Can psychedelics make you a better person? | Hacker News Reader

Can psychedelics make you a better person?

philosophyforlife.org

120 pointspmoriarty106 comments

If I hadn't taken LSD, I never would've started my recovery from alcohol. Nothing in my life is as valuable to me as my sobriety is and has been, and I don't see myself ever making the painstaking effort to get sober without that trip.

I don't want to turn this thread into a trip report, however I will share that my trip led my thoughts to my last actions, some bad decisions and some bad habits I had formed.

Real talk, I tripped my nuts off. Obviously.

But the real impact was during the several days after that, nothing seemed to be the same, every little detail seemed laced with a new tinge of awareness, and the drinking I was doing at the time suddenly revealed itself to me as incredibly dangerous and unhealthy.

Now, LSD didn't work my program for me. It didn't get me sober, it didn't stop my cravings, it didn't bring my family back or apologize to previous employers or pay my tickets or talk to my mentors or any of that. It's not a wonder drug by any means. I'm definitely no expert, but I think hailing lsd in particular could have bad consequences for certain people. A trip can go south sometimes if you're not meticulous and exerting some fortitude against your emotions during the trip.

Also, who says I'm a better person? That's a hard thing to measure. I've done a lot of awful things in my drunk past. Choosing better behavior doesn't make the consequences of those things go away. Understanding who you are and who you were doesn't magically wipe the slate clean for the old you. And that's humbling, to go back and clean up all those messes and face those people with the new knowledge and growth, but on behalf of the toxic person I was.

Anyways, LSD definitely changed my life for the better. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Honestly, most people would say I AM a better person now. But to claim that as the effect of LSD is crazy. For people just wanting to justify their psychedelic adventuring, give up on it. If you like to trip just for fun, just accept it and do it. Be glad you're not hurting yourself!

The entire Alcoholics Anonymous regimen is the result of the insights gained on an LSD trip.

Please don't spread unsubstantiated claims. You'll need to provide a source for this claim.

This sounds genuinely interesting. However if it's not backed up by evidence then you're just spreading misinformation.

Here's a few links to explore further:

"This is some rare TV footage of LSD research conducted in Los Angeles in 1956 by Dr. Sidney Cohen, which included an interview with Gerald Heard, an Anglo-Irish philospher who turned on a number of influential Americans in the 1950s. Among them was AA co-founder Bill Wilson, who thought LSD could help some drunks have a spiritual awakening. Wilson's first trip was in this very room in summer of 1956 and was supervised by Dr. Cohen and guided by Mr. Heard. The whole story, and much more, is told in "Distilled Spirits -- Getting High, Then Sober, with a Famous Writer, a Forgotten Philosopher, and a Hopeless Drunk" by Don Lattin, the author of the bestselling "The Harvard Psychedelic Club." The "Famous Writer" in this blend of memoir and group biography is Aldous Huxley, the author of "Brave New World" and "The Doors of Perception."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeO2BOdmkEg

and

https://aabeyondbelief.org/2015/10/21/the-lsd-experiments/

> However if it's not backed up by evidence then you're just spreading misinformation.

Do you hold all comments to that bar, or only the less-pedestrian ones?

For me, definitely. The first time I took psilocybin 22 years ago shaped my views on consciousness, among other things, and led to profound personal growth. I don’t think I would be where I am today without it.

Bit of a meta comment, but I wonder why none of the ~30 posts here seem to actually be discussing the article. Something about the subject that motivates people to state personal opinions/experiences?

because the article spends the first half taking a cynical stance of "but can we reeealy believe what people say about their experiences" and spends the latter half first talking about the authors experiences and then more or less stating that those experiences were wrong, or at least not the original intent of the indigenous culture.

part of the PR problem with psychedelics is its easy status for cynical evaluation: "everything we hear is anecodotal, and furthermore the subject of discussion was tripping anyway, how can it be believable." it is probably hoped by those sharing experiences to provide reasonable sounding arguments to break through the cynicism.

I think drugs are like politics and religion - everyone has an opinion on them.

When the author said that Demeter was the goddess of corn, I nearly stopped reading. Facts: Demeter was a goddess of grain and harvest. Ergot (Claviceps species), and specifically ergot growing on rye (Secale cereale) has psychoactive properties; this ergot is liekly the source of psychedelic experience in the Elusinean Mysteries. Corn (Zea mays) was not introduced to Europe until the Columbian exchange; the fungus that grown on corn (smut, huitalacoche) is edible and not obviously psychoactive.

Whether psychedelic/unity experience makes one a better person, is an interesting question. As, too, is the question the author asked in the second half of essay, exploring the meaning of "better person" in relation to contemporary Western and Shipibo Indian cultures.

The author is from the UK, so they are probably using the British definition of corn[1] which can refer to many different kinds of grain. Using that definition of corn, the article doesn't seem to be inaccurate.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Etymology_1

Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered, so the word definitely was not applied to maize originally. This British usage still remains in place as far as I know. Those darned Brits - you'd think they invented the language, the way they sling it around any way they want!

> Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered

Well, Middle English starts a couple centuries after the Norse settlement in North America, so that's not strictly true, even with the implict “by Europeans” restriction.

Point taken, and worth noting, the English hadn't discovered the New World, but other Europeans, including Portugal, had. But maize wasn't grown anything like that far north!!! Maybe as far north as Missouri, where there were dense populations, but not further. So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then.

But c'mon man, "the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500" so when the usage was established in England only Vikings had reached the New World, in Newfoundland, etc.

> So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then.

Yes, it's strictly true that maize would (almost certainly) be unknown, just not because North America hadn't been discovered by cultures in contact with England prior to the point of time in question.

