Comment by RevRal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RevRal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We flat out do not have a good understanding of how a brain is effected by drugs. And, it is amazing that the drugs that are least harmful, or not harmful at all, are the most illegal. There are, of course, devious reasons for that.

Whether we are aware it or not, everything that we perceive and consume effects us. One person will react differently to the sight of a bowl of cereal than another.

It is the same with drugs, but just more blatantly obvious. Even though there is no physical damage done, there is still a change occurring. Whether this change amounts to a damaged psyche or enlightenment is really hard to measure since the only precedent to hold our experiences against is anecdote.

Is there a reliable method to harness the positive effects of drugs? Probably, but it is a long way out there.

A person is indulging in a risk by taking drugs; but, there is an inherent perception of risk in most new experiences. Ever meet someone who is afraid of a new kind of food? Actually, I don't know if that's related, but whatever.

So, to answer your question. It is not always the case that drugs will effect a person negatively, or positively. There's a lot involved, but the laws simply do not allow us to understand the specifics of what's involved.

I'm more curious why psychedelics are (or were) viewed as something that can cause social problems. It's more clear with drugs that create physical dependence, like opioids or dopamine reuptake inhibitors (cocaine, amphetamines). However, drugs in those classes, along with other addictive drugs like benzodiazepines, are legal with a doctor's prescription.

Why can't people take LSD once a year in a safe, supervised setting?

I don't have a good answer, but I do know that LSD came around when there was a lot of change going on in the world. That might have had something to do with it.

I'm actually pretty curious now, so I'll look into it.

``In a second procedure, which is the favored treatment in the United States, a single, very high LSD dose (0.3 to 0.6 mg) is administered after correspondingly intensive psychological preparation of the patients. This method, described as psychedelic therapy, attempts to induce a mystical-religious experience through the shock effects of LSD. This experience can then serve as a starting point for a restructuring and curing of the patient's personality in the accompanying psychotherapeutic treatment. The term psychedelic, which can be translated as "mind-manifesting" or "mind-expanding," was introduced by Humphry Osmond, a pioneer of LSD research in the United States.''[1]

Read the rest of the reference, you'll find why/how LSD became associated with the counter-culture, and then became illegal because of that. My take is that LSD, when administered responsibly, can lead to major positive life changes for those in need.

It is a pity that it is illegal, which only increases the risk of abuse/work dosage/mixing with other stuff, but perhaps in a more civilized age...

[1] Hofmann, Albert; LSD: My Problem Child; url ->http://www.psychedelic-library.org/child4.htm

"And, it is amazing that the drugs that are least harmful, or not harmful at all, are the most illegal"

That's just wrong, a drug like coffee is a good example of "least harmful" and isn't anywhere near "most illegal"

Coffee has an LD50, whereas they haven't found one for marijuana.

I was speaking with that scope in mind.

The specific drugs I had in mind were psychedelics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose#Examples

This what what my fact checker had turned up: http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/LIBRARY/mj_overdose.htm

And I was careful not to say THC.

read up on caffeine then.

While I disagree to some extent with your parent's point(that legality of drug use isn't strongly correlated with the danger of said drug use), one data point(not illegal, mostly non-harmful) is hardly enough to refute it. To refute it, it is better to point out that relatively few controlled substances in the US have any significant controversy over their criminalization(marijuana and ecstasy are the only two that I recall).

I could have written my sentence better. If I used illegal-ness as my main qualifier instead of harm, that might fix some confusion.

And, it is amazing that the most illegal drugs are the least physically harmful. Still not perfect, but an improvement.

I'm no expert on this, so I admit that this might not always be the case. I went out looking for something to illustrate my point. Didn't need to go any further than wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Rat...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com