While I've had trips since then and do get benefits from those experiences. People without experience should be careful, especially if you have a history of mental illness. He did have a history to some degree but not overtly.
His mood post trip became increasingly abysmal. He became highly paranoid, and started questioning the loyalty of the people close to him like his family. I now know that this was a sign of possible schizophrenia. I now know that dementia runs in his family. He started creating simplistic yet disturbing paintings. I wish I still had them.
This happened in March of 2020, COVID had just become a national concern. I was dating long distance at the time and she wanted me to come up before the airports closed down. Sometimes I regret going. I wish he had gone somewhere so he wasn’t alone. He ended up shooting himself with his grandfathers rifle.
I guess the lesson here is be cautious with drugs that can accelerate mental illnesses if you have a family history of them. Check up on your friends that have bad trips and seem kinda off.
Science disagrees. Many attempts are impulsive and a minor hurdle can be enough to stop them.
"I should kill myself" grabs gun and fires
"I should kill myself. I'll go buy some poison pills tomorrow." feels better the next day and never actually does
If anything this event further radicalized me into the gun control argument. I have shot a few and they’re fun and all, but at the end of the day it’s impossible to detach the form from the function. They are killing machines. Something as powerful as a firearm should absolutely have a regular psychiatric evaluation attached to it if you insist on owning one.
But if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense, nor is it used to endanger a family member. The vast majority just . . . sit there. They're machines which must be used respectfully and responsibly, not magic evil talismans.
This is irrelevant to the statement that having a gun around is more dangerous than not having a gun around.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-owner...
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homi...
> Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn't to kill themselves with a gun.
That is specific to handguns and kind of what would be expected?
Also, being more likely than not likely at all is pretty much comparing degrees of impossibility.
Seems like this pops up in arguments often.
Something like:
"We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"
So what? More likely than not that’s the type of gun the person we’re discussing used.
> and kind of what would be expected?
Again, what’s your point? Because it’s expected we shouldn’t discuss it or do anything about it? Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.
> "We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"
It happens in the US significantly more than in other countries. The US is literally at the top of the list, to the surprise of no one. So yes, making it happen fewer times, perhaps by learning from other nations which have demonstrated it’s possible, is a worthwhile goal.
The article states specifically that people who commit suicide with a gun are more likely to do so if they own a handgun. IMO, that follows from the mechanics of the scenario.
It is easier to point a handgun at yourself and pull the trigger than it is to do so with a long gun. So, IMO, it is common sense that it is more likely that someone committing suicide by firearm chooses to do so with a handgun over a long gun, and they are more likely to do that if they own a handgun already.
However, it isn't like a random person who owns a gun is significantly more likely to complete a suicide attempt just because they own a gun. Yet, a person who is already at risk of suicide might have an increased risk if they own guns.
That being said, as a random individual, the risk of completed suicide over a lifetime is incredibly low, and that risk is even lower for suicide by any firearm.
> Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.
I don't see this as being analogous to what I am saying. Maybe I am missing something.
students who take a weapon with them to school, impact welfare & performance of nearby students just because they are aware of that [1]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/
[1] https://apadiv15.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Reducing-Wea...
go figure the plot you have to live after an event of this type
I am not saying these aren't issues, but that the risk is often overstated.
Also, I think there are plenty of other things that are greater risks than the likelihood of gun violence toward oneself or others that impact lifetime well-being for individuals on a socioeconomic scale, especially in schools.
Those aren't really the numbers you'd want to look at, right? If you have a community with 1000 firearms and 499 of them end up being used in a shooting you could still assert that "most firearms are never used".
I think what you'd care about in assessing risk is: what is the likelihood of violent injury and/or death in household with firearms vs households without? Controlled for other relevant factors?
I've never seen this particular assessment presented in the way I've described it, but then again it sounds like there are some political hurdles to studying gun violence: https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-viole...
