I have a buddy who did like 150 hits of LSD 20 years ago and there is a great sadness in him and how he can’t really share that experience with most people. People, who’ve never played around with LSD tend to become super condescending with him like he’s damaged.
The thing is, these studies or motions to incorporate psychedelics into therapy are never advocating for super human doses. I can definitely see the value in micro to moderate doses coupled with qualified therapy for non schizophrenic consenting adults. A full on like wizard trial into the nightmare heart of psycho hell with heroic doses of whatever is not what these guys are arguing for.
Maybe he really is damaged? Happy and sad states are required to be in some balance for a person to in a relative state of equilibrium.
I don't know your friend, maybe he is balanced and people who are at the other extreme (always need to be or to present themselves as happy) make fun of him.
But I do know drug users who can't enjoy anything any more.
I get this odd feeling when talking to him that he is mostly playing along with conventions. Like he is well aware how close everyone is to madness. Or maybe there is a layer to reality outside of our senses, very strange and more real than real. Like for people who have never done anything crazier than smoking a joint or getting really drunk.. it’s pretty easy to disregard psychedelics as just intoxication. But the upper doses can be transformative to say the least.
I know people who have never done drugs who don’t seem to enjoy anything either.
No, your exact comment is why trippers are discouraged from talking about their life altering profound experiences because you seem to be judgemental of the fact that it is drug induced.
>But I do know drug users who can't enjoy anything any more.
This really gets me. Its such a stereotype. What effect precisely are you referring to? To my knowledge there is no substance that alters your brain that permanently. Except brain damage and extreme overdoses, which has little to do with their effect and everything to do with dose and responsible use. There's a difference between people who tend to use drugs and how drugs affect people.
strange chemicals are the few things that seem to reach people in the center of their being. exercise being the second on the list for those starved from it.
What exacly do you mean by "Alter your brain permanently"?
https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Great-Revolutionary-Treatment...
The first one helped me understand how the mind influences the emotions, haven't read the second.
Look at all the police videos on LiveLeak etc...you will see a common thread in all arrests gone wrong: the suspect didn't do as he was told despite repeated warnings.
Easily debunked. The police are not absolute, they are human beings. Some of them are not suitable for the position of power and use it to abuse others.
Are you truly generelizing to all arrests based on a few shitshows?
You know how many police officers get killed by trying to arrest people peacefully?
Do YOU know how many police officers get killed trying to make peaceful arrests? Do YOU know how many black people get killed by the police during peaceful arrests? Because I guarantee you that you do not. I am too tired of people like you commenting like this so I’m not going to put in the work of looking things up for you. Please educate yourself on this matter before speaking about it.
EDIT: s/office/officer/
Meanwhile spending time in circles where drugs are used you don't have to search at all to find plenty of examples of people who ruined their lives. Even weed can do that. And while it mostly applies to young people I have several examples of 35+ with no prior problems getting some very destructive habits. MDMA has completely changed a closed friend of mine (early forties) for the worse. Psychedelics? That's some very powerful stuff that should be handled with extreme care. Meanwhile you have youtube channels presenting them as you would have a beer.
I used to be pro legalization 10-15 years ago. Right now I would investigate the problem for at least 10 years as full time job before considering a position.
Well, you should be careful about that beer. Actually you should probably be more careful about that beer.
If you feel people are being too blase about cannabis, then you ought to be horrified at how popular culture treats alcohol. Alcohol is toxic, it's a killer in both acute and chronic scenarios. It's carcinogenic, harmful to a lot of your internal organs, it's addictive, it's fattening, it can even cause seizures if stopped too quickly. It causes mental health problems and mental decline. It really is one of the worst drugs and its annual death-toll beats out all other drugs combined.
No drug use is without problems, but this societal attitude that "drugs" are bad, but "just a beer" is fine... it's flat out deluded.
So I have no problem treating a lot of forms of drug use, particularly of drugs like cannabis and other less-harmful substances, just like someone having a beer.
What do you mean by that?
How is that relevant to whether we should treat drugs the same as or differently to "having a beer" ?
