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

181–190 of 209 posts

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

#181

Post by standardUser »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #160
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.

The default is resorting to drugs, alcohol, other destructive behaviour, and even suicide? Maybe. But this isn't a universal default. These escapes at this level isn't happening everywhere in every culture, is it?

Why are using drugs and alcohol automatically destructive behaviours? I imagine you know and work with many people who use drugs and/or alcohol and also have families, friends, hobbies, career trajectories and are overall reasonably happy, well-adjusted people. I mean, that describes virtually everyone I know! The problem cases certainly exist, but within my personal world, those people are the exceptions.

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

#182

Post by spurgu »

andromeduck wrote: post #171
EdwardDiego wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, the…

Doesn't DMT also naturally exist? So lidke any time you buy a live anim you're buying DMT.

It exists in many different plants and also in a few animals, for example the Colorado River toad.

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

#183

Post by kjkjadksj »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #122
asah wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was convicted and sentenced with 7 months home detention. https://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/editors-picks/87...

Nicely done judge. But it's still ridiculous that he pleaded guilty to a charge of importing 18kg of DMT, when the results of testing the 18kg of bark he imported were that the "The bark contained 0.57 per cent of DMT." So, about 103 grams of DMT, assuming 100% efficiency in extracting it.

This is how the US does drug busts. When the cops bust a weed grow operation, they weight the entire plant root ball and all even if its entirely immature and lacks buds at this stage of growth.

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

#184

Post by seabird »

krispyfi wrote: post #166
seabird wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is straight up dangerous. 5x a common dose of can kill you. Nobody that can actually execute on properly dosing it will expose themselves to the liability of doing so. Drugs are cool and interesting, go ahead and do them, but trying to pretend that something like 25i-NBOMe is something that Joe Average will safely deal with is, frankly, pretty fucking stupid. This conversation is constantly approached with this id…

Nobody that can actually execute on properly dosing it will expose themselves to the liability of doing so. Nobody? Um, I'm right here? I bought a 0.1ml pipette back in the day for the precise purpose of safely dosing 25X-NBOMes volumetrically, rather than by mass. And I'm not the only one. Hamilton Morris[0], Nervewing[1], and many others on forums such as Bluelight[2] write about their positive 25X-NBOMe experience…

My point on liability isn't about your personal tolerance for risk and confidence in your own work on a n=1 scale, it's about whether or not you would be comfortable doing that work for thousands of other people with the understanding that a very minor fuck up results in somebody being dead.

To be clear, I'm with you on the idea that all drugs should be legal. I don't believe in scheduling drugs to determine sentencing. I do believe in scheduling drugs according to the odds that Joe Schmoe will bungle the usage of them, in an attempt to steer people who aren't doing a an appropriate amount of research toward largely physiologically safe/well understood options.

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

#185

Post by HaZeust »

chownie wrote: post #150
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.

Counterpoint: I listened to my doctors for 8 years and took the medication they advised, didn't help me one bit. Getting off SSRIs, changing my work situation and enjoying some LSD made a much bigger positive difference than endless sweaty nights on Prozac ever did.

The reverse works for many other people. NEVER prescribe a "one-size-fits-all" policy or perspective for psychological methodologies.

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

#186

Post by NtochkaNzvanova »

kodah wrote: post #94
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...

Would it not be more efficient to challenge the evidence behind current scheduling, much less the standards used in scheduling? Trying to work around a system built by corrupt people is a bit like ignoring pests eating your garden and just making a new garden hoping they won't infest that too.

California and other states already showed with marijuana that if you have enough local popular support, you can legalize drugs and the feds will do nothing. This is especially true right now with Democrats in control of the DoJ. In fact, if you look at cities like San Francisco, all drugs are already de facto decriminalized. CA could legalize LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, ketamine, etc. tomorrow.

