Comment by demiters
2 days ago
Not a big fan of the ongoing productisation of transcendental, possibly brain-scrambling experiences. Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework to understand the substance and who consider it just another novel experience to try on a whim, which increases the risk of negative outcomes.
I disagree. Every time I've seen someone get a "bad trip", they're people who read a lot and worked themselves into a state of anxiety over the fact that something could go wrong. If they had just approached it like "ooh lets get high and have fun" rather than "I have to do X, Y, Z or else it's going to be horrible!", they would have probably been OK. Hallucinogens have way too much gatekeeping and mysticalization around them for what they are.
Understanding the risks of buying potentially adulterated or counterfeit products is another thing entirely, which would be helped greatly by increased commodification and legalization.
I know two people who had prolonged psychotic episodes, as in, for weeks they were in their own world. These were both people who had many fun/enjoyable experiences beforehand.
I myself have had bad / hell like experiences a small percentage of the time, despite literal hundreds of good experiences prior.
Becoming a father many years ago significantly altered my trip experience.
Dosage also plays a strong role..
These things are generally less toxic than alcohol and it is criminal to punish someone for having them or using them.. But they are also extremely powerful, and despite potential amazing experiences, do carry risks.
And they are definitely not for everyone.
Also worth noting that persistent negative effects do not require a bad trip. You can have a wonderful time and still have long lasting issues.
Can you explain how it changed after being a father?
9 replies →
Whilst that might true as per your observations, I've also seen people do zero research, take a substance in the wrong place/frame of mind, and subsequently had a more turbulent experience than they were expecting
Yes to both.
We often attract certain types of people, and have a wealth of experience with that type.
We probably all take this as obvious knowledge. But only when I uncomfortably enter a group of people unlike me -- and feel totally alienated not just by their norms and assumptions, but their misunderstandings of my own -- only then do I truly confront the implications in a visceral, non-academic sense :)
That's true with anything, though.
I have a family member who jumped off a balcony on LSD and needed extensive reconstructive facial surgery. I'd call that a pretty bad trip. It's kind of kept me away from anything more than mushrooms.
I suppose this is a dangerous counterargument to make, especially as I'm not a substance user at all myself, but... what's wrong with wanting to seek out novel experiences? I'd much rather folks who wish to do this be able to do so safely, with good sources of information about those risks and with a support network that is allowed to talk about it. I feel like the taboo nature of substances in general causes folks with this interest to hide it from their peers, exactly the people who would otherwise be first in line to spot problems and offer assistance. Shouldn't it be okay to talk about it?
Four entered the garden: Ben Azzi, Ben Zoma, Acher and Akiva. One looked and died. One looked and was harmed. One cut down all the trees. And one entered in peace and departed in peace.
I didn't know this story, but thanks for pointing this out. It's scary how people in this thread talk about hallucinogens like they could not ruin your life.
Citing Sam Harris:
“Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going, and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis.”
“This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, some people cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.”
Lemme guess, Ben Zoma was the peaceful one?
1 reply →
They are totally OK as long as healthcare is not socialized.
There's angles to socialization. If a person with brain issues gets free doctor visits and a medicine, that is at cost to society.
If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.
If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.
1 reply →
Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.
14 replies →
That has been various governments approach to drugs for literally decades and it got us nowhere.
The problem isnt that this still is casually available. Drugs have been casually available since forever.
The problem is that pushing drug usage to the fringes makes it less safe for people who haven’t done their homework. Ironically the exact opposite of that you claimed.
You're right. I'm all for across-the-board decriminalisation btw. But I don't really know where a responsible balance would be for psychedelic availability, my intuition is we shouldn't be aiming at OTC disposable DMT vapes etc.
Perhaps administration of the drug from a professional? Make the treatment an affordable and legal option.
2 replies →
I think with psychedelics it's fine. The problems you're talking about are with addictive stimulants.
With psychedelics the risk profile is very different. Firstly, people can do harmful things during the trip. Second, a more vague, difficult to measure and predict concern around long term psychological effects to some people.
1 reply →
The thing that bothers me the most are the companies out here trying to get psychedelics to a state where they own the tech and can try to make as much money as possible off of it. Not so much the part where it becomes more available with consistent quality for more users.
I was getting ads for MindMed's clinical trials of their LSD analogue a few months back and was considering signing up for it, as I'm totally down with more scientific research on these compounds. However, the idea that a corporation with a patent on an analogue that is lobbying to make it so their version is the one that is approved is kinda the worst. We already have LSD, it's cheap and it's amazing, yet here we are marching down the road of some patented version being the one that's approved for use. I get that these companies want to fund research, but this isn't the way.
Welcome to the USA. Psychedelics are just the tip of an iceberg here. There's shit like highly effective cough medicines or antidepressants available in other countries which show promise in saving lives but nope mired in patent stuff and corrupt regulation...
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/european-cough-medicine-...
> do their homework to understand the substance
Is that actually the common thing to do amongst recreational psychadelics users (i.e. is there research backing this up)?
And how do these folks "understand the substance(s)"? We (humanity) know very little about how the brain works comparatively as far as I'm aware, and psychadelics research is further relatively lacking due to regulatory and funding constraints. Most resources I hear of just seem to be compilations of anecdata, frequently muddled with subjective remarks.
