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

101–110 of 125 posts

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

#101

Post by _a_a_a_ »

LoganDark wrote: post #96
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acc…

Our positions are subtly different it seems. I certainly know of some people who I'm sure psychedelics or other drugs would assist greatly, but to me the decision has to be that person's always. To say "I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics" unnerves me because it implies (or I read into it) that your opinion matters in their domain of being able to choose, as adults. To me, even to think that way seems dangerous because the next step is trying to impose it.

I'm not saying that you are, it's just given my position that person's choices must be utterly their own[1], that's how it sounded to me. It would simply not cross my mind to think like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[1] of course, bounded by the damage they can do to other people, that's a very different matter

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

#102

Post by _a_a_a_ »

giantg2 wrote: post #99
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm talking about psychedelics used recreationally, although I know from personal experience how valuable they can be in sorting out personal internal problems. Also, a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin.

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

#103

Post by _a_a_a_ »

giantg2 wrote: post #98
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> , 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…

Rereading it I agree, I misunderstood it. I guess this bit got me though "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". Taken recreationally, why should you need to take them for any other reason then you enjoy them? With care and moderation of course.

By the way I love this bit (commenting on the article, not what you said).

"Why wasn’t there a global vogue for eating San Pedro cacti or tripping on morning glory seeds in the same era when global consumers embraced so many other novel drugs?"

Try it and find out, just keep a bucket nearby.

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

#104

Post by LoganDark »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #101
LoganDark wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 acc…

Our positions are subtly different it seems. I certainly know of some people who I'm sure psychedelics or other drugs would assist greatly, but to me the decision has to be that person's always. To say "I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics" unnerves me because it implies (or I read into it) that your opinion matters in their domain of being able to choose, as adults . To me, even to…

> the decision has to be that person's always

I went to great lengths to try to clarify that we are specifically saying there is only overlap because we don't want people to try psychedelics before they are ready. "ready" means when they choose that they want to try it.

Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote the second-last comment of ours, that was Logan, but I highly doubt he would want to choose for anyone, either.

-Emily

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

#105

Post by LoganDark »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #102
giantg2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm talking about psychedelics used recreationally, although I know from personal experience how valuable they can be in sorting out personal internal problems. Also, a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin.

Yet a psychedelics overdose can absolutely kill you, even if you ordered something safe* (like LSD) and it turned out to be something dangerous like NBOMe instead. Which happens because these drugs haven't been legalized yet, so you can't buy them from known, vetted sources - no sources on the dark web are known or vetted.

*there have currently been no known deaths from LSD overdoses, even for people who took tens of milligrams (which is tens of thousands of times higher than a normal recreational dose), but there are still plenty of deaths from irresponsible actions while on LSD, and plenty more cases of people surviving but still getting absolutely fucked mentally.

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

#106

Post by soligern »

DirkH wrote: post #97
soligern wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 overwhe…

You’re not getting it, either genuinely or in a more dissembling way to justify your point. Sure alcohol will make you “lose your wallet” but it’s not fundamentally changing your perspectives/outlook on life significantly unless you abuse it for very long. Nicotine by itself is pretty much entirely harmless beside second tier effects from having a very strong addictive component.

A person is rarely “broken” by moderate alcohol use. That’s explicitly not true of psychedelics.

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

#107

Post by Jarwain »

aliasxneo wrote: post #30
brotchie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 1st psychedelic experience “damn, everyone should try this”. After further experience, no longer a huge proponent. A new user has to make a mental commitment that they will be changed and they themselves take responsibility for that and own the positives and negatives and can’t externalize that blame, otherwise they’re going to have a bad reality going forwards. My first experience was late 30s, I don’t know wh…

> A bad trip does equip you with a lot of confidence and resilience in yourself and your mental strength to almost get through anything Just out of curiosity, do you mean the person's self-confidence may dramatically improve with use? The only reason is because I had a recent co-worker who was laid off after taking psychedelics for a decent period of time. He effectively stopped contributing to the team and started m…

Different kinds of "confidence" both of which can occur.

What you describe is a more manic "the world is centered on me" kind of egotistical confidence.

The one the OP describes is more of a "I survived everest so I can surmount this challenge" kind of confidence.

I'd argue the latter is more common in healthy use. The former arises from abuse. Either abuse of frequency, or not really taking care of yourself properly before/after a trip (like pulling an all-nighter or similar silliness). It sounds like your coworker was taking it with some regularity, potentially to perpetuate that sorta manic state.

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

#108

Post by _a_a_a_ »

LoganDark wrote: post #105
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about psychedelics used recreationally, although I know from personal experience how valuable they can be in sorting out personal internal problems. Also, a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin.

Yet a psychedelics overdose can absolutely kill you, even if you ordered something safe* (like LSD) and it turned out to be something dangerous like NBOMe instead. Which happens because these drugs haven't been legalized yet, so you can't buy them from known, vetted sources - no sources on the dark web are known or vetted. *there have currently been no known deaths from LSD overdoses, even for people who took tens of…

I said "a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin". Deficiency, I said. So why are you talking about overdose.

Obviously an overdose of anything will kill you, including water, so what was your point.

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

#109

Post by _a_a_a_ »

LoganDark wrote: post #104
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our positions are subtly different it seems. I certainly know of some people who I'm sure psychedelics or other drugs would assist greatly, but to me the decision has to be that person's always. To say "I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics" unnerves me because it implies (or I read into it) that your opinion matters in their domain of being able to choose, as adults . To me, even to…

> the decision has to be that person's always I went to great lengths to try to clarify that we are specifically saying there is only overlap because we don't want people to try psychedelics before they are ready. "ready" means when they choose that they want to try it. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote the second-last comment of ours, that was Logan, but I highly doubt he would want to choose for anyone, e…

Subtleties in people's positions can be difficult to interpret in text. I misunderstood yours, that's all! We seem to be in complete agreement.

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

#110

Post by LoganDark »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #108
LoganDark wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet a psychedelics overdose can absolutely kill you, even if you ordered something safe* (like LSD) and it turned out to be something dangerous like NBOMe instead. Which happens because these drugs haven't been legalized yet, so you can't buy them from known, vetted sources - no sources on the dark web are known or vetted. *there have currently been no known deaths from LSD overdoses, even for people who took tens of…

I said "a psychedelics deficiency won't kill you unlike insulin". Deficiency, I said. So why are you talking about overdose. Obviously an overdose of anything will kill you, including water, so what was your point.

> Deficiency, I said. So why are you talking about overdose.

...I was trying to add to your point because you were basically saying something along the lines of "there is no condition that requires someone to take psychedelics" and I wanted to add "plus taking psychedelics can be risky because it's easy to overdose" (which it absolutely is if you don't get the product you ordered, which is unfortunately quite common).

I'm so dumbfounded by this argument I can't even explain what I find wrong with it, sorry.

Post reply on HN