> They're machines which must be used [...] not magic evil talismans
I feel like there's a straw man in there. No one is worried about guns sitting around literally unused, and I don't think anyone cares too much about the used/unused ratio. Obviously the thing people are worried about is how they are used when they are used.
For example most people have access to cars, statistically much more dangerous than guns, and no one seems to imply that having a car around incites people to violence. People who are mentally ill and dangerous could as easily use any array of common tools or methods to commit acts which are dangerous to themselves and others. That doesn’t make it the tool’s fault.
I have a lost one too, but due to a different cause. He took hard drugs he was dealing to pay off a house after a legislative decision basically eliminated his well paying job. We grew up very much do what it fucking takes kind of people. And we were tested in life more than once. I still draw from that time today, sometimes remembering and finding that which will get me through. I miss him terribly.
Had he not used, he would have made it! We talked about that, and he used "a little" to know better what he was dealing. Now we all make choices and he made his. At the time, financially, it was understandable, though I would have chosen differently myself.
Anyhow... hard lessons!
Lost him in my very early 30's and I think of him regularly, as I am sure you do yours. What got him was the loss of autonomous breathing! Yes, right out of Greek mythos, he suddenly had to breathe consciously after a particularly nasty interaction with some of the product and his physiology.
It truly was a curse. Bit by bit, he lost the fight. Was cruel and hard to watch.
Sidebar: I am angered and lament the timing because I very strongly feel some form of electrical stimulation could have helped. I lacked means at the time. We both really wanted to try. Doctors had nothing.
End sidebar.
These drugs have awesome potential, but they also come with considerably greater risks than many of us know too.
Good PSA. Seconded.
Be careful peeps. We think we understand. Fact is we just don't yet.
And that will improve with proper study using the scientific method.
If you ask me, cutting those risks is the single most powerful argument for permitting ongoing research and study of the powerful things left for us in Mother Natures kitchen.
How about just having supervised sites with trained trip sitters so that people don’t have the ability (under the influence) to do irreversible things? Perhaps in a therapist’s/doctor’s office.
Yes, that would be better than a free for all. Of course.
The guy I lost had unique physiology that meant he was unable to use a substance most can with far fewer worries.
We have that data point now, and I hope it made it into the literature too.
But getting it was expensive! Cost one good person, and left a family without a father and many other souls, myself included, hurting.
More is needed.
And I am not saying your suggestion is bad. I sure do not see it that way.
It is just inadequate in light of the real problem space, that's all.
And remember, just taking it IS an irreversible thing. For most, that is not a big deal.
For some, it is a HUGE deal and the hard fact is we do not understand who is who in all that.
Peace, live well, play safe.
When you say "hard drugs" are you referring to mushrooms? Where I'm from mushrooms aren't considered a hard drug, heroin and cocaine would be.
Yes
But it is hard to understand when herion, and LSD are in the same legal category
The law is an ass
Pharma is responsible for suppressing knowledge and proper medical treatments. They're letting people die so the fear sets their patented drugs in stone. It has worked very well for them.
There is a plethora of information on the net on how to start safely, if at all, and why most people should not use psychedelics at all. Set and setting are just as important as the dosage.
And we should absolutely continue research to learn more about the adverse effects. Obviously they help a lot of people, but must be done with care and seem not to be helpful for every person. We must learn more about these conditions.
The laws have turned it into something taboo and then people often start consuming psychedelics in a weird and suspicious way to begin with...because it's not legal potentially leading to more and more bad trips.
Meditation is similar, often seemed to be associated with guidance from someone who know how to do it and had experience dealing with some of the potential negatives associated with it. I just read a book by Mingyur Rinpoche and I ended up having a severe existential crisis, that book shocked my being to it's core at the time.
California is looking at legalizing psychedelic therapy without full legalization which is an interesting approach. I think ultimately adults should be allowed to make their own choices, as I’ve had very meaningful trips in a friends living room for a few dollars and a fully regulated therapeutic setting will probably cost $1000 (based on costs in Oregon). But maybe a therapy-first based approach will help underscore the need for appropriate ritual around these materials. Ultimately though adults are allowed to take risks with alcohol and other substances, and I think we should be free to do so with psychedelics too.
https://apnews.com/article/psychedelic-mushrooms-mental-heal...