In particular you seemed to think it was wrong that they were treated the same or similarly by youtubers - but if the relative harms are comparable or even lesser for many drugs, why is this wrong?
Do you think if more drugs were legal alcohol consumption might not drop in some places?
There appears to be some evidence that in states with legal cannabis, for instance, binge drinking declines - https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2018/04/05/binge-drin...
And what I ment with that is that you would unleash some other abusable substances into society.
Psychedelics offer little in the way of physical risk and are not addictive in the same way.
Honestly they concern me far less than alcohol. It's booze, tobacco, meth, cocaine and heroin you want to really watch out for.
(edit - and we can probably include synthetic cannabinoids in there as well)
But I believe this is part of the criminalisation and demonisation. From the official channels, like media and school drug prevention(in germany), it was mostly a simple "don't do it" "it is all bad". While the cool, a few years older nutheads presented it as magic.
If it would be legal, people could talk about it more openly and share their experience freely to the younger generation and we could help the addicts more easily, if it would not be so stigmatized, like it is now.
In my area there is a great usage of amphetamines (with the root source of bad economy, though), but if those people look for official help, they have to fear of their children being taken away, etc.
I'm still pro legalization of almost anything regarding psychoactive drugs. Not even prespription, just over the counter as I see fit, but with clear labeling of ingredients, dosage, and mandatory quality control to exclude any adulteration.
IMO most of the shit that happens results from not knowing exactly what it is, how it has been adulterated, and unknown potency/dosage combined with stupid undergrond lore/disinformation because of criminalization.
This is even true for weed, which can be treated with all sorts of nasty stuff, either to make it weigh more, to hide bad quality(make it smell better, feel more sticky, look like good weed), or to make it more potent, and therefore addictive. I mean imagine smoking lead laced(for adding weight) weed, combined with some PCP(to make it hit more).
Not to forget the use of pesticides during growth and anti-molding agents for long storage in bags. Many of them are nerve poisons for humans.
This has happened, and it will continue to happen again and again as long as it is criminalized.
By insisting on carefully trialling for at least 10 years you are just prolonging these uncertainties, and deny the interested users a safe product.
All that uncertainty is self-inflicted by prohibition, especially for non-synthetic drugs. Absolute ignorance of looooong usage in many cultures.
That isn't the case recently if you look at the data. The discovery of new precursors a few years ago drove down the price of MDMA in Europe to the point where it is cheaper and easier to obtain than the possible replacements. Even in the US the flood of methylone and it's cousins is over. Meth is still sold as MDMA when pressed into pills, but those are pretty easy to distinguish.
Uh... alcohol is infinitely more dangerous than psychedelics, both potential and actual damage caused.
Alcohol is the most dangerous drug we have. Drinking too much at once can kill you (psychedelics can’t), discontinuing habitual use can kill you (only alcohol and benzos!).
Then we have the effects alcohol has on judgement and behavior, which aren’t good! Alcohol causes or exacerbates a ton of social problems.
LOL.
In a hospice setting it's kind of hard to make your life worse, so it's reasonable (IMO) to try somethings there.
AFAIK, schizophrenia is not caused but revealed by usage. AFAIK, most people suffering schizophrenia or psychotic attacks under the influence tend to be under 25 yo, which is the population that tends to suffer from those ailments.
I am not a doctor, take my words with a grain of salt and do your own research. If I were to be wrong, I would love to be corrected.
Existing drugs are low efficacy even in ideal cases, and even lower when you look at how they're used in the real world. Then you have to try and factor in side effects.
These are the factors I think drive this decision.
It's worth noting as well that whether and how severe the various drugs under consideration actually cause the poor outcomes you list remains a matter of debate. Maybe they don't, maybe they do and it's worse than the current worst case prediction. We won't know until exactly these studies are completed...
Full disclosure, I have had severe depression long term though I've been doing a lot better for the last 5 years or so.
"Ultimately, Oram concludes, ‘although the increased regulation may have had some impact, the decline of LSD research in the 1970s can be more convincingly explained through the outcome of the clinical trials of the late 1960s’"
> This drug does not work well for everyone
No drug does.
> and you only find out once you have taken it.
true of all prescribed drugs.