You could simply have said "we now agree," I believe.

Can? Sure. I've heard from plenty of people that feel that way.

Just to give an alternate perspective, I'm not sure doing 'shrooms at 16 made me a better person. It definitely altered my perception of what is real, but it wasn't a useful improvement. Mostly it just made me more prone to having panic attacks. I think I could be a better person today if I had never gone through that door, at least at that point in my life. On the other hand, it's hard to say whether it was the 'shrooms or not, as many of the terrifying existential questions it drove in me are thoughts that can be found elsewhere. I'd like to try them again sometime, just a few, to test the waters, but I'm also somewhat terrified of the consequences if my reality is shaken too much at this point in my life. So it goes.

The idea of taking psychedelics at 16 terrifies me. I believe pretty strongly that psychedelics are best once you've already tried pretty hard at the classical life script. Only then will you be able to see it's actual weaknesses and it's actual strengths.

I would not advise anyone much below 25 to take em, and I was very grateful I was scared into not taking them until my early-mid twenties.

ctrl+f ego... no hits? I've never done a psychedelic other than a very spiritual moment with salvia divinorum, but I have read up on them extensively, (they are often touted to help with ptsd), and the one major common factor is their ego-busting nature.

Ego is a good thing in many ways, but due to societal and cultural strangeness, it is sometimes warped into overdrive (arrogance, etc) and sometimes too puny (low self-esteem, etc). Psychedelics seem like a path to showing you just how big... and small... you are in the universe.

That said, I have two warnings about this subject. First, I personally think synthetic psychedelics are potentially the most dangerous, which is why (especially after finding out it's CIA origins) I never intend to do LSD, for example. Second, these are things that my native-american brothers tell me must be done as a spiritual journey, and not as recreation. Those who approach these powerful things recreationally are the most likely to have bad trips.

LSD doesn't have CIA origins, it's effects were discovered accidentally by Albert Hoffman. The CIA later commandeered research around LSD in order to look into how it could help train military personnel and also potentially be used as a weapon (while also stopping the research that was being done on its usefulness for therapy and creative problem solving).

LSD is indeed more potent than some naturally occuring psychedelic compounds such as psilocybin, although I'm curious why you believe that being synthetic makes it more dangerous?

Having a good setting and guide can also be very helpful as well in facilitating significant and net positive experiences.

I wasn't saying the CIA was it's discoverer, but rather it is the one that pushed LSD as part of the counter-culture movement of the 60's, which included experimentation on people (often without them knowing) in mkultra/artichoke programs and more.

A quote from Timothy Leary: "I give the CIA total credit for sponsoring and initiating the entire conciousness movemenet, counter-culture events of the 1960's."

As for why synthetics are dangerous, I think there is a thesis paper waiting to happen on that. Mostly because I don't think we fully understand the effects in total of some drugs. For example, I had friends the VA was trying to put on synthetic THC... but every single one of them said it was horrible, and I came to the conclusion that THC(a/b) alone is bad and that it's the natural combination of it and the other 300+ cannabinoids, including CBD, that really show promising medical benefits.

Usually synthetic forms of any molecule are dangerous or have side effects the natural form doesn't because both the left and right-hand mirror forms of the molecule are present, in equal quantities, in the synthetic product. It's only recently that we've been able to separate and discard one form to create synthetics that are of only one-handedness. A new, better zyrtec (drug for allergies) that's come on the market in the last couple of years is one example. https://www.famousscientists.org/two-centuries-of-right-and-...

This is why synthetic perfumes are so extraordinarily dangerous for people with asthma, and cause several times as many deaths each year in Isreal as terrorism does, but natural scents are almost always fine. (It is possible to have dangerous allergic reactions to natural scents, too, causing severe edema and death, but this is far more rare.) Only tobacco is close to the same level of risk for asthmatics.

Of course, other forms of contamination are also possible, not to mention that other chemicals in the natural plant may be modifying the effect or compensating for side effects.

I'm still unconvinced that LSD itself is more dangerous than natural alternatives (which is not a direct reply to you), but this is really interesting. I had no idea that chirality had such a significant impact on how dangerous a molecule is.

>Those who approach these powerful things recreationally are the most likely to have bad trips.

I only take LSD recreationally and I don't have bad trips. Maybe don't comment on psychs when you clearly have almost zero experience.

From my completely inexpert perspective, and keeping in mind I've never taken any psychedelics, I'd guess that 'ego-busting' as you call it is almost certainly the component of value here. Our traditional notions of self are ridiculously naive and very poorly model reality, and I think working from poor models of reality is part of why we suffer like we do, which leads us to being worse people. Psychedelics allow people to more easily shift their perspective and see the world differently, hopefully expanding their conception of it and enlightening their understanding of their place within it, but they are not the only way to do that.

Psychedelic chemicals don't speak narrative; the answer is far more boring of a story than "ego-busting". In my non-expert opinion, it's something roughly like this:

People have a surprising amount of path-dependence to their personality and behavior. That's like, the entire point of childhood - to figure out what kind of person you are, what kind of society you're in, and how to live up to expectation. These experiences will crystallize people's patterns of thought.

How psychedelics broadly work is they shake up people's typical thought patterns and make them experience new ones. Not better ones, not necessarily "ego-busting", just new. This lets people shake things up and clear out some over-adaptation. As a bonus model prediction: since the average thought pattern is adaptive, "too much" is bad for people as it makes them under-adapted for the world they inhabit.

> Psychedelics allow people to more easily shift their perspective

This is a fairly accurate summary, from my personal experience.