It was a great book, but the way I thought about myself was let's say, very incompatible with the Buddhist ideas about self. The words I read in that book were undeniably true, and it shocked me.
Book and the Netflix series.
observationist https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=observationist original comment:
Around 1% of people have schizophrenia. This holds over a lifetime - there's a structural, unavoidable component to the person's neural wiring or physiology that will result in a schizophrenic break. Prior to the break, they may seem more or less normal, but after, they will experience deficits in cognition and perception, and may have significant barriers to living a normal life. Schizophrenics, as a rule, will have a psychotic break before they turn 45. Psychoactive substances, and high doses of psychedelics, will trigger breaks from reality earlier than they might otherwise happen. Stress, caffeine, trauma, or significant excitement can also be triggers, but psychedelic drug trips are a reliable trigger, and in conjunction with other effects, can spiral a "bad trip" into a much worse trauma.
Another 3 to 4% of the population have significant mental disorders, ranging from those we know, to those we can observe but don't have a good diagnostic criteria for. In these cases, it can be very detrimental to use psychoactive substances generally, and psychedelics in particular.
It's crucial to visit with a doctor to rule out the likelihood that you're in the roughly one in twenty people that might have a significant negative reaction to psychedelics. Some of the people in that camp might be safe from harm later in life. I know a person with significant family history of schizophrenia and earlier life indicators he was at risk, who then started using mushrooms in his 50s and seems very stable. He talked things over with his doctors before deciding to take the risk - apparently after you turn 45 it's incredibly rare, even with significant trauma and stressors, for schizophrenic breaks to occur, so if that's your main threat, it might be safe to engage in psychedelics when you're older.
If you're not in the high risk camp, you should still have at least one frank discussion with your doctor about pitfalls, and do a metric ton of personal research about any substance you intend to use. It can be a profound and wonderful departure from the norm, or a mildly unpleasant experience, or a stressful confrontation with your inner demons, depending on the dose and preparation.
my response:
Thank you for this. I thought this was a very informative comment; I am worried about schizophrenia as a disease that might impact my kids. I wanted to ask you for more information, but that is a burden, so I asked ChatGPT instead so at least you wouldn't have to go find links. If you have Other reading besides what is below I would be happy to hear about it.
Here is it's response from ChatGPT (Claude couldn't provide links). My contribution is that I checked the links and skimmed them to see if they supported the statement. They are repetitive (there are only 7 articles linked actually), but they generally support your comment. Of note the PLOS article does not support your comment, and it seems that it doesn't support what ChatGPT says (maybe I misunderstood when skimming it). The stuff in parens below (Looks Like This), was a link in ChatGPT, but the links didn't copy-paste, so I'm going to put all the articles at the top here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-023-02138-4
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12...
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/schizophren...
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/schizophrenia
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/drug-psychosis-may-pul...
https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/qa/understanding-your-risk...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The comment you saw online contains some accurate points but also could benefit from additional context and nuance based on available research.
1. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Schizophrenia:
- The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is approximately 0.3% to 0.7% globally, which supports the 1% figure as an upper bound (Nature) (BioMed Central) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
- Schizophrenia typically emerges in late adolescence to early thirties, with men often experiencing onset earlier than women (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
- Factors such as genetic predisposition, prenatal exposures, and psychosocial stressors contribute to the risk of developing schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .
2. Triggers for Psychotic Breaks:
- The statement that high doses of psychedelics can trigger psychotic breaks in predisposed individuals is supported by evidence. Drug-induced psychosis, particularly from hallucinogens and cannabis, can lead to schizophrenia in some cases (Psychiatric Times) .
