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

Why did it take psychedelics so long to become popular?

resobscura.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

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

#91

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

NeuNeurosis wrote: post #62
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #11

I have been partaking in them for the majority of my adult life. Looking at this data I’m surprised the number is not higher - 8%. My own impression is that it’s taking so long because even people familiar with them, like me, don’t actually reach for them all that often. They’re not habit forming. And talking about psychedelic experiences is a bit like talking about your dreams - it’s boring and personal.

So you mention that its "like talking about dreams - it's boring and personal", why do you describe it like that? Are you not interested in others inner lives? Do you think people aren't interested in your own inner life? I have always had the opposite experience that peoples journeys from dreams, trips, spiritual experiences are the most profoundly interesting experiences someone can share with me. I have seen your…

Oh no I didn’t mean it like that. Inner life and personal stuff is absolutely wonderful to talk about. It’s just something that diminishes in value the further I go past the closest people in my life.

So yeah, actually, I don’t think most people are truly interested or stand to benefit from knowing about my stuff. Unless I’m particularly interested in their stuff and the feeling is mutual.

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

#92

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

encoderer wrote: post #45
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #11

I have been partaking in them for the majority of my adult life. Looking at this data I’m surprised the number is not higher - 8%. My own impression is that it’s taking so long because even people familiar with them, like me, don’t actually reach for them all that often. They’re not habit forming. And talking about psychedelic experiences is a bit like talking about your dreams - it’s boring and personal.

A couple times a year my wife and I take LSD together and have hours of absolutely mind-altering sex and conversation. 10/10 would advise everybody to try them in a long marriage.

Ha! I will seriously keep this one in mind

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

#93

Post by TaylorAlexander »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21

Popular? I can count on one hand the number of people IRL who have admitted to taking psychedelics. They don't seem popular, Taylor Swift is popular.

As a late 30’s trans woman working in tech and living in Oakland all of my friends do psychedelics.

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

#95

Post by throwawa14223 »

fknorangesite wrote: post #85
hcks wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this being downvoted? Psychedelic users keep rambling about their substances alleged wonders but in real life every “acid enthusiast” I met is heavily dysfunctional in some way.

> Why is this being downvoted? Because there aren't only downsides. > every “acid enthusiast” I met is heavily dysfunctional in some way. This is just the Toupée Fallacy, though: if you met a perfectly functional "acid enthusiast", how would you even know?

I may have been unfair with the word 'only'. I am highly skeptical that the set of things that cause hallucinations contains benefits compared to not hallucinating for the person with no obvious need like say PTSD.

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

#96

Post by LoganDark »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #86
LoganDark wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that would tend to be evidence that they might be a good thing I had written a super long comment weighing the pros and cons of it but lost it because of a keyboard shortcut typo. In hindsight that's probably for the better... I've used LSD about four times and don't regret anything, except for maybe making one of my friends feel really bad by having a breakdown in voice chat... the trip was still worth it in my op…

I strongly incline towards legalisation but I want a proper discussion based on evidence with those who hold a different viewpoint that I can learn from and bounced my ideas off, not simply attempt to shut down the discussion as happens here by some people, by any means they can. > I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it That may well be true but- > I hold the opinion that most people are ri…

> it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me

I'm not Logan, but I can't really see how you came to that conclusion - I'll try to explain.

We do think that people who choose not to take the risk of psychedelics are justified in their decision. Even for individuals where psychedelic use could be beneficial, we think it's better for them to wait until the risk is acceptable to them - which may or may not happen.

In other words, we think the Venn diagram of "people who are justified in their decision not to take psychedelics right now" and "people who could benefit from psychedelic use" has some overlap, we just don't know how much. We also think that a lot of the people who already use psychedelics or intend to use them can benefit, just like we also recognize that plenty of other users may not benefit for one reason or another.

I apologize on Logan's behalf if the original comment was unclear.

-Emily (see HN profile for details)

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

#97

Post by DirkH »

soligern wrote: post #71
DirkH wrote: 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.