Psychedelics help to partially peel back the immense layers of mental models and perspectives that we slowly build up over the many years of our life. These layers are usually fairly inscrutable -- most people don't think about them much. As the mental model of one's self is perhaps the most deeply rooted of them all, this process is how "ego death" occurs.

It is possible to gain some insight into our deeply rooted mental structures through years of careful self-observation and/or meditation, but psychedelics are an incredibly powerful tool for getting a different view of your own mind in single day (integrating the experience takes much longer).

I should say, though, due to the sheer power and novelty of the experience, it can feel as if the most simple thought is deeply profund -- so this is something one has to watch out for, if they care about genuine insight.

Warning: Psychedelics should be used with great caution -- they are not toys, and can cause significant harm if used improperly or under the wrong conditions.

> it can feel as if the most simple thought is deeply profund -- so this is something one has to watch out for, if they care about genuine insight.

Maybe I've gone off the deep end, but I think a lot of the deepest and most meaningful truths I've realized are actually tautological. It's as though it's all just one giant circle, you start with a simple tautological statement like "it is what it is" and think it's silly, spend years thinking about, observing, and modeling reality, and come to the profound conclusion that it is indeed what it is. The only difference is that having walked the circle and observed the statement from all sides you finally understand what it means.

I'm starting to wonder if all truths aren't tautologies. Take evolution: in very simple form it could be stated as "Things that self-replicate self-replicate. Things that are better at it are better at it".

Please note that LSD is one of the most academically researched drugs and we understand its effects on human body really well. Moreover, general consensus is that is it a "safe" drug. I know this is a cliche anology, but something like alcohol is not even remotely as safe as LSD but majority of the world, including me, and even supposedly "rational" people drink it quiete often. Also there is nothing that makes LSD inherently more dangerous because it is synthetic.

I have been to many Ayahuasca ceremonies. As you stated, it helps break down the ego mind's control. It is definitely important that there is a shaman, and the best is to hear through word of mouth of someone having a positive experience with a particular shaman. The shaman holds the space during the ceremony, much like how a yoga instructor holds the space for a yoga class - there is variation based on what that instructor brings experience wise, their own energy, etc.

Re: Ego - Ego is a tool, however it often gets stuck on acting as a coping mechanism. If ego's stuck on then it causes other problems of the body/brain/mind. It should act like subpersonalities, where there is a time to be a caretaker, a perfectionist, etc - however it becomes a problem if a subpersonality becomes dominant, like it becomes a problem if ego becomes dominant.

I have been going through a difficult journey, as was unknown to me beforehand, it turns out that my ego helped protect me and allow me to function by separating me from feeling/reacting to pain from a childhood injury. This disconnect from pain, improper perception of pain, allowed me to injure myself throughout the rest of my life - and then I was gradually exposed to it more and more, until a point where my ego no longer had enough control to allow me to cope through all of the pain.

I have had success healing some of the injuries with stem cell injections, however have run into incompetence that's built into our health-"care" system. I'll be posting about it longer at some point, soon I imagine. I struggle a lot daily.

Psychedelics (LSD, shrooms) made me a better person.

I don’t know anyone who became less caring, less respectfull, more violent or more greedy after doing those drugs.

I would argue that psychedelics make you more human, in the good sense of the word.

I know of one guy, a brilliant man, who after a period of a month taking shrooms practically every day had a personality shift that is easiest described as "like Rick" from "Rick & Morty" - he became convinced he was the smartest man in the universe, dangerously smart and people would kill him if they knew how incredibly smart he was. That attitude stayed with him, and destroyed him; about a decade later he died due to alcohol poisoning as a result of his overwhelming rejection by others from his elevated behavior insisting his superiority over others. Clearly, he had original issues the shrooms simply magnified out of his control.

I’m not going to bash on psychedelics, but there does seem to be a lot of selection bias around the positive benefits of them. Like your example they can, for some people, trigger an extreme expression of latent psychological problems.

Of course the response is always to use them with guidance. Unfortunately here your options are often limited to pseudo-religious practitioners who will inadvertently prime you to have the same cliche experience most people in those circles have.

It’s for these two reasons I have avoided psychedelics completely. If I could have a guided experience from an agnostic and trained professional I would consider trying them. I’m definitely hoping the goals MAPS has come to fruition over the next few decades.

> If I could have a guided experience from an agnostic and trained professional I would consider trying them

That would be the dream.

I personally got curious about it and talked it over with a good friend and we read a lot about LSD. After studying it a lot from the most credible possible sources and reading arguments for both sides, we decided to try it responsibly; a medium-high dose of 150ug, each on a bright lazy Saturday with the other one sober through the whole trip.

It was very fun and mind-opening and I think it's an experience pretty much everyone should have at least once in their lives. We have done it recreationally a few more times since then (and alone with lower doses and together with both tripping on lower doses) and it has been nothing but positive things; it's exhilarating to discover the world in new ways.

I think it would be fantastic if we could have professional guiders and spaces specifically designed for responsibly tripping. Not only is it fun, but I believe it would lead to a healthier culture as it's not unusual in my experience to see a lot of things wrong with our society and personal behavior when looking at them from a different perspective.

I think it's really a shame that it's not possible due to the substance being illegal (wrongly, IMHO).

Sounds like a mental illness.

I had some friends in college who took LSD periodically and they were still not great people and many of them still had anxiety so it's definitely not a silver bullet for personal problems. They also trashed an apartment and got arrested while on it once so that might've colored my views on it.

Same here - I don't know anyone who became a worse person after psychedelics - and I know a LOT of people. It seems like the other responses you're getting are the exception and not the rule.

I always expect the exceptions to come out on HN because the denizens here are always quite contentious about whatever subject comes up.

