[0] http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/only-a-handful...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppm59z/smoking-weed-can-b...
[0] http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/only-a-handful...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppm59z/smoking-weed-can-b...
The stereotype of the burned-out hippie exists for a reason. I personally know people who took way too much acid and never quite came back to earth; some are diagnosed schizophrenics, while others are just a bit eccentric and vague. There are a lot of really harrowing reports in the Erowid archive. HPPD is almost certainly a real disorder. I'm not advocating for DARE-style scaremongering, but I think that any honest conversation has to give serious consideration to potential risks as well as potential benefits.
Given that I was quickly disbelieving everything I had been raised to believe, and given that I was also doing teenager things like partying with friends and experimenting with various substances, there was an incredible amount of tension and arguing taking place in my home. My relationship with my parents was appalling. We fought constantly. I hated their beliefs. I hated my upbringing. They had no idea how to deal with a son who had always really been a good kid - a fun companion for my dad and a really loving child with my mom (who is still one of the most adorable, kind, caring and wonderful people I've ever known).
One night, when I was perhaps 16 years old, I came home quite late. I was high on LSD - probably the latter part of the trip. I was walking around the side of my house to get to the back door, and I paused. I started thinking about my parents. And suddenly it all became clear to me - the reasons for why they were they way they were, and the centrality of love to it all. The fact that their strictness was rooted in their deeply felt fear that I could end up doomed to spend eternity in hell. That, and a dozen other insights about them and our relationship washed over me.
This moment completely transformed our relationship. It was like a fever had broken. I still utterly disbelieved in their Christian faith - but I no longer raged against it, or felt the need to argue with them about it. I accepted them. I realized they had grown up in an environment similar to mine, but had never been able to break free of it. Instead of anger at them for this, I felt compassion for them.
I recognized that I loved them, and they loved me.
I know I could have gotten there without the acid trip, but I firmly believe that it would have taken several more years at least. That moment of insight when I was 15 or 16 years old was the kind that sometimes doesn't dawn on people until they're 30. Sometimes it never does.
Incidentally, this is just one of many moments of change that are rooted in some of the experiences I've had with psychedelics. I also, for example, shed my existentialist fear of death. But that's a different story. ;)
For instance, my uncle who is a preacher was completely barred from using his iPad to store and read his sermons, because using such a thing as a tool to preach was somehow evil. ????
A big part of the existing doctrine is to try to help you identify things which are sinful, which basically means will separate you from God. And there's a place for that. But there is also a huge modern movement which focuses on Jesus' interaction with people, the actual words he spoke and the things that he did which are very loving, forgiving, and accepting of even the worst of sinners.
Which is more effective? (A) "Don't take those drugs, you'll go to hell!" or (B) "Hey man, I love you, and God loves you. I think these are having a very bad effect on your life. I'd like to help you with that, and will be here for you when you want to talk."
In my opinion, (A) is more of what the old-style doctrine preaches, while (B) is closer to Jesus' actual actions in the bible.
Anyways, I'm done. I wanted to also make the point that I fully believe you can pursue science and physics and all of that while still being utterly amazed at the breadth and beauty of God's work. But this post is getting too long, and people have in the past accused me of being a fence sitter for holding that opinion. I am not.
Dismissing someone else's assertions because they lack evidence or proper logic is not being egotistical.
... by simply asking your parents to list their reasons of why they are against your LSD "self-education".
You did not have to open your mind with LSD in order to understand your parents at age 15.
Are you a researcher, or are your opinions based on some research you could cite?
Now, there are several good reasons to exercise increased caution in the absence of evidence when dealing with under-developed brains of people with a lot more years ahead of them, but that's much different from a blanket strong opinion.
If you have special needs children with brain issues, early intervention is best. Doing something about the problem while they are very young can lead to lifelong enhanced productivity and quality of life. On the flip side, trying to intercede and screwing it up can have lifelong negative consequences.
I'm generally pro nutrition, not pro drug, but I'm not anywhere near as anti drug as most people imagine me to be. Anecdotally, I have known people who had anger management issues and the like who did the kind of drugs that mellow you out.