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

#187

Post by seabird »

squirtlebonflow wrote: post #162
seabird wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is straight up dangerous. 5x a common dose of can kill you. Nobody that can actually execute on properly dosing it will expose themselves to the liability of doing so. Drugs are cool and interesting, go ahead and do them, but trying to pretend that something like 25i-NBOMe is something that Joe Average will safely deal with is, frankly, pretty fucking stupid. This conversation is constantly approached with this id…

Well, that's an interesting idea. 20x a common dose of acetaminophen, an extremely pervasive, legal, over the counter painkiller, can kill you. Less can kill a child. Lots of drugs contain it, such as over the counter cough medicine. People legitimately die or become seriously ill every year because they don't know this. Granted, 5x is a lot different than 20x especially when a drug is taken for recreation rather tha…

Acetaminophen has a poor safety profile and I wish they would take it off the market, and that's a drug where the danger is in taking 10+ fairly large capsules of it instead of 1. The difference between normal 25i-NBOMe usage and fatal usage can be as small as putting a 1x1cm piece of paper in your mouth vs putting a 1x3cm piece of paper in your mouth.

I agree with your ideal world. The point of my original comment was that making no distinction between something like 25i-NBOMe and something like LSD, calling them psychedelics, and regulating them as such just isn't a good idea. I am not claiming that you should go to jail for having or using them.

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

#188

Post by vorpalhex »

standardUser wrote: post #179
vorpalhex wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that I probably have to go on a psychadelic trip to rewire my brain Do you really need the permission of drugs to do what you want? You already have your outcome. You know where you are. To what end do you need the drugs? Let's say you do this trip.. and it turns out the thing blocking you from dating is that you were molested at a young age. Those memories come flooding back to you at 2am while you're sweating lik…

You could just as easily be describing therapy. Of course people sometimes need external help to achieve their goals or change their perspectives! Sometimes it's therapy, sometimes a vacation, sometimes a heart-to-heart with a close friend and sometimes a bunch of acid.

Dropping acid is maybe not the same thing as therapy sessions with a well qualified professional who is board certified, licensed and so on.

If you just mean "try random things to see how it helps", I suppose you could start by finding Jesus or licking a cattle prod. Why limit yourself to just a few methods of magic insight?

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

#189

Post by tl_donson »

codetrotter wrote: post #121
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same way that one weighs LSD that is on paper, unfortunately. Thus a lot of paper with very little LSD on it is worse than a little bit of paper with a lot of LSD on it.

Seems that at least parts of the US government has realised that carrier medium weight should not be used for LSD. > In the case of LSD on a carrier medium (e.g., a sheet of blotter paper), do not use the weight of the LSD/carrier medium. Instead, treat each dose of LSD on the carrier medium as equal to 0.4 mg of LSD for the purposes of the Drug Quantity Table. https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/488

400 μg per dose is still probably overestimating by quite a bit.

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

#190

Post by kodah »

NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #186
kodah wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it not be more efficient to challenge the evidence behind current scheduling, much less the standards used in scheduling? Trying to work around a system built by corrupt people is a bit like ignoring pests eating your garden and just making a new garden hoping they won't infest that too.

California and other states already showed with marijuana that if you have enough local popular support, you can legalize drugs and the feds will do nothing. This is especially true right now with Democrats in control of the DoJ. In fact, if you look at cities like San Francisco, all drugs are already de facto decriminalized. CA could legalize LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, ketamine, etc. tomorrow.

I live in Oregon, all drugs already are decriminalized. That doesn't solve a littany of problems and is progress, but albeit with short term thinking. Passing through states that consider what you can buy for $20 at a mom and pop shop a felony is bit more than just problematic. States passing laws relieves their citizens of pressure, but we still need to move drugs entirely to a states right or we need to correct the federal record.

State laws also marginalize people who are bound to federal services eg: veterans using the VA. A veteran cannot get ketamine, psilocybin, MDMA, or LSD based treatments or they'll be confused as an addict and dropped from VA plans.

Post reply on HN