4 months of working with ayahuasca with some of the best shamans in the amazon cured my depression, anxiety and panic attacks. During that time I have seen so many people get cured from all sorts of different issues. It's an amazing medicine.

If you decide to do it, make sure you do some proper research on which centers are good before you go.

For those wanting to go down this road, where do you even start?

I have never taken ayahuasca, but I have seen many videos on youtube, and read many articles about to understand the nature of an "ayahuasca shaman ritual", as I might call it. I would start with diligent research, and you will probably naturally discover the next steps "down this road" yourself. I understand that the "sanctity" of ayahuasca is revered by many people that are privy to it's "powers", and is not to be taken with any sort of cavalier attitude, as one might see with other psychedelics.

Can YouTube videos be considered research? Are they build on empirical data and peer reviewed?

Don’t get me wrong, go right a head and drink the funky tea, just don’t call monetized experiences of random content producers “research”. If you do that, then you’ll be telling me weed cures broken bones next, or warn me not to vaccinate my children.

Yes, YouTube videos can be considered research, because that word itself does not imply peer review. You may have misunderstood how the word research is being used in this thread.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research

Definitions 1 "careful or dilligent search" and 3 "the collecting of information about a particular subject" are the forms that were being used in this thread. When @acetoxy suggested doing some research on which centers are good, the idea was to get some info in advance, not to perform perform and publish double blind peer reviewed studies of their effectiveness.

I feel like adding, only because it seems funny & totally apropos to this thread & article on LSD, not to patronize you: try to open your mind to the alternative possibilities.

I don’t think watching YouTube videos qualifify as gathering information, even if it fits within the definition of the word research.

Feel free to do it though, and I take no offense if you disagree with me, but I’d be careful trusting strangers on the internet, especially if you’re considering going to South America to do drugs.

Sure, I totally agree one should be careful about their info & travel & drugs. But, that's what both @acetoxy and @cbluth were already saying.

I assume what you meant to say is that you personally wouldn't trust YouTube as a source of high quality or trustworthy information about drugs in South America, because it's demonstrably and absolutely true that YouTube videos contain information. Millions and millions of people successfully use YouTube to share and gather information on a wide variety of topics.

If you actually wanted to help someone who's trying to be careful, perhaps suggest some more trustworthy sources, or how to find them? What makes a book or person or pamphlet or phone call or any other source any more trustworthy than YouTube? Even if there were scientific research, what makes it trustworthy? Peer reviewed papers are proven wrong all the time. How does one go about being careful?

Start with Erowid.org's overview of it:

https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ayahuasca/ayahuasca.shtml

Read the Experience reports [1]. These will be the only way you know what to expect: emotional state, temperament, bodyweight, gender and personal pharmacodynamics are all variables.

Trust me, from there you can figure out the rest.

[1] - https://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ayahuasca.shtml

Buy ticket to Ecuador / Peru. Head towards Amazon basin. Is advertised around.

Ecuador shaman / healers / dealers whatever you want to call them are government licensed (san pedro / ayuascaha. Peru they are not. You can find good places in both, but more cowboy outfits abound in Peru

How can someone effectively research which centers are good? It seems really vulnerable to hucksters putting on a good show.

There is so much introspective thinking going on when you do mushrooms...you’re engrossed the next day in thinking about all the things you discovered about yourself and who you are. Whether that makes you a better person or not, I don’t know.

Anything can make you a better person, depending on the type of person you are. Personally I have panic disorder and would probably go full schizo.

It's a pity that research on MDMA was stopped due to the drug war.

Yeah just anecdotally, it did make me a better person. Not at first, but the experience of being unequivically, obviously _happy_, for the first time in my life, understanding that I was going to be okay, that I could just like talk to people and make friends, and so on — even if it was mediated by drugs, made me realize how much of my perception of how the world was, lived only inside my head. Nothing about the world had changed, but suddenly it felt beautiful and safe to me in a way that it never had before.

My perception of the world was obviously distorted in some way by the drug, but my perception while sober was also distorted by a lifetime of traumatic experiences that molded how I felt about myself and other people. I forged new relationships with people, I cut off relationships with other people that were bad for us both. It wasn’t an immediate change, I took years for me to dig myself out of the hole that I was in— but I genuinely believe that mdma saved my life.

And this was in a totally unregulated environment, where I pretty much exclusively took it at raves and all the therapeutic talking sessions were with random strangers on ecstasy that happened to be around when the mood to talk struck me. I have to believe that a professional therapist would have accelerated the process significantly.

> My perception of the world was obviously distorted in some way by the drug, but my perception while sober was also distorted by a lifetime of traumatic experiences that molded how I felt about myself and other people.

This. I wish we could put this realisation on par with object permenance and other massive cognitive models we discover as we grow.

This was my experience as well, way back in the 90s-- it was like all the 'walls' dividing me from others came down.

I would add that another aspect which could have been helped by the presence of a therapist is the comedown. I went from one of the most elated & connected experiences of my entire life to one of the worst depressions, as I realized that 95% of the good feelings were fading away and my walls were involuntarily coming right back up. The only silver lining was the belief (which I still hold) that at least parts of that connectedness could be revisited by being more dedicated to cultivating moments where it was likely to occur.

FYI, that research has resumed: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/opinion/ecstasy-ptsd.html

There is also research being done on using mushrooms and ketamine to treat depression: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/13/magic-mushro...

I think the attitudes people have towards recreational drugs are changing slowly, but they are changing.

Sidenote: while MDMA is believed to have therapeutic potential, it's usually categorized as an empathogen rather than a psychedelic. It helps people feel empathy (a connection to others) and temporarily suppresses anxiety and fear. Makes it possible to re-examine traumatic events in your past without judging yourself negatively. However, it isn't known to produce visions or a "mystical experience" as psychedelics do.

even psychedelic can be a bit ambiguous. I prefer entheogen, personally.