People who only believe what the Bible says is right versus people taking a drug and accepting its effects as the real truth.
Both sides should know themselves without external devices forcing a certain "truth" on them.
There's no "truth" that they show you. You just... have an experience. And then you think about it. And then maybe it changes you, maybe it doesn't.
Just like any other day, only turned up to 11, dose-dependent.
Are they just chemicals, though? Some people think they are themselves divine. One example of this can be seen in the attitude of worship of some Native American societies towards peyote or psychedelic mushrooms. Some people think they allow communication with the spirit world, or with their ancestors, or with gods.
Even if they are "just chemicals" that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't show you truth. After all, you could say your entire brain is "just chemicals" and if you are basically your brain, any truth you happen to come across is the result of "just chemicals" of one sort or another. Further, pretty much the entire world could be described as "just chemicals". That itself does not diminish the possibility of finding truth in it or through it.
Yes, rituals. When something is important, powerful, dangerous, but it's not wise to ban it, a society creates a ritual around that, to signal importance and danger. Western societies have rituals too. Not much to do with the truth.
> Even if they are "just chemicals" that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't show you truth.
That may be, but in this case it does mean exactly that. There is Charles Manson or the odd baby-killing ayahuasca cult brainwashing its disciples with psychedelics and propaganda to prove this.
> That itself does not diminish the possibility of finding truth in it or through it.
Or maybe it does... :) But that's pretty far from the original point I was trying to make.
> [Y]ou may see the content of your brain, and the world around you, in a different light. You may find some 'truths' this way, but there is no guarantee.
Or... They let you see some things that might teach you some truths. YMMV.
I just looked that up and have assumed it was normal for most of my life. Sometime around when I was 3-5 years old, I was laying in bed, looking up up at the wall and noticed this visual noise. I wondered about it and resolved that "that's just how it is." I would also close my eyes and let that fuzz "set in" and see beautiful fire works and replay music in my head. Maybe just developmental hallucination or whatever.
In rooms with no lights, that visual noise actually forms into spacial "estimators", I think somewhat formed by memory of what the room actually looks like in full light. I've always noticed it, it's always been present, and I thought it was a normal function of human vision. I'm in a dark room right now and almost everything has that visual noise on it. The less light the object reflects, the more visual noise it has.
> There's a rather worrying trend of psychedelics being "sold" as a safe panacea.
I guess I missed that trend. Every time I've ever talked about psychedelics with people, it's always been "psychedelics, with disclaimer" - the disclaimer being that things can go very wrong and to be careful; read erowid for facts and contraindications; read recent "safe drug" reports; always have at least one sober person to steer things in the right direction; and have a safe place to go.
> If you believe the cheerleaders, psychedelics are powerful enough to rapidly cure mental illness and facilitate profoundly positive personality changes, but have only trivial side-effects.
I don't think I've heard it posited this way - I hear people say in some form that the effective administration of a safe dose of certain psychedelic drugs can be medically efficacious. I feel like I'm way more likely to hear drug side effects trivialized in a drug commercial.
>any honest conversation has to give serious consideration to potential risks
Agreed. It should be the hallmark of any "let's try some drugs" discussion.
HPPD happens with the eyes open, in the light, and is usually more pronounced than something like a floater[3] (which can also be seen in the lights, with the eyes open).
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_cinema
The best description is that I basically don't see flat even colors anywhere. There is always some amount of colorful noise. It's not that bad, and I can mostly tune it out. But it is always there.
I know phosphenes are normal, visual stuff that happens when you close your eyes. I have them all the time.
I don't know if it's related, but I regularly get migraines that are usually not painful, just uncomfortable and accompanied by strong auras.
I just looked that up and have assumed it was normal for most of my life."
I've always had visual snow and similar symptions as described for HDDP, color patterns and flashing/movement, visible on any flat-colored surface and especially with closed eyes (similar to what Prisoner's Cinema is described as being). I have never taken any drugs in my life, other than alcohol.
Honestly, I've always just thought it was a normal part of the visual processing that happens in the brain.
Everyone gets this. Visual artifacts are a fact of human vision.
