Understanding the risks of buying potentially adulterated or counterfeit products is another thing entirely, which would be helped greatly by increased commodification and legalization.
I myself have had bad / hell like experiences a small percentage of the time, despite literal hundreds of good experiences prior.
Becoming a father many years ago significantly altered my trip experience.
Dosage also plays a strong role..
These things are generally less toxic than alcohol and it is criminal to punish someone for having them or using them.. But they are also extremely powerful, and despite potential amazing experiences, do carry risks.
And they are definitely not for everyone.
One of my first times after, in my experience, I literally went to hell. I was convinced I was on the outskirts, all the people at the party around me were demons, I was about to be tortured forever, and I was never going to see my son again and he was going to grow up without me..
I convinced myself I was in that position because I had wrecked and killed someone, and my punishment was forever replaying the experiencing of a life where I would grow up to have a son, only to have him ripped away from me, reminded of what I did, and then tortured for some nearly eternal amount of time....
Any conversations people had with me at the time, I heard the words they were saying but completely twisted the meaning of the words to fit whatever crazy narrative was going on in my head.
This has happened 4 or 5 times. Despite being familiar with the experience, in my mind it just reinforces that I am in a "loop" at the time, about to be tortured again..
It's happened with LSD, Mushrooms, and surprisingly even ketamine. *edit it also happened during an intense changa experience with a shaman in Tijuana, which was my most intense experience with anything to date..
You'd think I would not take this stuff anymore =p I have at least slowed down considerably...
As an atheist with no supernatural beliefs (that I know of), I wonder if a trip on LSD for me would just be boring, or if these supernatural things become real during a trip even if you don't truly believe in them.
Regardless of your beliefs, whatever your experience, I highly doubt you would find it "boring".
I can't even imagine that really, it would take a very boring person.
I've heard a lot of acid stories, but never "I was just kind of bored"
I tell people: I had both the best day of my life, and the worst day of my life on psychedelics.
Some of the best raves of the late 90s and early 2000s were at The State Palace Theater in New Orleans.. At the last party thrown there, I was invited to play first on the main stage, biggest soundsystem and crowd I ever played for, all my friends there to support.. Set goes great, we all hug and celebrate and and start tripping, and have a great time..
At about 4AM I go to get something in my record bag that I left on the stage by the decks.. someone stole it. It also had my car keys in it, among other things..
My buddy had to drive me 3+ hours away to get my spare keys, and hours back, and hours back home again, it was two days after the party before I finally settled in at home, without most of my keys and my stuff.
I had a friend who recorded and took pictures during my set, but in a different incident at the party, he dropped the camera in a literal hole in the floor of this dilapidating building, never to be seen again.
Despite being the worst feeling of my life, and being on acid, it wasn't a "bad trip" because it wasn't the trip's fault...
I would be interested to hear about your experiences. username at gmail if you'd rather not share here.
Sure, I've written a bit about one of the more damaging trips I've had before on HN:
We often attract certain types of people, and have a wealth of experience with that type.
We probably all take this as obvious knowledge. But only when I uncomfortably enter a group of people unlike me -- and feel totally alienated not just by their norms and assumptions, but their misunderstandings of my own -- only then do I truly confront the implications in a visceral, non-academic sense :)
Citing Sam Harris:
“Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going, and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis.”
“This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, some people cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug.”
If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.
If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.
motorcycles...? in... my eyes?
What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)
EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding
I guess we could do something like:
<normal coverage> - <adjustment for risky behavior> + <adjustment for pro-social outcomes>
Motorcycle cops are an obvious subset of people who ride motorcycles. It isn’t an extension at all to include them in your logic.
ATVs might be more of an extension. But, I bet if we wanted to we could find all sorts of jobs that are more dangerous than motorcycle riding.
(Edit: just to be specific, you say we have to draw the line somewhere. Well, then where?)
I'd say it is worth looking at redrawing that based on the maximum effect achieved. Drugs would be at the top of this list, followed by motor vehicle use and unhealthy foods. There is probably not enough justification to go beyond the 3.
I guess I’ve been beating around the bush, but my point is that targeting drugs specifically for this sort of thing would seem kind of, I dunno, puritanical to me (as someone who doesn’t partake). I’d rather just insure everybody and hope they don’t hurt themselves, just out of their own self interest.