I’ve never used them, but everyone I’ve met who has, has spoken along similar lines that dropping acid opens up another part of your mind. So I think if it does unlock another part of your mind, then absolutely it could make you a better person.

“Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life." -Steve Jobs

Which of the many obstacles to trying them are stopping you? What would it take to overcome them?

However, it's possible that part of your mind gets in the way of you being a better person. Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it has any practical use. There's a reason we've evolved to not be tripping out all the time.

Based on the Walter Isaacson bio, acid didn’t seem to make Jobs a better person, in terms of treating other people well, regardless of whatever else he got from it.

> There is a strong claim here that has never been tested: can psychedelics make you a better person?

Never been tested !? Is this person on drugs or something !? Ahahahaha!

But seriously, homo sapiens quite obviously happened from a collision of apes with psychedelics (most probably psilocybin mushrooms)... So without psychedelics there would never have been any people! Terrence McKenna very thoroughly explained this theory many times. Its easy to find on faceboogle. All his other theories are nowhere as solid as this one, imo.

On another note, drugs are foods, and different foods are good for some people, in some situation, some of the time, at some dose. Finding those perfect variables is the real trick. Opium, for me (and almost anyone I believe), at a certain dosage, has tremendously improved my life, on all levels - but if I increase the dosage even slightly or don't take enough breaks, it begins to have negative repercussions. People who do endurance sports are all craving endorphines. Marathon runners could preserve their health by dosing opium properly. LSD is definitely a must-do for everyone, but in the right settings. Nobody is driven insane by LSD - they had to already be insane, and it would bring it out more (which is really the quickest path to a cure). Iv met someone who cured acute autism with psilocybin. MDMA is renowned for treating victims of PTSD. I mentioned opium - opium isnt (really) a psychedelic but its certainly the most bewitched beneficial substance I know of - very good for older people or alcoholics. It takes away all cravings for alcohol, tobacco and coffee (3 most detrimental drugs on earth, with refined sugar). But be careful not to increase your tolerance. I agree with Eliot in MrRobot - you can take 30mg of morphine-equivalent per day forever and youll be able to run out without waking up in the ninth circle of hell. Given the choice I'd much rather incarnate a hardcore morphine user than a roaring alcoholic; at least I'll still be able to have a successful career, a thriving social circle and a very long life.

This is a very interesting take on opium. Are there sources on long-term use with regulated dosage you can point to?

Doesn’t the tolerance increase with regular use? Or is this managed by takin brakes on a regular basis? In which case what about withdrawal?

Re: Sources: Opium and its derivatives certainly are the most demonized substances, in the most drug-ophobic time in history. There was a very extended study done by Britain in India. It was quite extensive, and their TLDR: No worse than alcohol

RE: Tolerance: The tolerance is very much dose-related. So if someone took large doses for just a week, they would suffer more withdrawal than someone who took small doses daily for a year. The breaks are something I found to be useful to 'feel' my current tolerance. Here's how it kind of goes; I'll have a 24-36 hour break, weekly, and if my tolerance isn't too high, the feeling will be a pleasant one. The feeling of my own body will be heightened, and I'll even have one good nap. I usually take this day to do hard physical activities, or do the menial tasks I dont like. It is also a good time to do psychedelics, like hash, since the body sensations are increased. If, on the other hand, my tolerance was too high, I'll have some mental/psychological discomfort and diareha. I won't try to avoid it, as I see this as a necessary part of life, and what I am doing,effectively, is condensing all my misery in a single day. In this case, I'll know that I need to brind my dose back down. The benefits are ability to sleep, as I suffered from chronic insomnia for my entire adult life prior to using it. This single benefit has an endless river of secondary benefits. The other great benefit happens at 'peak' effects - the mind becomes extremely clear and realist, so those are my most productive times. Combined with a good fermented Yunnanese tea, and the thinking capacities are just off the charts. It also took care of some social anger issues I have - being frustrated with most of the world commiting species-wide suicide; now I can think about my own ambitions instead.

That all being said, opium is extremely powerful, and it will harm anyone without enough self-control, or who is ignorant of its power- It happened to me at the beginning, and I suffered a very bad week of withdrawals when I ran out once. But the experience was also beneficial in a sense; it thaught me a very good lesson about the impossibility of achieving eternal pleasure, which cured me totally of the hope that one day I might find nirvana - it's a joke. Enjoy your misery; it is part of your lot. The end of your misery is the end of you.

Thank you so much for this. I’m in no way interested in the popular prohibition-powered narratives and your account is very useful as it is rare and authentic.

I re-read your entry and your comment about nirvana reminded me of something g which you may find useful.

I encountered “nirvana” == “absence of suffering” concept presented in a different way, and not as the absence of discomfort or pain.

It was about ending the belief in the “false sense of authorship” — the sense that we are authoring our actions somehow independently of internal and external factors, a sense that takes credit for the actions and then presents the possibility that they could’ve been different, better etc. this illusion of separation was presented as the cause of suffering.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GXtQXxJU6NY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j95Xz_3IJWw

What's the problem with coffee?

It is very bad for your health, and doesn't have much benefits. Opium is- again- a very good replacement. But the problem with opium as compared to coffee is that it doesnt have this 'uncomfortable dose' limit which basically stops people from taking extravagant doses of coffee. So a lot of people will just keep taking more and more, which ends up being harmful. Nothing is free in this world. But coffee is really bad for your health. If anything, switch to fermented black tea- much less harmful.

That's not an explanation.

