61–70 of 204 posts
Which psychedelics (shrooms, acid, peyote, salvia, ketamine, ayahuasca) would be best for endogenous, treatment-resistant depression? If there are any with a proven effect, do they have to be taken periodically?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For at most, 11/12 people. For some folks, it makes anxiety or depression worse than when they started. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251840-mindfulness-and... .
Unashamedly this happens to me. I really messed myself up meditating an hour a day for six months. It just became like a personal hell. Going into that room and turning off the lights somehow gave power to my fears and nightmares. I did however learn to let go of my ego a lot more, which I really enjoyed, and worked through a lot, but in the end it was deeply upsetting. I want to try it again sometime, but for now I'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is some sort of nonsequitur on the proposed argument. You can stop the war on drugs and keep the "drugs are evil" narrative. It's called decriminalization. Stop bothering people for possessing, producing or using drugs, do as you want with those trafficking, and keep them illegal. This could be done progressively without loss of face by government. Oh wait, that's what the article is about! Drugs, inc…
Decriminalisation keeps many of the worst aspects of the war on drugs in place. Aspects that are damaging and immoral in that they cause far more harm than they prevent. Even drugs like heroin should be fully legalised. Subject to prescription, maybe. But the harm from a clean, consistent heroin supply is vastly lower than the harm caused by the manufacture and smuggling alone, and decriminalisation of possession doe…
I think the harm of legalization is only slightly below the war on drugs. Legalization means another vector of government control in my life, most likely outsourced to big pharma.
All the issues you are pointing can be solved by decriminalization are solved by individual responsibility and boils down to answering the question: Can you trust your source? If you can't answer the question you probably need help through a government sponsored damage control program.
To be precise, I used MDMA couple of times in my youth. My source sent every batch to a lab, we knew exactly what we were taking. Then he retired, and my MDMA use with him, cause I have no trusted source.
No amount of government control will substitute for cautious and responsible use. It might even hinder it, see alcohol, see tobacco, see opioid epidemic in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume the main reason for the controversy is the prevailing dogma "Drugs are evil". This dogma has been used to enact countless bills of legislation in most rich countries, which in turn have encumbered the justice and police system, which in turn have put thousands upon thousands of people into to the correctional system for years. After all that busywork, lives destroyed and taxpayer money wasted, it is really…
I believe there is some sort of nonsequitur on the proposed argument. You can stop the war on drugs and keep the "drugs are evil" narrative. It's called decriminalization. Stop bothering people for possessing, producing or using drugs, do as you want with those trafficking, and keep them illegal. This could be done progressively without loss of face by government. Oh wait, that's what the article is about! Drugs, inc…
The idea that selling drugs is something special misses and should remain illegal seems to only partially consider the implications of what that means.
One side of safety concerns is consumption safety. An at home production facility is of lower quality, exemplified by many more cases of methanol poisoning during the US Prohibition era [0]. Another is production safety, cooking methamphetamines is real chemistry —- I would much prefer to have a factory doing that rather than my residential neighbours. Finally, we have access, growing plants indoors is non-trivial and processing them into something resembling a finished product also so. Given this, I’m convinced that limiting illegality to trafficking doesn’t stop the war on drugs, because it has always been about trafficking — the hard part is moving the product and selling it to people. If the “do as you want” resolves to making trafficking legal, then it seems the drugs are simply legal.
[0] https://gardenandgun.com/articles/will-drinking-moonshine-ma... (The actual source is apparently a book the writer references)
I don't understand the controversy. We know full well the natural world is full of substances with significant impact on our bodies. Many such substances can even on average be harmful, but when used correctly, they are beneficial. Opioids come to mind first and foremost. It's not controversial to give e.g. serious accident victims a shot of morphine. Why are investigations into medicinal use of shrooms or marijuana…
I presume the main reason for the controversy is the prevailing dogma "Drugs are evil". This dogma has been used to enact countless bills of legislation in most rich countries, which in turn have encumbered the justice and police system, which in turn have put thousands upon thousands of people into to the correctional system for years. After all that busywork, lives destroyed and taxpayer money wasted, it is really…
If there were a real war on drugs, pharma companies would be the nuclear superpowers.
Which psychedelics (shrooms, acid, peyote, salvia, ketamine, ayahuasca) would be best for endogenous, treatment-resistant depression? If there are any with a proven effect, do they have to be taken periodically?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of it is basically racist propaganda that entered the public consciousness and became "true". Hallucinogens though... aren't just drugs that change something a little. They can give people profound religious experiences. Some people become an unsettling kind of prophet for a religion of the drug. In the 60s-ish era there were people that wanted to change the world with the drugs with plans to dose populations an…
Governments and regulations. They've even created poster designs to make it visually evil. https://mashable.com/2016/04/18/anti-weed-film-posters/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is some sort of nonsequitur on the proposed argument. You can stop the war on drugs and keep the "drugs are evil" narrative. It's called decriminalization. Stop bothering people for possessing, producing or using drugs, do as you want with those trafficking, and keep them illegal. This could be done progressively without loss of face by government. Oh wait, that's what the article is about! Drugs, inc…
do as you want with those trafficking, and keep them illegal. If you keep them illegal then you lose control. If they are made available from your local chemist then you can legislate for quality and strength. Keeping them illegal also has a massive unwanted side effect in terms of encouraging criminal gangs and violence. All that would go away if customers could just stroll down to their local Boots and buy a packet…
Violence and gangs and ridiculous prices are a symptom of criminalization. If in order to produce and consume you face several years prison, gangsters happen. If nobody cares if you produce, your neighbor might start producing, he might have a surplus and accept some cheese in exchange.
I don't understand the controversy. We know full well the natural world is full of substances with significant impact on our bodies. Many such substances can even on average be harmful, but when used correctly, they are beneficial. Opioids come to mind first and foremost. It's not controversial to give e.g. serious accident victims a shot of morphine. Why are investigations into medicinal use of shrooms or marijuana…
It doesn't touch just on the social implications like fueling police states and for-profit prisons while enabling a new form of slave labor, but also largely on the economic and industrial factors which came into play as well.
An old edition available for free online on Herer's website, and there is a link to a more recently updated edition on Amazon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume the main reason for the controversy is the prevailing dogma "Drugs are evil". This dogma has been used to enact countless bills of legislation in most rich countries, which in turn have encumbered the justice and police system, which in turn have put thousands upon thousands of people into to the correctional system for years. After all that busywork, lives destroyed and taxpayer money wasted, it is really…
There's an undercurrent of corporatism that powers the status quo. It's not that all drugs are evil, it's that the _wrong_ drugs are evil. The ones you can make on your own have an air of illegitimacy about them, while those that are manufactured and administered by professionals are "ok". If there were a real war on drugs, pharma companies would be the nuclear superpowers.