Not a word about the major negative side effects including panic attacks, seizures, and death, or how some members of the population are at far greater risk of experiencing these side effects for reasons we do not yet know or fully understand.
Sure, if it helps someone near death why not, but I don't like the rosy picture this article portrays.
As for the other unpleasant effects it's true these can happen temporarily. I know some people anecdotally believe negative effects can be permanent, but I'm not aware of any research supporting cause and effect.
Now weigh the risks above with the possible reward. Near death comfort (while important) is only one application. For example anxiety and OCD are life crippling for so many people, and research suggest psychedelics might offer one of the best treatments yet.
The potential benefits to society are so great, the research must continue. I also see no reason you could not help out with some empirical study.
For comparison, if you drink 10L of water, 200 espresso shots, or 600ml of 40% alcohol in one setting, you are likely to die.
Then the respective vodka dose would be 10ml x (320'000ug / 100ug) = 10ml x 3200 = 32000ml = 32 l
Obviously vodka would be deadly at an amount way below 32l.
One of the side-effects of antidepressants is increased risk of suicide.
So I don't really see your point.
here it says that you have a significant chance to develop schizophrenia after a substance induced psychosis event (18,478 cases examined)
https://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2013/v74n01/v...
Results: Eight-year cumulative risk to receive a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was 46% (95% CI, 35%–57%) for persons with a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis and 30% (95% CI, 14%–46%) for those with an amphetamine-induced psychosis. Although alcohol-induced psychosis was the most common type of SIP, 8-year cumulative risk for subsequent schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was only 5.0% (95% CI, 4.6%–5.5%).
let the downvotes start.
> let the downvotes start.
still you can't say there is no problem at all.
Lets count: the population of Finland is 5.5 million; 18000 cases makes 1/3 percent of the general population - a significant number (not known if all cases have been considered by this study, lets assume they have - i would assume that half of the cases would not be reported at all, but lets skip that), lets assume that five percent of the population have taken drugs - then 1/15 users would get one.
>Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about
No, there is such a thing as collective bias. lets not pretend that it doesn't exist.
> still you can't say there is no problem at all.
Second, see what I already wrote. Also to your last sentence - you just yell "bias" before anything even happened. Then you add a lot of your own interpretation, without any evidence, to some selected numbers from a single study of a special country: Finland is not exactly the normal case in this context (for example: http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/02/finland-tops-european-cou...).
Sorry, i was referring to the parent poster by TheSpiceIsLife.
> Then you add a lot of your own interpretation, without any evidence, to some selected numbers from a single study of a special country: Finland is not exactly the normal case in this context (for example: http://www.euronews.com/2015/07
i didn't make anything up, that's called extrapolation. Actually in many job interviews they ask for that.
Am I always supposed to ask for your permission when interpreting some data points? Thanks Sir; i don't think so.
2 + 2 still makes 4 , that doesn't depend upon your mood. 18.000+ cases in a population of 5.5 million is a significant number, you can't put that away. Just because you got enough penie points here to mod me down doesn't make you automatically right.
> you just yell "bias" before anything even happened
Just enough to look at the parent poster - downvoted to oblivion. Also i wonder how everybody here is so unanimously positive about the subject - every other voice has been purged out (including my contribution) ; wonder why that happened...
Conspiracy theories and suspecting the rest of the community is 'out to get you' or interested in 'silencing' you is sure incendiary but the truth is usually far more boring. Present a careful reasoned argument and people will appreciate it, even if they disagree. Saying "rarely drugs have bad side effects!!!" (without introducing context and comparing the safety of these drugs to OTC medication and currently legal drugs) is true but it isn't a real argument or piece of information, it's just FUD.
Everyone getting off-chops on drugs all the time is clearly a bad idea. But evem most drug and alcohol users self-regulate, so there's that.
The 18,000 cases were reported over a 16 year period (1987 - 2003).
You should annualise these data so we can talk of cases per year, otherwise you can just expand the reporting period to further suit your narrative.
Oh, and a quick note-- the only 'psychedelic' drug mentioned in the study you cited is cannabis, which from everything I've read doesn't even begin to compare to the more powerful psychoactives. Funny enough, it is the one we have the strongest link to psychosis for, but this could only be because it's been so much more widely used and studied. It seems obvious that more study is needed, insofar as it can be done ethically.