I can only speak for my own circle that I know about where test kits are the norm. Anecdata isn't ideal but it does seem to be valuable as long as the reader considers both positive and negative reports equally and understands the risks rather than just yoloing. I still consider Erowid a great harm reduction resource, TripSit wiki is also fantastic, and I very much support the approach taken by the Subjective Effect Index website.
I see, fair enough. I'd be just hesitant to say "xy keeps yz from doing zx" without data, cause it sounds like a claim (or even a fact) rather than an opinion/anecdote, and it's pretty hard to pick up on this difference.
We were able to clarify it and we're both being decent sports about the topic, but you can imagine how well this might go over in less careful and open minded situations. Or even desperate ones.
It also makes doing your homework a lot harder. If I want to buy alcohol, I can go to a shop and can get something that’s correctly labeled with an alcohol percentage and is highly unlikely to contain methanol.
If I go buy some psychedelic, chances are it is diluted or laced, so I would have to know how to test that what they sell me is what I asked for.
There are jurisdictions where it's legal, and shops that will ship it virtually anywhere. The product is pure, tested, and consistent.
Of course you have to find such a shop (hint: try Canada), and it's still a lot of hassle for something that should be perfectly legal, and is, in many places.
I'm of very two minds on this topic. On one hand, it's widely accepted that most (not to say all) drugs leave a permanent mark on brains that are not yet fully developed, so teenagers who are often most curious about these things. Gated access is highly desirable in this context, especially as you can't take self regulation for granted. On the other hand, many of these substances show great promise in many clinical trials for a wide variety of issues, and decades of hostile legislation has kept all of that on the back foot. Openly sharing information about these topics can help people make more informed choices whereas those who came before them often had to go it blind.
I'd be interested in seeing specifics on brain development. When are they "fully developed" or what is a sufficient point that they could be considered to be. What other things do we practice that should be gated around brain development?
Yeah - I feel like we need a little bit more of a stripped down approach to drugs in the US. If you’re 18 or under, there need to be a lot of restrictions because we know for a fact that a lot of these things have a profound negative impact on brain development, and we also know that we don’t even fully understand the extent to which various mind altering substances can impact development. It’s just safer to say “no” until then as much as I am loath to endorse anything remotely akin to prohibition culture.
Teens will always get their hands on things so it’s up to parents to teach kids how to be safe around drugs and alcohol, but I know I personally will be really trying to communicate to my kids that they need to wait until they’re 18 to really start exploring all this stuff. I know they will before that, but as long as it’s a little experimentation here and there and not regular use I’ll consider it a success.
Once you’re past 18 or so, it needs to be all about education and general availability for most substances. Safe usage and community protections (such as not driving while intoxicated) should be the #1 goal.
> I know they will before that
I'm curious in what demographic/location context you're in to say that. As a teen I wasn't aware of anyone in my social circles experimenting with drugs and would estimate usage to be <10% and from very particular kinds of people.
5 replies →
Incidental gatekeeping by leaving it on the black market isn't the way to keep it safe, quite the opposite - that poses a lot of dangerous risks.
Bringing it into the light under thoughtful consideration and openly discussing and encouraging harm prevention is the only way to make this safe. Everyone should have the right to to exploring this if they want to, and there should be plenty of open discussion, research, and education. I really appreciate the open-source approach here, the spirit of this movement feels like the right thing for humanity.
> Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework
I strongly disagree. Your circles might be different, but in my experience, wanting to do your homework makes it less accessible, because it tends to put you at odds with the people who are otherwise eager to grant you access. They want people with a certain mindset and an up-front faith in the process. They want people who aren't careful about ingesting psychoactive substances, are eager to put their mental health in the hands of some guy they barely know, and are going to blame their own baggage or spiritual shortcomings if it doesn't go well.
These drugs, and many others, are already pretty accessible if you are willing to take that heedless approach.
In contrast, the approach described in the article is expressly tailored for people who want to be careful and do their homework. It's for people who have access to the drug and implicitly already have access to cruder ways of using it, but who want to put in extra effort for a more controlled experience.
The high horse of HN generally suggests that every person on the planet does empirical research on every step of their journey through life. I've personally seen several, otherwise normal people, one-shot their brain into purgatory with hallucinogens.
> Keeping them somewhat less accessible
I agree this is important, which is why psychedelics should be legalized so there is at least some sort of control instead of the current approach where 14 year olds can easier get their hands on it.
Basically this. Many times I've gotten too casual with them and then been reminded that they are not a party drug. Persistent HPPD(ok, redundant) and long lasting anxiety and/or motor issues(tics).. inability to focus. It's great that there are people who can gobble psychs like candy and not have issues(that they're aware of anyway) but they need to chill on trying to get everyone to trip out. I get it. I felt that "everyone should try this" vibe. But seriously, no. Don't take people's psychology lightly.
I’m fine with ‘less accessible’ - I am not fine with ‘criminal.’
I feel similar about this productisation but for slightly different reasons. Psychedelics can provide a sacred experience, at least they have for me, and I treat each psychedelic experience I have as a sacred ritual. It’s a sacrament. So forcing them into the materialist, capitalist system we currently have just feels so wrong. It’d be like a company coming out with pre-blessed Eucharist cookies. But worse because what you are shown so often reveals how insidious capitalism is, and how there is so much more than the material realm. I know this is just my personal view and experience. Anyway, I don’t feel so bad about LightWand as the whole point was the open source, sharing nature.