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

71–80 of 209 posts

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

#71

Post by EdwardDiego »

ttctciyf wrote: post #5
benbreen wrote: post #2

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 curious why you're dissatisfied with the organically arrived at "folk taxonomic" category: psychedelics . Are you looking for a new classification in law?

In my country, LSD, mescaline, magic mushrooms, and DMT, are class A controlled substances, same as methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and fentanyl.

Class A being drugs that pose a "very high risk of harm". Which, you know, if I could post comments on our legislation, I'd be adding a bunch of "[citation needed]"s in that list of substances that apparently have a very high risk of harm.

And like other jurisdictions, there's some real bloody oddities in the law in this area.

E.g., a man was charged for importing 18kg of DMT when he ordered 18kg of Mimosa tenuiflora root bark online, as the bark isn't explicitly handled in law as a prohibited plant like Coca leaf (class C, far lower severity of sentencing) and Papaver somniferum (class B), so it falls through to the default of "any substance containing a class A controlled substance is also class A".

So he could get life in prison, like he imported 18kg of fentanyl.

Hopefully the sentencing judge is reasonable, but the fact that he's facing the same penalty for 18kg of bark that contains about 1 - 2% DMT as you would for importing enough fentanyl to kill 9 million people shows that our law is a bit of an ass.

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

#72

Post by s1artibartfast »

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.

I would recommend reading up on persistent disassociative personality disorders and persistent visual artifacts from psychedelics. Both are rare but well documented side effects of psychedelic usage.

I personally know someone who has suffered visual distortions post trip for 20 years and counting at this point.

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

#73

Post by napsec »

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've always been a very verbal person but the first time I tried mushrooms I found I wasn't able to describe my experience in words and I really wanted to draw it. Up until that point in my life I had thought of words as being the de facto correct way to convey thoughts, but that experience really made me understand that words were just my way of conveying thoughts, and there really isn't a correct one. It was absolutely a transformative experience for me and made me appreciate art, all forms of it, in a deeper way.

Interestingly enough though that first experience with psychedelics was the only one I actually found transformative. I did mushrooms maybe half a dozen more times afterwards and experimented with a few other drugs including LSD and MDMA and I never really felt like any of those trips gave me any deeper insights or changed the way I viewed things.

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

#74

Post by ImAnAmateur »

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…

>Answered by murple in 2001

I think I may have read this exact post 10+ years ago. Reminds me of old homes that have since been sold. What links to this Q&A?

This is an example of some of the better sources of info on that site: https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml

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

#75

Post by newacct3 »

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…

It sounds like you were insecure about certain things like dating and got over it via psychedelics

I mean if that works, sure. But what happens in the future if you latch onto some other insecurity? Will you just take a psychedelic again? Is that going to actually fix the problem?

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

#76

Post by shwaj »

crazygringo wrote: post #51
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

Why can’t “psychedelics” be the name for the category?

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

#77

Post by s1artibartfast »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #70
s1artibartfast wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 healt…

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

That's a complex question and I probably don't have the perfect answer. If I were to take a stab at it I would say the top causes are consumerism, politics, and trained helplessness are at the top of the list.

As for who's selling it; basiclly everyone is. Individuals and companies want you to think that whatever they are selling will make you happy. Politicians want you to think you need them to do good in the world. Your neighbors want you to be impressed with their good values and status.

In my experience and opinion, once people escape, the behavior changes in that they start actually doing things that make them happy, opposed to things that they are told should make them happy. This can take an infinite number of forms. It might mean going out and helping your neighbors instead of watching political news. It might be going for a walk instead of watching Netflix. It might mean reading a book instead of browsing twitter.

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

#78

Post by seabird »

shwaj wrote: post #76
crazygringo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Why can’t “psychedelics” be the name for the category?

Because that's not how controlled substances are grouped and regulated, and for good reason.

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

#79

Post by p0pcult »

slibhb wrote: post #45
knightofmars wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are implying a 1:1 relationship with good experiences and bad experiences. That's not how drugs work. It is important to know the actual reality of this type of ratio so that individuals who are looking to use a drug of this nature can be well informed.

No, I'm positing a 1:1 relationship between "holy shit I am a new person" in a good way and "holy shit I am a new person" in a bad way. That's not the same as good/bad experiences.

[dead]

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

#80

Post by p0pcult »

jasonhansel wrote: post #68
bigyikes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]
Post reply on HN