Hacker News Reader

Comment by sianemo | Hacker News Reader

While I may not be someone you want to be for specific reasons relating to our individuality, I am a long time psych user and I'm demographically and overall culturally someone that is presented as desirable to be. I'm in a reasonably high income percentile, I lack unsecured debt, I'm happily married, I have a diverse social circle and several personal hobbies, I stay physically active, and I enjoy intellectual pursuits.

I'd be very curious to know what specifically about me, or about something you assume about me, would make me someone you don't want to be?

View on HN

I can’t really give you a fair shake without meeting you, but I can say that I appreciate your reply.

As a real psych user, you should accept that your post clearly has the subtext:

“I have everything most people want, so you’re wrong”

I, too, have everything most people “want”. Maybe we’re equally well off, maybe we’re not. I’ve still never met anyone on-level who indulges in this habit that kept it, and you should know that at our level it’s about keeping it not having it, at least for very long.

I know alcoholics who are well to do, out of debt, happily married, and have a diverse social circle and several personal hobbies, get exercise, and enjoy thinking. None of that shows the merits of alcoholism. I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I could guess that it's your drug addiction that they have no desire to emulate.

Addicts insisting that their addiction isn't one is cliché for a reason.

Setting aside the hilarious disrespect of assuming that I'm a drug addict from single comment on the internet, you are capable of realizing that taking issue with people who use a drug only because of the mental and social association you have of people who use the drug is a super tight loop of circular logic, aren't you?

The idea of accusing someone of being a drug addict in the context of psychedelic use is absolutely hilarious. You sound completely uninformed and pretty much nobody should take you seriously on this topic.

Psychedelics are largely not "addictive". Certainly not physiologically, and almost certainly not mentally.

They actually show promise for stopping additions.

Many psychedelics are the opposite of addictive: if you take LSD for more than a couple of days, for example, the effect diminishes to nothing, whatever dose you take. You need at least a couple of weeks to re-sensistise.

I challenge you to find someone addicted to psilocybin. I would be impressed if someone managed to do a trip sized dose let’s say… 2x a week for any long duration.

High frequency of use is a necessary condition for addiction.

>>necessary condition for addiction. Necessary, but not sufficient

You might also note that the GP said nothing about frequency of use, only "long time psych user", AND that no one here has defined "high frequency" in terms of an actual threshold for addiction.

The fact is that for all drugs, and especially for the psychedelics, there are far many more people who use occasionally and responsibly than the subset who are addicted. AFAIK, the psychedelics are not considered addictive at all, either physically/physiologically or mentally.

I agree. Traveling expands the mind, but you don't want to be traveling all the time. Is travel addictive? Maybe for some but for most of us probably not

High necessity of use is a frequent condition for addiction.

alcohol is neurotoxic and addictive. psychs are neurotrophic and non-addictive, but the purity isn't guaranteed. Impurities are common in blackmarkets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com