If effects like walls breathing, significant visual snow, people's faces shifting/morphing and a skewed perception of proportions are interfering with your daily life, that's more than what we commonly experience. Abusing psychedelics (especially certain ones) can bring about this type of experience after they've left your system.
It’s not like it’s possible to have a placebo effect here. I was an isolated depressed, angry young man at 24 who had never had a relationship and all of my interpersonal relationships were completely toxic and was afraid of being touched, working at a minimum wage job.
Within three years of using ecstasy, I had hundreds of friends, learned how to DJ, was promoting parties, networked my way into a well paying it job, had a long term relationship, and eventually was djing for crowds of 1000+ people.
I’m not sure how I’d have gotten from a to b without using mdma and acid. I still had some work to do to integrate all of that and learn how to do it while sober but man, just being able to experience happiness and love and having open conversations with people amd talk about my feelings and just being hugged by strangers was so instantaneously life changing for me it was almost miraculous.
That said— I did mdma waaaay too much and don’t recommend doing it as much as I did. I think I got everything valuable I was going to get out of it the first 4 or 5 times. Everything after than that was just partying.
FWIW (anecdotal), I've had small psychosis ("bad trip", a BS name for that IMO) lasting a few hours to half a day on it multiple times under different circumstances (one time combination with one glass of alcohol plus not being used to either, one time where I passed out after -apparently- too much of active substance, one time combination with anti-depressant). All these 3 times occurred in The Netherlands where marihuana usage is decriminalised. Why did this happen though? Turns out, as I figured much later, I have autism, and weed made my autism-related symptoms worse in certain settings (ie. when I was not alone). Consider, for example, that I can get anxious in large groups because of all the stimulations. Consider, that weed increases these feelings and makes me even more receptive to these stimulations. Doesn't take a genius to figure that can lead to a (mild) psychosis. I've never had a psychosis on weed while I was alone though. Every psychosis I had was related to stress, apparently autism-related.
I don't want to forbid others what I did myself, but what I feel I can do is warn them and share my experience.
Many times I have asked myself if I could just stop once and it would never happen to me again (which is a lie, since there's always a trigger outside marijuana consumption), but the actual experience of dealing with psychosis have always been incredibly attractive to me.
I have to admit that I did become better at managing my own state of mind where I can not directly control the circumstances. I don't think you can control the psychosis, no - but you can teach yourself to get familiar with what is happening to you and therefore know there's nothing to be afraid of.
But my question is still that of: what if I, for once - could not directly control myself and would end up damaging or even killing myself? I don't think it will happen to me anymore simply because I went through with it. But what if I wasn't lucky enough? That still frightens me, when I think about it.
> Plus being afraid of being by myself; or alive even
I absolutely love being alone. I mean, I like to learn, read, watch, play, etc. which I can do on my own. Its when I am the least anxious. A rule of thumb is the more people around me, the more anxious I become unless I'm one of the many (not in the center of attention; though my odd behaviour can cause that). This is regardless of being in a state of psychosis.
After those 3 mild psychosis I had a long one in end of 2012 related to stress but not (AFAIK) to drugs. This one lasted for a total of approx 2 months. FWIW, the fact that I had those mild psychosis before, helped me during this time.
Is that the ideal way to threat a psychosis? I don't think so. The best thing to do -even if drugs are involved- is seeking professional help. Something I failed to do, because I distrusted that around that time.
Also, I can highly recommend mindfulness to cope with anxiety (and other negative feelings such as lack of focus/concentration, being/becoming oversensitive, even insomnia). I recently followed a course on mindfulness for people with autism and can recommend.
> I don't think you can control the psychosis, no - but you can teach yourself to get familiar with what is happening to you and therefore know there's nothing to be afraid of.
You can only control it so much, but the despair of feeling not in control is painful. It is a matter of accepting that and knowing that over time it will go away. What you need to do is focus on that long term. IMO it is a test of patience. As I said before, I feel like mindfulness can aid here. If you lack the faith though, do admit yourself. Right away.
> But my question is still that of: what if I, for once - could not directly control myself and would end up damaging or even killing myself?