Why is coffee so bad?

I can find a ton of papers on the positive effects of coffee. Only very few on possible negative effects, they primarily focus on cafestol and kahweol as bad for cholesterol, but only when the coffee isn't made with paper filters, which trap those oils.

The book to read is entitled "Caffeine blues" - which you will not need to read completely to be cured of coffee forever.

Finding tons of papers stating something or another about one of the most lucrative 'non-banned' drug in the world in the period of greatest drug illiteracy to information ratio is no great feat, my friend. Certainly, one can find tons of papers on the web on the merits of perpetual motion machines.

You're making very lofty claims, based on a single pseudoscientific, for profit book, written by someone with very questionable credentials. Have his claims been peer reviewed?

Can you give me a summary? I'm not going to waste money on a book full of unsubstantiated claims that are based on no actual research. It has all the hallmarks of bullshit conspiracy nonsense.

> Nobody is driven insane by LSD - they had to already be insane, and it would bring it out more

I really, really, don't want to write this because I'm a very drug friendly person. I personally don't do drugs except alcohol (I know how horrible it is, but I have anxiety problems) but I am ok with all sorts of drugs as long as there is scientific evidence it improves your life.

Having said that, your quote up there is wrong, I know at least one datapoint. In my freshman semester in Berkeley my roommates tripped with LSD (I was sober and their sitter). Everything went well. However, the second time we did the same thing unfortunately one of my roommates absolutely berzerk and did things I cannot even begin to write here without getting banned. It involved violence, nudity, disgusting human fluids, you name it... Cops were ultimately involved since we couldn't stop him and he was about to harm himself by harming strangers. He ended up fine because he didn't harm anyone, just embarassed himself deeply. In fact, he had no repercussions other than having to live with the fact that he did all that stuff.

Was this person insane in the first place? No, I lived 4 years of my life with this guy and he was one of the smartest, most intelligent people I've ever met. I don't know what it means to be "crazy" maybe he had psychological problems inside his head, but as far as we know he didn't have such problems. He went to a psychologist, but as far as we know, it was a fabrication to be prescribed Ritalin and Adderall. So, overall, it did not seem like he had any psychological problems.

His experience affected me really deeply. I never got to do drugs I wanted (LSD and psilocybin).

I don't want to give the message that "LSD is bad". No LSD is probably an awesome drug. But I really don't think "LSD can't make you crazy if you weren't in the first place". It's probably 1 in a million chance, but not impossible.

"Was this person insane in the first place? No, I lived 4 years of my life with this guy and he was one of the smartest, most intelligent people I've ever met."

Intelligent people can have mental issues. They can be really good at hiding them too -- both from other people and sometimes even from themselves.

I've read over and over again of people living together for decades, and one day they find out that the other person is a serial killer or an abuser or some other sort of criminal, and they had no idea, even after living their whole lives with them. People are really good at deceiving each other, and often the people closest to them are just in denial, and either overlook or make excuses for behavior and signs that sometime look worrisome in retrospect or when seen by people who aren't so involved.

Psychedelics, especially at large doses, are certainly not without risks. Some people just aren't ready to face what they might reveal. Many people also don't treat them with much respect, viewing them merely as party drugs or sometimes even destructively. There are ways to use them constructively, and ways of maximizing the chances of having a productive experience and of integrating what one learned during that experience back in to one's ordinary life.

For specific recommendations on maximizing the positive potential of psychedelics I'd recommend reading "The Secret Chief Revealed" and "The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide":

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chief-Revealed-Myron-Stolaroff...

https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Explorers-Guide-Therapeut...

> "LSD can't make you crazy if you weren't in the first place"

It can't. There have been some very good research done which show that the society we currently live in is completely insane, which implies that almost anyone living in this society is mad. I really enjoyed 'Characer analysis' by Wilhelm Reich - very good stuff - in which he showed that the facist society we live in has turned us against ourselves. LSD and its brothers will break the 'emotional armor' that people have build up to supress their emotion to survive the facism of their family/classroom/workplace. Releasing too much emotion at once can very easily harm people. So I am not backing off my claim, but I'll admit that since mose people are insane, LSD is potentially dangerous for most people.

Did you friend have a very rich sexual life when the incident happend? I'm not asking you to answer here obviously, but I'm almost certain he did not.

> Did you friend have a very rich sexual life when the incident happend? I'm not asking you to answer here obviously, but I'm almost certain he did not.

No I don't think he had sex before that incident. But how would that affect his trip. As I wrote above, his first trip (which was about 6 months before the second one) was really fun for him.

You can read the book I mentioned, it's all in there.

> Nobody is driven insane by LSD - they had to already be insane,

This is untrue, and dangerously so.

> Iv met someone who cured acute autism with psilocybin.

This is incoherent. Autism is never acute, it's always chronic. Part of the diagnosis is "has this lasted since childhood?"

Re: autism: Well, regardless, the person is now fuctionning quite 'normally' - nobody would know that this person in question was autistic. And it was psisocybin that did it.

Re: LSD: I'm not backing off my claim. Almost everyone living in this society is insane. So in that sense LSD is 'dangerous' to almost everyone today.

A major problem with the Stoned Ape Hypothesis for me is that it lacks any physical mechanism. It's fair enough to argue that psychedelics might increase some cognitive or perceptual faculties, but McKenna never explains how this could lead to a selection pressure for intelligence, or any other mechanism for genetic alteration.

For anybody interested in experimenting I recommend reading about LSD microdosing as an alternative to high doses that make you trip. Look for James Fadiman's research.