- Other triggers include stress, trauma, and significant life changes, which can exacerbate underlying vulnerabilities (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
3. Impact of Psychedelics on Mental Health:
- Psychedelics can pose significant risks for individuals with a family history of schizophrenia or other major mental health disorders. It is crucial for these individuals to consult healthcare professionals before considering psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
- Research has shown that about 25% of those with substance-induced psychosis may transition to schizophrenia, with the type of substance being a significant predictor of this transition (Psychiatric Times) .
4. General Mental Health Considerations:
- Around 3-4% of the population may experience significant mental disorders other than schizophrenia. For these individuals, the use of psychoactive substances, including psychedelics, can be particularly detrimental (PLOS) . [NOTE: This seems to be an error from ChatGPT, this PLOS article doesn't seem to support this conclusion. As I haven't done personal work on this yet, I don't know whether the statement is supported by other research.]
- Mental health evaluation and professional consultation are recommended before the use of psychedelics to identify potential risks and ensure safety (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
5. Later-Life Considerations:
- The risk of new-onset schizophrenia after the age of 45 is indeed rare, which suggests that older individuals may have a lower risk of experiencing a first psychotic episode triggered by psychedelics (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
For further reading and to deepen your understanding, you may refer to sources like the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the World Health Organization (WHO), and recent research studies on the global burden and risk factors of schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) (Nature) . Additionally, the Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) provides detailed information on the safety and risks associated with psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .
From https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/schizophrenia
The NIH page sources these studies:
Kessler RC, Birnbaum H, Demler O, Falloon IR, Gagnon E, Guyer M, Howes MJ, Kendler KS, Shi L, Walters E, Wu EQ. The prevalence and correlates of nonaffective psychosis in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Oct 15;58(8):668-76. PMID: 16023620
Wu EQ, Shi L, Birnbaum H, Hudson T, Kessler R. Annual prevalence of diagnosed schizophrenia in the USA: a claims data analysis approach. Psychol Med. 2006 Nov;36(11):1535-40. PMID: 16907994
Desai, PR, Lawson, KA, Barner, JC, Rascati, KL. Estimating the direct and indirect costs for community-dwelling patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, 2013 Jul;4(4):187-194. doi/10.1111/jphs.12027/epdf
IMO, this is kind of asymmetric lazy commenting that wastes other peoples' time. If you want to share something, just link to a article, and leave the LLM bullshit out of it.
I actually asked the LLM for supporting or refuting sources. I didn’t think I was cherry picking. Looking at its response… maybe CharGPT didn’t pick up on the “refuting” detail, or maybe observationist was correct. So maybe next time a prompt “find supporting” and another prompt “find refuting” would be useful to ensure coverage of both sides.
My value add in the human+AI workflow was to check the links. They seem high quality and directly applicable to statements made. I took pressure off observationist to go find directly applicable links (and I saved time by not googling for each separate fact). That being said, I probably didn’t need to requote ChatGPT in full. I liked the full answer because it assured me ChatGPT was responding on each claim but the important thing was the links. So, more efficiency was possible in my yc comment.
Guess what - you're missing out on a fentanyl high, so awesome that people sell all they have to get more!
I do wonder what the actual odds are of getting injured by psilocybin though.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/planecrash/risky.html
[2] https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians23
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
More importantly, driving a car gets me where I want to be, not just triggers an unexpected condition bug in my brain.
I think it's irresponsible to tell people to take this or that drug since we still don't have good numbers on the risks. But I also think telling people to completely abstain is dumb, and the government trying to enforce complete abstinence even more dumb.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/health/alpha-gal-ticks-me...
Most people who are licensed to drive are unlikely to have a negative reaction from the act of driving for 2 hours under controlled conditions. The same can not be said (at all) about use of mind altering substances, given the mind cannot necessarily be controlled. Set and setting.
Also, you can control your own dose. I've never heard of anyone encountering any long term side effects from trying a single low dose of psilocybin. Especially since some studies show that very low doses aren't any different than placebo.
Then again most people don't start with a very low dose and ramp up slowly because people are human and do dumb things.