During my psychosis I pretty much had no ego left, and could easily criticise myself without feeling any resistance or pain to that whatsoever. That is an advantage, one I feel the scientific community could indeed explore. I wasn't afraid of damaging/killing myself directly (if I was, I'd have voluntarily committed myself to a ward) but I was afraid of damaging/killing myself indirectly, getting in a worse state (after a while I slowly felt I was getting out of it). So I pretty much locked myself in a dark room with one laptop (on a decent brightness) and WLAN and a couple of bottles of water which I sometimes refreshed. The only time I went out of my bed was to pee (I barely ate; not hungry). I felt like I had that part under control though I must admit: it would've been more safe if I admitted myself at that point. In the beginning I could not sleep, and when I slept I felt like a waking dream. I had permanent headache. Both of that slowly progressed to a better state. I can also, regrettably, say that my brain was damaged; I felt less intelligent afterwards. With the correct professional aid and guidance such can be recovered till some extend, akin to with seizures.
While I agree that people should be cautious about taking any mind altering drug, from what I've seen alcohol seems to be even more dangerous (compare your first link with the information here[1] and here[2]). The big difference is that there is immense societal pressure to consume alcohol all the time (and this pressure occurs everywhere - you'll even get it at work events). Contrast that with something like this pro-psychedelic piece, which only advocates the potential of a small number of uses of psychedelics in one's entire lifetime.
[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/alcohol-poisoning-deaths/inde...
Yes, that's the point. I want drugs to be legalised because I recognise the harm that is caused by keeping them illegal. But our society's complete failure to promote the public health message around alcohol[1] means that I'm reluctant to push the legalise message.
[1] you only get one type of health benefit if you're an older woman drinking small amounts; for everyone else there's either no benefit or increasing levels of harm
[0] is entirely about how safe psychedelics are. It opens with an anecdote about eight people who took several thousand times a normal dose with no adverse effects (then later mentions that alcohol's ratio of lethal dose to effective dose is ten).
[1] is about experiencing bad side-effects (while you're high, not lasting) from marijuana. It makes an unlinked reference to conflicting studies about association with schizophrenia, but that's it.
I'm not saying that all drugs are great and people should just have at it; our policies on drug use should be focused on harm reduction. In order to do that it's critically important that we have real empirical data about how drugs are used and can be abused, not more baseless scaremongering about people "succumbing to the spell" of drugs.
Weed definitely changed me.
There used to be a saying that LSD made smart people smarter and stupid people jump out of windows. Is that a good thing?
Jokes aside, evolution is not necessarily modern civilization, technology, and laws. Those are our creations, and psychedelics have been an active part of our arrival at them. Psychedelics have been used by humans the world over for far longer than people have been making LSD in labs.
Which is even more pronounced when the brain hasn't finished to develop itself .
Advertising drugs as trivial is dangerous ,it could lead to youth experiment with drugs much younger at much larger scale.
So yes, I am in favour of democratic nanny states.
They need better regulation, education (not the systemic industrial kind currently provided) and discussion. Marketplace of ideas and all that.
The UK at the moment seems to have a bad case of regulation == nanny == bad
Whenever I hear someone saying thing s are over regulated, it means they have a great wheeze to scam someone out of cash if only it was allowed.
I fully believe that education is great and sensible regulation to the benefit of all but my core assumption about designing a society is to have sane defaults
The simplest would be something like SAYE (Save As You Earn) where your employer pushes 10% of your paycheck into a index isa each month from the age of 18.
Basically if you do nothing but accept the default, you arrive at 55 years old with a pension.
(effectively that's what is happening now in UK with pensions)
The defaults for society should leave us with a decent floor - and it's up to us to raise the ceiling.
Call it a nanny state, sensible regulation, or the only way to release a distro
PS: we are asking the same: better regulation and education (and more boards of discussion) is the foundation of a great state.
That's the way I see it anyway; one big gradient. I don't believe the world is so black or white that the entire population exists on one extreme or the other.
They're still everywhere, despite the fact we're pretty sure they are unhealthy at any dose.
I'd like to see arguments from both sides from people with deep knowledge in the subject rather than people who happen to have a voice.