Comment by Houshalter | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Houshalter | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

C0nc0rdance is a scientist who makes well researched videos about various subjects, and did a few videos on the health effects of marijuana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c

It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive.

LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went on the be preachers or priests later in life. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. But anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning.

Amphetamines certainly seem pretty cool. Especially if you have ADHD. But it definitely has side effects and potential for addiction. It's long term effects are not well studied, and a few studies I did see were concerning. E.g. brain damage in monkeys, and a group of kids taking it did worse than the control group after 3 years.

I think people should be educated on the risks and facts before they decide to take a drug. If they still want to do it, fine. But at least they know the risks. And it's not enough just to put a warning sticker on the back of it that no one reads. Even widespread education that a drug is dangerous isn't enough. Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer, but why do new people take up smoking?

> anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning.

I find that statement absurd, anything with an effect that powerful should be cherished! Would life be desirable if it were stripped from all emotions, as they too have a powerful effect on the mind? Even if you agreed to that, it wouldn't be feasible as we are biological creatures and not pure rational beings. Denying that our biological self exists, with feelings and all, doesn't solve anything. The spiritual experience you describe is just another part of the human condition, I don't quite believe that 9 out of 10 people on LSD would become preachers, but I see how it can lead to a better understanding of religion. This doesn't require superstition, quite the opposite. When you know that those effects are caused by LSD or substances contained in Mushrooms, ferns or cacti, you don't need a higher power as an explanation for this peculiar state of mind. You might however find yourself coming to conclusions about life that other people on similar states of mind (whether induced by drugs or other means is irrelevant here) had before you, and who used the vehicle of religion to transport them.

So yes, psychedelics, as well as most drugs, should not be taken lightly, but banning them is like razing the Niagara Falls because someone might fall over the edge.

I believe those 9 people wasted their lives. Religion isn't remotely rational and is a plague on society. The fact that a single experience with a drug can cause people to completely devote themselves to it is terrifying.

What if it became widespread and our society became super religious? What other irrational things can it convince people of?

I don't know if they should be banned or not. I'm just saying they are not safe

That's an incredibly narrow-minded view, and I'm not a religious person either.

Call me narrow minded if you like. The implications of such a drug are terrifying. Do you want a society that is far more religious? Where people are completely devoted to their religions and actually believe in them?

And on a personal level, would you want to take such a drug? Knowing it can convince you of something irrational and change your entire life path for the worse?

What goal is there in life other than living a happy, a good life?

Why do you condemn people that find something different to help them with that than you?

There is a difference in having a spiritual experience and merely following a ritual for the sake of the ritual.

It anything, more widespread LSD usage would make people less religious by your definition.

Who says they lived a happy life? Who says they wouldn't have lived a happy life otherwise?

We don't know that. All we know is that the drug made them become obsessed with something irrational.

Would you take something like that? Would you want something like that to become widespread? Do you want a society that is far more religious and devoted to their religion?

> We don't know that. All we know is that the drug made them become obsessed with something irrational.

Please provide a link to said study where the words you use above are quoted from.

Otherwise you making just as much assumptions as pantalaimon

>It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless

I'm no advocate of the claims that marijuana is "harmless" or, as some even claim, "good for you". But harm is relative. Sitting in your chair all day is harmful. Eating half the food we do is harmful, as are most medications.

Arguing that marijuana is "not harmless" isn't much of an argument at all.

According to that video, it increases cancer risk at a higher rate than cigarettes, and it is very addictive to some percent of the population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com