From personal experience, this is de-facto true regardless of what anyone thinks the law says.
The problem isnt that this still is casually available. Drugs have been casually available since forever.
The problem is that pushing drug usage to the fringes makes it less safe for people who haven’t done their homework. Ironically the exact opposite of that you claimed.
The only way in the US is to have a powerful lobby that can fight to ensure broad waivers stand up in court, like the NRA: you can buy a gun and literally shoot yourself in the foot.
But if transaction, money, service, profession are all removed, then under a co-op / non profit this might work. Of course, those structures are also vulnerable to well-funded legal opponents.
Some European countries do provide a framework for this but it's more from a public health perspective and to eliminate the raison-d'être of criminal drug organizations.
I've heard of a few though. In 2019 a bay area software engineer who by all accounts was a good guy, maybe somebody here knows him, attacked some people on a trip. He also stole some vehicles, drove over some people, and was shot by law enforcement trying to stop him. He was paralyzed.
That's an extreme oddball case or freak accident.
I think one needs to take in such a story and not sensationalize it or overstate danger, or get yourself scared, but also, you do need to know that things can go out of control for some people.
I was getting ads for MindMed's clinical trials of their LSD analogue a few months back and was considering signing up for it, as I'm totally down with more scientific research on these compounds. However, the idea that a corporation with a patent on an analogue that is lobbying to make it so their version is the one that is approved is kinda the worst. We already have LSD, it's cheap and it's amazing, yet here we are marching down the road of some patented version being the one that's approved for use. I get that these companies want to fund research, but this isn't the way.
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/european-cough-medicine-...
Is that actually the common thing to do amongst recreational psychadelics users (i.e. is there research backing this up)?
And how do these folks "understand the substance(s)"? We (humanity) know very little about how the brain works comparatively as far as I'm aware, and psychadelics research is further relatively lacking due to regulatory and funding constraints. Most resources I hear of just seem to be compilations of anecdata, frequently muddled with subjective remarks.
We were able to clarify it and we're both being decent sports about the topic, but you can imagine how well this might go over in less careful and open minded situations. Or even desperate ones.
If I go buy some psychedelic, chances are it is diluted or laced, so I would have to know how to test that what they sell me is what I asked for.
Of course you have to find such a shop (hint: try Canada), and it's still a lot of hassle for something that should be perfectly legal, and is, in many places.
Teens will always get their hands on things so it’s up to parents to teach kids how to be safe around drugs and alcohol, but I know I personally will be really trying to communicate to my kids that they need to wait until they’re 18 to really start exploring all this stuff. I know they will before that, but as long as it’s a little experimentation here and there and not regular use I’ll consider it a success.
Once you’re past 18 or so, it needs to be all about education and general availability for most substances. Safe usage and community protections (such as not driving while intoxicated) should be the #1 goal.
I'm curious in what demographic/location context you're in to say that. As a teen I wasn't aware of anyone in my social circles experimenting with drugs and would estimate usage to be <10% and from very particular kinds of people.
> By the time they’re in 12th grade, 46.6% of teens have tried illicit drugs.
I guess that speaks a bit to the culture and availability of both things here in the States.
Bringing it into the light under thoughtful consideration and openly discussing and encouraging harm prevention is the only way to make this safe. Everyone should have the right to to exploring this if they want to, and there should be plenty of open discussion, research, and education. I really appreciate the open-source approach here, the spirit of this movement feels like the right thing for humanity.
I strongly disagree. Your circles might be different, but in my experience, wanting to do your homework makes it less accessible, because it tends to put you at odds with the people who are otherwise eager to grant you access. They want people with a certain mindset and an up-front faith in the process. They want people who aren't careful about ingesting psychoactive substances, are eager to put their mental health in the hands of some guy they barely know, and are going to blame their own baggage or spiritual shortcomings if it doesn't go well.
These drugs, and many others, are already pretty accessible if you are willing to take that heedless approach.
In contrast, the approach described in the article is expressly tailored for people who want to be careful and do their homework. It's for people who have access to the drug and implicitly already have access to cruder ways of using it, but who want to put in extra effort for a more controlled experience.
I agree this is important, which is why psychedelics should be legalized so there is at least some sort of control instead of the current approach where 14 year olds can easier get their hands on it.