"Research". Fadiman is a quack, there is no research in to "sub-perceptual" dosing. It's the homeopathy of psychedelics. See https://www.gwern.net/LSD-microdosing#fadiman-comments

The research actually being done is in "perceptual" low dose and high dose psilocybin/MDMA and so on, where are the results so far are promising.

"Research" because it cannot be done officially as LSD is illegal, so he relies on subjective reports of people who microdose, which cannot be precise and standardized, of course. Have you tried it? What I can recommend to you is to go and try it yourself, then tell me if it is homeopathy. Nothing can replace your own experience.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal. Psilocybin and MDMA are illegal but there's research being done there.

Microdosing is homeopathy because of the emphasis on "sub-perceptual" doses. There's no such thing, when it comes to psychedelics. You either perceive it, or it didn't work. Fadiman could do blind testing to try to prove me wrong, but he won't. Why not?

I'm sure there are lots of people who report "benefits" from microdosing, just like there are lots of people who report benefits from energy crystals and reiki.

Note that I'm not saying psychedelics are worthless for the things microdosing claims to help with, just that you need to actually take an active dose to get any of those benefits. 3ug of LSD is going to do jack shit.

Homeopathy and 3% of a standard dose of one of world's strongest drugs are very very different things.

Even setting aside the massive, proven, perceptual effect that placebos have -- which means that if you do believe in homeopathy, it could actually have a strong effect -- this is analogous to saying that a couple of sips of beer is going to do "jack shit". It won't do much -- but your liver will still process it, and it will provide some energy, and it will have a very mild affect on your nervous system. Is a couple of sips of beer an "active dose"? What's an active dose here?

In contrast with homeopathic solutions, which are diluted down to figures like 1 PPM (presumably a very very low % of what would be an "active dose" of its chemical), this is a 3% dose we're talking about! It's intellectually dishonest to assert that there would not be an effect on the nervous system at that level, and it is a strange position to assume that because the effect on the nervous system does not rise to obvious perception, that it has no effect on the experience of the subject.

Beer commonly comes in 8oz cans. 8oz is about 237mL, 3% of which is about 7mL. I would absolutely say that 7mL of beer is going to do jack shit.

The experience of the subject is linked directly to obvious perception. If it isn't affecting perception, it's not affecting experience! It could affect other things, like your liver or whatever, but it really does need to affect your perception in order to have the benefits people claim microdosing has, which are all linked to moment-to-moment experience.

I was basing my analogy on the idea that a standard dose of beer, for someone drinking beer, is probably 2 12 oz. bottles of beer.

"If it isn't affecting perception, it's not affecting experience!" I think this is the main point on which we disagree. I'm curious why you assert this so strongly.

If we agree that there is an effect on the nervous system, then the question is, at what point does that effect "matter". And you are saying that it only matters at the point that the subject can detect the shift in their own perception from baseline. You also argue that any purported benefits of the substance are only realized as a result of the detection in this change of state.

I can think of a few examples of cases where we would not be consciously aware of a change from baseline, but would effect our experience. Do you need to be aware of your change from baseline for the painkilling and pleasantness of endorphins released after a mild walk to have an effect? Do you need to be aware of your own difference from psychological baseline for the little bit adrenaline released before an important meeting to have an effect on your alertness?

Our recognition of our own perception is a fallible signal detector. There can be effects on the nervous system that have effects on other systems, regardless of whether the conscious mind detects a signal.

And if you agree with me so far, then the question is if the effect on the nervous system and in turn its effects on other internal systems has any therapeutic effect. That's a different discussion, I reckon. But unless a requirement of all the purported therapeutic effect is that the subject has consciously observed their altered perception, then it is possible for there to be an effect on people's lives from sub-perceptual doses of chemicals. (for example: non-psychoactive drugs, heavy metals, viruses, etc.)

Yeah I think sub perceptual is a ridiculous term. Microdosing on the other hand is legit. Take a quarter tab (say 25 ug for the sake of the argument) or 0.33 grams of psilocybin mushrooms and you won't see visuals but you will feel a slight increase of energy and perception and will not be as overwhelmed or incapacitated as you would if you were "tripping balls" on a "full" dose.

In my experience no it can't. Only your own willpower can do that.

But it can make you see things you were not seeing, or refusing to see before.

Not sure if they can make you a better person but I’m fairly certain they can help you know the difference.

Seeing the reality of who you are (or closer to the reality of who you are) can potentially propel you toward making changes.

Be interesting to see the stats that might indicate some kind of rational answer for this question. Personal anecdotes, interesting though they may be, are irrelevant.

Can they also make you a worse person?

i’m a moderately anxious person that grew up around people who were really ok with psychedelic use. i did it in college with pretty much no baggage going in... multiple times... i’ve basically never had a positive experience, and i’ve had two really bad trips that i kept getting flashbacks to in the months after. i got over both eventually.

to me acid, peyote and mushrooms just make you feel kinda sick, maybe giddy for a while and you see weird stuff. by the end you always want to go back to normal before it’s done, or at least i did. that’s why they’re not addictive usually

Definitely yes!

ibogaine

yes.

Can? Yes. Will? Maaybe.

Is you need drugs to become more open minded and empathetic, the source of the problem is your upbringing, and by proxy the culture. The contemporary liberal western culture actively works towards shaping us into selfish materialistic consumerist narrow minded soulless beings. Half a trillion dollars per year go towards this effort, and the solution is start drugging ourselves with LSD? Bet, if that ever became common, advertisers would find some way to exploit that too, so that instead of enlightenment your mind starts flashing ads all throughout the high.

