Hacker News Reader

Comment by fasteddie31003 | Hacker News Reader

Probably 95% of people can handle psychedelics. That last 5% are not going to handle psychedelics well. I'm talking about the people on Market and 6th with schizophrenia. If you give someone with schizophrenia mushrooms they will have a total break with reality and might not come back easily. This is going to make the street people of CA even that more crazy.

View on HN

> That last 5% are not going to handle psychedelics well

I imagine the ratios are similar for alcohol, cannabis and tobacco. Subjecting the 95% to threats of fines and jail time for the 5% is wrong. But it would make sense to use this new tax base as a platform for addressing our homeless and mental health problems.

Kamala Harris sent Californians away for long haul prison sentences on drug-related infractions. Anyone here who thinks mass incarceration improves society should explain their reasoning, because I really don’t understand.

Also the parent commenter on “tax base” is misguided. We’re not talking about legalizing and taxing drugs, just not locking people up for victimless crimes.

> We’re not talking about legalizing and taxing drugs, just not locking people up for victimless crimes

This bill isn’t. I am.

Fair enough. I fully support legalization and deregulation of all "controlled substances"

I mean mass incarceration for "long haul" (lets says 30+ years) prison terms absolutely could be argued to "improve" society by removing people who have broken the social contract.

The classic problem with prison is short and frequent sentences that fuck someones life up just enough to prevent them from being a "good" member of society but not long enough to really keep them away from the general population.

Who exactly considers that the "classic problem" of prison? Your reasoning strikes me as perverse. This "social contract" is the rule of a few elites with racially charged political agendas over the many, look into the history of drug laws. It's not a just contract if you are manipulated with false propaganda and coerced by force into signing.

> "social contract" is the rule of a few elites with racially charged political agendas over the many, look into the history of drug laws

There are a lot of violent crimes with shockingly short terms. Including for repeat offenders. This isn't a problem for elites, who can afford to stay away from these problems. It's a problem for common, law-abiding, unexemplary Americans.

We were talking about drugs, not violent crimes. I believe the police should focus on violence and ignore individual consumption of drugs.

What’s this here about a social contract, hmm? I never signed any contract.

"That last 5% are not going to handle psychedelics well."

The way this comment is written makes it sound as if 100% of people will be using psychedelics after decriminalization goes into effect.

It seems likely more people will try it, given the rosy-colored picture most sources paint of psychedelics (vs. something like meth) and the fact that it's legally available.

100%? Of course not, but some who are susceptible will likely be in that percentage of people who decide to give it a shot.

Psychodelics are not something that one will use everyday.

From the list: " psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT) , ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) , ketamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)" - I think only MDMA is abusable.

The street people of CA are already breaking drug laws. Smoking crack on the sidewalk is illegal, but they do it right next to transit security the metro station in my old neighborhood no less. This doesn't realistically change much, since this sort of thing hasn't been enforced for these people in parts of CA.

You say that as if they don’t already have easy access to drugs.

You really think schizophrenics on 6th and market are holding off from drug use because it's illegal?

What do you mean by if?

I'd assume they're already on psychedelics regardless of whether they're legal or not.

Do you understand that psychedelics are not a mainstream choice even amongst habitual drug users? They are not an easy escape route from daily discomfort. People who want to escape or numb their pain have many less challenging options available.

Very few people take psychedelics for long periods of time. If anything they are "anti-addictive".

> Very few people take psychedelics for long periods of time. If anything they are "anti-addictive".

The more "mainstream" ones like LSD and Mushrooms basically don't work if you're taking them every day. You can go on a multi week long Coke binge but LSD/shrooms would have near 0 effect at that rate.

because they're not doing drugs now? And putting them in jail will help how?

Maybe instead the national government can take care of veterans, and we can start having proper mental health care

Do you have any actual basis for claiming people with schizophrenia will have a "total break"?

https://dualdiagnosis.org/drug-addiction/psychosis/

I think I'm missing something. That article is about stimulants (not hallucinogens), and it concludes that long term use of them can cause anyone to experience psychosis. That's the opposite of showing people with schizophrenia will break down!?

Also, is it a foreign article? The language is weird and hard to follow in places, like it was written by an algo or translated automatically but chrome claims it isn't doing the translation...

There are lots of rehab and recovery links like the previous one and this one, but it is quite hard to find specific details of what triggers sever psychosis/breakdown in the context of psych drug use.

I do know an RN who nursed someone who had taken LSD in the late 60's and never recovered mentally, which had quite an impact on my perception of this class of drugs

https://blackbearrehab.com/mental-health/schizophrenia/schiz...

1% of people have schizophrenia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com