LSD: Not Even Once

when you buy a pack of weed, you get 1 blob of weed that the purchaser has to divvy up themselves, then has to find a container to consume it, prepare that container properly themselves (blunt, joint, bong, etc), then consume all at once due to the nature of the process. then theres sorting out all the indica/sativa blens. the point is, the system is stacked against newcomers.

edibles are the closest, thats correct - but sellers pack edibles with as much thc as possible. cutting edibles into pieces then further removes the users ability to control the experience, but at least its similar to a pitcher of beer.

My first time getting drunk was somewhat unexpected. I was with friends and drinking screwdrivers, because I didn’t particularly like the taste of vodka and that’s all we had.

I had no idea screwdrivers should be about around 20% vodka by volume - I made mine half and half. I also wasn’t familiar with enough alcohol to know about how long it takes to take effect, or to judge where I was in the process. Between those two things, I drank six ~16oz glasses full before I got to the point that I felt a strong buzz. I stopped… but my metabolism didn’t.

I vaguely remember sitting in the bathroom floor that night, looking at my own vomit in the toilet, and thinking “Huh. That looks like blood. That’s not good.” The funny part (in retrospect!) is that is the only thing I remember for a six hour period or so, and that the thought was in a purely flat, narrative tone. I wasn’t at all worried about throwing up blood. It was at most a mildly interesting thing to have noticed.

FWIW, the next day I realized that it wasn’t blood. I’d eaten a spaghetti a couple of hours prior, and it was partially digested marinara.

> but I worry that we’re underselling the risks

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows exactly what bans and prohibition lead to.

I don't mean to take away any of the "I had a bad time" stories, my point is prohibiting leads to worse times, mandatory paranoia, decreased likelihood to reach out for help in even medical emergencies, and that's without going into how areas which attempt to maintain a market for prohibited substances are turned into no-go war zones.

I would say the hand wavers are alluding to this reality.

I am a proponent of licensing of therapists and subject for their suitability to the psychedelic experience.

Not only is it not for everyone, it's suitable for a rare few who can take the whole thing seriously and understand the gravity of the experience.

At best, anxiety and communication between participants in a therapeutic setting can override any positive value. At worst participants can experience long term negative effects, as OP outlines, or end up like Syd Barret. (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/07/the-psychedelic-...)

That said, for those who do experience life-changing positive experiences, they are among the most valuable in their lives, and diminishing them as "fast" or "easy" is dishonorable.

One of the greatest issues with the human race is the idea of "if I think it's bad, then it's bad for you, too." (yes, indeed, switch the polarity, it's the same issue.) We seem to be addicted to saying what is best or worst for everyone.

In this age of ridiculous political polarization, driven primarily by complete imbeciles on both sides of the aisle. Psychedelics _can_ help some people see outside of their bubbles and reduce limitations in thinking.

If only we can treat such substances with respect and stop wrapping them up in cheerleading or doom mongering, we could probably benefit from them more routinely.