Live data from Hacker News

Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

resobscura.substack.com

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#71
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall usage in the population is low because psychedelics are unpredictable. They can have long term effects on the human psyche and there is a correctly ingrained notion in society that they are dangerous to a stable mindset.

No, the overall usage is low because they are tabooed socially. Alcohol and nicotine are more dangerous and yet if you replace the taboo with widespread societal normalization or even nudge far enough that not doing alcohol is taboo then you see widespread rampant usage - and in some countries medical systems become strained. I call bullshit on anyone saying societies are rational enough to identify which substances…

You have to really abuse alcohol for it to mess with your psyche. Nicotine is damaging physically but does nothing significant to the mind. Contrast that with one terrible trip that could very well happen on your first time trying psychedelics.

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#72
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the overall usage is low because they are tabooed socially. Alcohol and nicotine are more dangerous and yet if you replace the taboo with widespread societal normalization or even nudge far enough that not doing alcohol is taboo then you see widespread rampant usage - and in some countries medical systems become strained. I call bullshit on anyone saying societies are rational enough to identify which substances…

You have to really abuse alcohol for it to mess with your psyche. Nicotine is damaging physically but does nothing significant to the mind. Contrast that with one terrible trip that could very well happen on your first time trying psychedelics.

[deleted]

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#73
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall usage in the population is low because psychedelics are unpredictable. They can have long term effects on the human psyche and there is a correctly ingrained notion in society that they are dangerous to a stable mindset.

I pretty much agree. Even if we accept that psychedelics are medicinal, there's still the paradigm that you only take medication when you are sick, and it has to be the right medication too. I do think they can help some people, but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects.

> , but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects

In every HN drug discussion someone always pops up with some claim like this "curing basically everything" and then when askeded to justify it, they go quiet. Informative discussion this isn't, it resembles an anti-drugs agenda being pushed (which in my mind is just as stupid as a pro-drugs agenda).

So, can you justify this? Perhaps you can point out 3 comments below which claims they cure everything.

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#74
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are generally recognized as side effects?

This is something that can be googled, but personally Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD) is the one keeping me from ever trying them.

That's a new one to me, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...

In a 2010 study of psychedelic users, 23.9%[verification needed] reported constant HPPD-like effects, though only 4.2% considered seeking treatment due to the severity.[58] In a 2022 double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 142 subjects received LSD, psilocybin, or both, reported no cases of HPPD, and up to 9.2% of the subjects had flashbacks which were "transient, mostly experienced as benign and did not impair daily life".[

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#76
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I get a source on that last claim? The only real long term dangers of psychedelics would be impaired driving while under the influence (obviously) and increased likelyhood of psychosis if you were already predisposed to schizophrenia or bipolar. "Dangerous to a stable mindset" what does that even mean? Is that supposed to sound scientific?

Is it not? Psychedelics are being tested for treating PTSD. What is chronic PTSD other than a stable mindset? The point of psychedelic treatment being to destabilize an unwanted mindset.

PTSD is anything but stable. It's highly volatile and extremely unpredictable day-to-day, hour-to-hour.

It's not only "unstable" matching the classic example of a small force on an inverted pendulum will topple it over in dramatic fashion, but it's also "chaotic" -- "exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions, which can often lead to seemingly random or unpredictable behavior over time, despite a system's deterministic nature."

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#77
The only psychedelic I've found valuable/insightful was mdma, and I've done many psychedelics. LSD, mushrooms, etc are kind of entertaining, but I've never really had a 'mind expanding' experience with them. I found them too emotionally exhausting to really find them worth continuing.

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#78
post #34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pretty much agree. Even if we accept that psychedelics are medicinal, there's still the paradigm that you only take medication when you are sick, and it has to be the right medication too. I do think they can help some people, but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects.

What are generally recognized as side effects?

Take shrooms for example

Now, I’ve never seen any issues with microdoses and would have no problem suggesting such to anybody. In fact I’m a big fan of broadly studying and implementing them as medicine. But what I’ve unfortunately noticed as you go up into high doses (determining actual psilocybin is difficult per mass, but this is a decent reference: https://healingmaps.com/shrooms-dosage-information-guide/) you eventually start seeing cases of… well I’m not sure exactly what you call it other than a psychotic break or injury.

Basically you know how some people seem to have various mental chains broken and are now able to live and enjoy life better because of their trip? The opposite can also happen.

One victim was a long time user that went from gradually from a medium to high dose. Then on the next move up in dose they got fucked. Basically described it as essentially having their connection to everything good in the world severed, feeling like a dead ghost trapped in a corpse, incapable of happiness or love or connection with reality. They could function and appear normal, but were in a constant sort of experiential agony. This wasn’t just a bad trip, this was their daily life for several months. After seeing doctors and trying various things to fix it, they committed suicide.

It doesn’t matter how long one has used lower doses, or how gradually one eases into it, a very small portion of the population seems to get severely injured. For the sake of example, even if such an occurrence is 1 in 10,000 or 100,000 that’d still be unacceptably high to broadly recommend a dose with that level of risk factor for the sake of having a trip or healing. But that’s also more than low enough for someone to truthfully believe and say “dude that’s not a thing no one I know has ever had an issue”

Edit: turns out it has a name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_perc...

There are also many cases that occur where someone under the influence can become temporarily dangerous to themselves and others. Basically the idea of say attacking themselves or others or some other dangerous activity enters their head, but there’s no longer the voice that immediately say “nah”, and instead they just go with it. No malicious intent, it’s just impulse with no filter, like water flowing downhill. This is much more common in comparison to full on breaks, but usually isn’t a huge deal as the person is subdued by friends and no one really broadcasts such an event, but occasionally injury and even deaths do happen.

Once you get past low doses, you’re playing chemical roulette. There’s an extremely high chance of winning, but losing does happen.

The “psychonaut community” being what it is, is loathe to admit these types of problems exist, and will generally be dismissive or hostile and accusatory if it’s brought up.

There’s also the issue of their being no good way to get hard data on this either, and determine if there are other risk factors involved that would allow certain people to know they have a hidden life destroying landmine and to stay the hell away from experimenting.

There may possibly be more subtle medically negative effects that could show up with chronic use, but I can’t really speak to that.

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#79
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to try it because of risk to my mental health. The 40+ year old psychedelic enthusiasts I know are just not all there. Plus it can trigger schizophrenia, etc.

Same - and this isn't discussed enough in Tech circles. I know a girl who's done acid 100 times, and she's pretty "off." Kind of like a record left in the sun for a bit. She's not dumb or anything, just a little sideways. Not in a good way either - in a "can't hold a job or relationship together" way.

Did you know her before she did acid, and if so, what exactly changed about her?

Re: Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

#80
post #73
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pretty much agree. Even if we accept that psychedelics are medicinal, there's still the paradigm that you only take medication when you are sick, and it has to be the right medication too. I do think they can help some people, but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects.

> , but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects In every HN drug discussion someone always pops up with some claim like this "curing basically everything" and then when askeded to justify it, they go quiet. Informative discussion this isn't, it resembles an anti-drugs agenda being pushed (which in my mind is just as stupid as a pro-dr…

Usually this is hyperbole, I doubt that many people believe psychedelics are actually a cure-all. It's more like they just get hyped up a lot, because people who have been through the experience can tend to think very highly of it.
Post reply on HN