Different people can have pretty different experiences with different drugs.

Just because you have an alcohol tolerance (assuming you do) doesn't mean others do. Just thinking of myself, I'm always surprised how little it takes for alcohol to alter my psche to the point that I can't find my wallet and am speaking in tongues because I'm a huge lightweight. For some it even represents an existential risk due to overwhelming dependence. Also, if forming an difficult-to-break addiction to alcohol (super common) isn't something messing with your psyche long-term you and I have drastically different views of what constitutes "messing with your psyche."

Also I call MASSIVE BS on nicotine not doing anything significantly to the mind. Good lord, have you ever Googles "What Nicotine does to your mind" and tried reading some papers? Cognitive decline, dependence (classified as highly addictive which is a direct long-term change to your brain. How can anyone argue this isn't a significant change to your mind?), dementia, brain volume decrease, memory+attention impairment... I could go on.

What Nicotone doesn't do is cause a significant change in people's behaviour that is immediately apparent that makes them want to act in ways that are socially stigmatized - like get all cuddly... Or hug a tree... or act like a slug and laugh hysterically.... all which psychedelics tend to induce.

Again, social stigma attached to certain behaviour is the primary culprit. These are usually harmless behaviours, even if annoying.

None of which matters because as the scientific literature will attest and what I as someone who used to be strongly anti-drug will also say is:

"Despite the contrary perception of much of the public, psychedelic drugs are not addictive and are physiologically safe.[20][21][10] As of 2016, there have been no known deaths due to overdose of LSD, psilocybin, or mescaline."

If the things called Nicotine and alcohol that might fucking kill me and destroy my brain to the point I need state funds to get me rehabilitated if I'm not careful are fully legal for recreation, why in the name of all that is evidence-based do we make the thing with ZERO documented deaths illegal?

Because it is socially, culturally and politically stigmatized completely independently of its relatively low negative health impacts. Ergo, it either stays illegal or we don't use it.

I'll even end with a fresh example: in a recent lecture my friend's neuroscience prof went through the negative proven health outcomes of various drugs and concluded there really is no health-related reason for psychedelics to be illegal. At all.

You know what happened next? Some undergrads argued with the professor. Not with peer-reviewed counter-evidence or asking clarifying questions no. They responded with vehement confidence that the professor "must be wrong" and even got angry with him with complaints apparently filed. I couldn't believe it. I still struggle to.

All he did was dare to publicly break the taboo of even implicitly suggesting psychedelics should be legal recreationally because it isn't a big deal.

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

#98

Post by giantg2 »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #73
giantg2 wrote: 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…

I'm not sure how you can read my entire comment and think it resembles anti-drug talk (in the colloquial sense). I would most closely classify it as a warning about pharma in general - both the fads that pop up and the overmarketing that companies like to do (which also affects how people talk about it).

I'm not talking about the discussion on HN specifically. I'm also talking about all the startups trying to market psychedelics for a bunch of different reasons. When the article is about how psychedelics are "popular" now, but only about 8% of the population has ever used them, then it feels similar - unsupported/biased optimism or positivity on psychedelics.

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

#99

Post by giantg2 »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #86
LoganDark wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that would tend to be evidence that they might be a good thing I had written a super long comment weighing the pros and cons of it but lost it because of a keyboard shortcut typo. In hindsight that's probably for the better... I've used LSD about four times and don't regret anything, except for maybe making one of my friends feel really bad by having a breakdown in voice chat... the trip was still worth it in my op…

I strongly incline towards legalisation but I want a proper discussion based on evidence with those who hold a different viewpoint that I can learn from and bounced my ideas off, not simply attempt to shut down the discussion as happens here by some people, by any means they can. > I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it That may well be true but- > I hold the opinion that most people are ri…

It's like any other pharma - its only beneficial to a subgroup who have a condition it can treat. Here's an example. Millions of people benefit from taking insulin. Yet most people are right in not taking insulin.
Post reply on HN