I agree with everything you’ve said from the consumerism perspective, but there’s something to be said for just... exploring the ‘other’ regardless of upbringing. People from cultures completely detached from capitalism have been altering their experiences with psychedelics forever, and I dare say many of them have come away feeling like better people as a result.

you're painting "drugs" with a broad brush

psychedelics are not like cocaine, despite what the 'gubbmunt' would like you to believe - rather they are like a window into your 'self' - if you think of psychedelics in terms of frequency, you might better understand the tremendous potential they hold with regard to a laundry list of ailments, including depression, PTSD, etc.

I don't take LSD and go listen to electronic music because its a window to my 'self'. I take it because its fun and feels good, the same reason people take cocaine.

Your comment doesn't address what he wrote. The answer to anything as far as the modern consumer is concerned seems to always be "Buy more stuff!" In this case, what's being pedaled is the cure to consumerism. And the irony that the proposed solution is to buy yet another product seems lost on most people here.

Enough is enough. I agree with the original poster. Our solutions to every problem shouldn't be to buy yet another thing.

I downvoted you because psychedelic culture is about as anti-consumerist as it gets, and it takes a pretty incredible reversal to try and paint it as a product being pushed for people to buy.

I don't understand psychedelic culture, admittedly, but I can't wrap my head around why you think it's anti consumerist. Drugs are being bought and consumed, right? Isn't that the core of the culture? "Do this one thing, that costs money, to improve your life." I don't see the fundamental difference between that and purchasing any other product.

Thanks for saying why you downvoted, anyway.

Because drug culture isn't about buying things you don't need with money you don't have to distract yourself from the now so you wouldn't feel existential dread or have to face your runaway thoughts. Psychedelics take you to the NOW and almost force you to deal with YOUR shit.

It's impossible to try to convey what it is like to someone who hasn't taken them. You just won't know what you're missing or how it is until you try because it works on your core being and whatever it is that filters the reality that is experienced.

If that is the definition of consumerist, I'm not one in any way. I'm in my 40's, retired and living abroad in a small apartment. I have no car, and live well within my means.

I've met a lot of people who have done a lot of drugs, including, but not limited to psychedelics, including close family members who I knew well and could watch their descent. The ones I know are depressed, some have suicided, others are in huge amounts of debt.

If psychedelics are such a cure all, why have I never met anyone who took them who had their shit together?

Writing in a diary, talking to a therapist, and opening up to people can also be ways of dealing with your own problems in a direct manner, without so much risk.

I think I meant to write a couple lines at first but the text just kept increasing and then I went into notepad to really put a spin on it. Oops.

I can't say for the whole psychedelic using population what their motivations are but as far as I can tell there is a clear distinction between users who are doing spiritual practices or trying to find meaning in their lives and so on versus slamming the heroin needle or hitting the crack pipe to get the craziest dopamine rushes you have ever experienced. Not to mention the latest meme to hit the mainstream, the microdosers, who use it as performance enhancer.

Psychedelics as a broad group of chemicals all with similar action in the brain and body contribute to thinking patterns and removing filters on your consciousness. Some people find after one or more trips that they've uncovered something that gave them a new lease on life or something. Some junkies who 'take anything they can get' even avoid psychedelics because it puts into focus the state they are in. They don't want to face that for whatever reason. Maybe that's why they are there in the first place.

One meme in the psychedelic culture goes "when you get the message hang up the phone". You don't need all the pleasures in the world. You certainly don't need to get those huge dopamine rushes daily and you don't need to or likely want to keep constantly tripping in search of the craziest visions and highest peaks, especially if you don't take the hint and start working on bettering your 'sober' self.

Of course there is a whole scale of motivations in between and it's reasonable to except people can function in society despite occasionally using catalysts to trigger pleasurable experiences, as long as their whole existence does not become only that at the expense of maintenance. There is some science on that when your other needs are covered and you're doing pretty well you don't end up in a downward spiral like that and won't get addicted or at least not in the same proportion as when you're trying to fill a void with external catalyst induced neurotransmitter rushes.

I'm not the one to overtly preach or advertise indiscriminant psychedelics use because they can reveal or really put into focus all the bad shit you've been avoiding or traumas you have pushed deep down that you kinda forgot they existed or never dealt with. If you're unprepared or already on the edge bad trips might push you past it and you may end up with something that seems like permanent mental problems. Instead of increased clarity and awareness you may end up at least temporarily in the shitter, and if you have no coping mechanisms you could be fucked.

In my experience I think they contributed to giving me an ability to 'see beyond' the every day reality and from that the motivation to really pay attention to and hone the way I live and act towards myself and others. It's as if for a long time I was a hostage to the depression in this body and couldn't take the steps to fixing the situation back when it was less dire. I used to hit the bong every day all day and slowly cause ruin to my body in many other ways. I became more aware of what I was doing wrong and where my anxiety was coming from.

I just hope you realize in part your comment is being down-voted to hell not because of your opinion, but due to a lack of critical thinking and good faith arguments.

Consider even your first sentence “If you need drugs to become more open minded and empathetic...”, is a misstatement of the subject.

The only question asked by the article and any commenter from what I can see is can you become a better person?

I don’t know your religious leanings, but just probability tells us that they likely disagree with your premise that having a good “upbringing” is all it takes to become a person with no room for improvement. Likely your belief system encourages a lifetime of effort to improve these qualities.

The question here is not about needing drugs. The point is most people would be interested in bettering themselves if possible. For thousands of years humans have pondered ways to do so, and they will naturally continue to consider possibilities to do so within a sea of possibilities. This article simply continues that tradition.

> the source of the problem is your upbringing,

Ok, so it's no fault of your own and you need a crutch, by your own reasoning.

> and by proxy the culture.

That doesn't follow at all. Lots of people remove themselves from their native culture, which is often toxic and sometimes benign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com