to potentially benefit.

But it's totally possible for an anxious person to end up worse.

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

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crazygringo wrote: post #14
ttctciyf wrote: post #10

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…

Is there a downside to totally deregulating them?

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

#63

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crazygringo wrote: post #14
ttctciyf wrote: post #10

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…

Is there a downside to deregulating them? (Like supplements.)

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

#64

Post by nemo44x »

golergka wrote: post #41
chiefalchemist wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. While I agree with everything else you said, this bit concerns me. I'm certainly in favor of using these tools to help anyone who needs help. But maybe we should start with a mirror, and collectively ask, "Why are so many so unhappy?" These psychedelics can help res…

> But maybe we should start with a mirror, and collectively ask, "Why are so many so unhappy?" Because that's the default.. People haven't evolved to be happy; we have evolved to barely survive to have kids and care for them so that a few become adults. Being happy is the exception, you should ask how anyone manages that.

I sort of agree with this. We’ve been marketed to that we should be happy and that buying will make us happy. These will bring pleasure but they don’t create meaningful happiness. As if pleasure and happiness are the same thing. But they are often conflated.

I can’t tell or teach people “how to be happy”. I’m not even sure that’s possible or if it’s something everyone can do or would really want to. But I do know that being hooked on a treadmill of pleasurable experiences isn’t it.

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

#65

Post by School-Cotton »

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…

Sadly, “LSD is safe” doesn’t mean “things sold as LSD and that feel similar to LSD are safe”. Lots of research chemical LSD analogues feel very similar to LSD but are dangerous. Just wanted to leave that disclaimer in case anyone on the fence about trying it reads this. Be careful.

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

#66

Post by newacct3 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #38
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…

> 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. While I agree with everything else you said, this bit concerns me. I'm certainly in favor of using these tools to help anyone who needs help. But maybe we should start with a mirror, and collectively ask, "Why are so many so unhappy?" These psychedelics can help res…

> But maybe we should start with a mirror, and collectively ask, "Why are so many so unhappy?"

How is this even supposed to be determined? It isn't like you can test for happiness like you test a pool for Ph levels. Assuming we can is optimistic

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

#67

Post by jasonhansel »

coderintherye wrote: post #36
ImAnAmateur wrote: post #4

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.

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…

They are not doctors. I would not trust that website as a source of medical advice.

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

#68

Post by jasonhansel »

bigyikes wrote: post #60
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…

The fact that you only have anecdotes doesn't make those anecdotes more reliable.

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

#69

Post by newacct3 »

nemo44x wrote: post #64
golergka wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But maybe we should start with a mirror, and collectively ask, "Why are so many so unhappy?" Because that's the default.. People haven't evolved to be happy; we have evolved to barely survive to have kids and care for them so that a few become adults. Being happy is the exception, you should ask how anyone manages that.

I sort of agree with this. We’ve been marketed to that we should be happy and that buying will make us happy. These will bring pleasure but they don’t create meaningful happiness. As if pleasure and happiness are the same thing. But they are often conflated. I can’t tell or teach people “how to be happy”. I’m not even sure that’s possible or if it’s something everyone can do or would really want to. But I do know tha…

> We’ve been marketed to that we should be happy and that buying will make us happy.

Seems like the entirely idea of happiness has been semiotically highjacked by marketing, morality, other things

When I mentally picture "happiness", all I really see is a bunch of behaviors that are frequently depicted as desirable in the aggregate by media and others

The Buddhists are a lot more sane about this than we are. Imo there's so much residue around the word "happiness", in order to achieve a sense of peace it's better to just throw it out and take each day at a time

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

#70

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #57
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok but who is selling that worldview, and how does our behavior change when we stop buying into it?

Being bought in means that we're afraid to talk to our families or neighbors about certain topics for fear of things getting too spicy in one way or another, it keeps us divided. Apply self care (psychedelic assisted or otherwise) for long enough that we're not afraid anymore and maybe you've achieved your mental health goals, but now you're having the kind of conversations that change things.

Post reply on HN