YES absolutely. The research potential is there, the therapeutic potential is there, the archetypal research into the collective unconscious is there, the field is ripe and the benefits can be many many.
Schedule 1 is clearly rediculous. I honestly think we need these powerful tools in therapeutic settings especially for addiction which is carving swathes through entire generations. I know multiple people who’ve gotten the ability and drive to grow past alcoholism using them, one can only hope it could be a tool for opiate addiction. Benefits for PTSD and traumatic experiences are practically proven at this point with MDMA.
"This is the "my uncle works at Nintendo" of psychedelics."
This thread is a long and predictably basic discussion on a topic that I think has been beaten to death. Your comment, however, made reading the thread worthwhile.
More often than not, those people have previous mental health problems and LSD throws them over the edge. Sometimes the trigger is a getting your head hit, sometimes receiving a prize, sometimes getting dumped, sometimes after giving birth.
At the end of the day you don't see any correlation between psychedelic usage and mental health issues, same as with the examples I gave. LSD is an emotional earthquake, and should be treated as such.
Of course there's a correlation. You've just described one of the causes yourself. Giving people very focused nudges in precisely the wrong direction is absolutely a terrible and serious effect.
Many people live their life on the edge without ever falling off. Think about the prevalence of depression versus incidence of suicide as an example.
There is a correlation between people who develop serious mental illness and people who take LSD. The effect you are describing guarantees this (under very weak and sensible assumptions).
It apparently can bring out already dormant mental illnesses but is not in any way associated with the formation of new mental illnesses.
We all know LSD was literally available _at the pharmacy_ in the USA up until the mid 60s right? The entire nation didn't go insane... And you can bet your ass a pharmacy will at least ID people trying to buy it, you'll know exactly how much you're getting, and there could probably even be an information packet to go with it. Currently if you want it you have to risk persecution, have no idea what strength of dose you'll be receiving, and there's definitely no information packet unless you look it up yourself.
At the end of the day criminalization is causing more harm than it's solving. People have issues with all sorts of things, alcohol is a lot more negative but totally legal.
In general the proper tact is to ensure access to healthcare and opportunities in our society. Then those with dormant or non dormant mental illnesses are more likely to receive the attention they deserve. Access to opportunities means people get involved in their communities and projects and become passionate about something and are less likely to abuse drugs overall.
Or you can spread hogwash like "LSD makes ya insane" which is not directly what you said but how people will read it.
And how is he so confident it doesn't "form new illnesses," whatever that might mean?
Like I've mentioned upthread, I've known a number of people who have clearly suffered from having tried LSD. Some of them will admit it was the worst decision they've ever made. Others will deny it, strongly encourage you to try it, and if you press them for how it might help you exactly they cannot explain, but there is a glimmer of anxiety and recognition that it changed them deeply in ways they are not comfortable with. And they want you to join them.
It's very chilling. It reminds me of how you'll see in some gay communities when someone contracts HIV they will compulsively spread it to as many people as possible.
> It's very chilling. It reminds me of how you'll see in some gay communities when someone contracts HIV they will compulsively spread it to as many people as possible.
Do you have a source for this?
Your claim seems like a very broad and negative generalizatuon of an entire group of diverse people, who are often marginalized.
Sure, and the victim of a car crash doesn't know this taxi ride is going to be the one that kills them. The victim of Pneumonia doesn't know they contracted it in that one supermarket.
Lettuce sometimes carries ecoli bacteria and spreads outbreaks amongst tens or hundreds of people at once. Should we ban lettuce too?
And, I dunno what people you hang out with, but most people I've met are pretty hesitant to just shove hard drugs into their bodies. It's not like everyone would be forced to eat LSD if it became legal tomorrow.
And I know plenty of people who've had bad trips (and many many more that have not) and none of them have gone insane or become mentally ill afterwards. I mean, just look at a concert like Woodstock for instance. Half a million people in attendance, huge counter culture movement, and shit tons of LSD. Look at Burning Man, there are drug overdoses, but they don't appear to be caused by LSD as searches for LSD overdose yield exactly zero relevant results.
I just think perhaps you've been told LSD is bad your whole life when, really, it's not that bad. Take it with care. Don't go dropping tabs when you haven't done your research. But the literal vast vast vast majority of people who take it are fine, and many report it being a positive life changing experience for them.
Not really, because if there's no LSD there will be another trigger. People are sane forever or eventually have breakdowns, very very few people live on the edge, that's why it's impossible to draw a correlation out of the data.
Feel free to add citations, but the most recent findings seem to suggest no negative impacts.
Psychedelics bring forth what needs to be looked at; if one doesn’t have an intention or support to do that, they may want to want until they do.
The same could probably be said for falling in love or starting a company as well.
In fact, my guess is that romantic relationships and entrepreneurship probably trigger “underlying mental issues” with at least as much frequency as psychedelics.
Promoting psychedelics as strong medicine to be used only by medical experts is very different from legalizing psychedelics because some people claim less potential for harm than alcohol or tobacco.
By any objective assessment they are not even in the same league[1]. Should you be prescribed alcohol by a doctor, as well? After all, a significant number of people can’t be trusted to use it responsibly.
The point is that alcohol is predictable and does not affect your well being after the intoxication. Proven countless times.
Using psychedelics is like playing russian roulette. Proven countless times. The effects of a reasonable dose of psychedelics ranges from weird experience to psychosis (you do not recognize false beliefs) to the worst action you have made.
There is a reason why alcohol and tobacco are accepted in almost all societies while opioids and psychedelics are treated differently.
IMO too many people suffer already from psychosis. E.g. flat earthers, denial of climate change denial, denial of urgent action against climate change, low carb diet is healthy,...
Judging what is real and what not is already difficult for many without psychedelics.
Read about Donald Trump or Scott Pruitt, the ex-EPA administrator.
Someone prone to alcoholism tries their first gateway alcoholic drink, becomes alcoholic, kills themselves and several other people in a drunk driving manslaughter. This is not hypothetical, it’s a much too common scenario.
You’re praising the de facto drug of violence, comparable in social harm only to heroin, as “socially acceptable”, while grossly misrepresenting the actual harm potential of substances like LSD (“Openness To Experience” is “Russian roulette”, seriously? So is a trip to the Grand Canyon.)
Then you just call anyone you disagree with mentally ill… You know Donald Trump is a teetotaler, right?
The blog linked above has some good information about how conditional probabilities work as well. I advise checking it out. Really enhances your ability to examine the world and arrive at sound insights if that's something you're interested in. (very much unlike LSD)
To your last comment, maybe this is surprising, but I'm a teetotaler myself.
I think the consensus is psychedelics can trigger or exacerbate mental illness you're already predisposed to. If your family has a history of mental illness you should probably avoid psychedelics. Even if they don't it might be wise to wait until your late 20s to see if any signs of mental illness appear.
But that's not really any different than people predisposed to heart disease smoking or drinking alcohol or eating McDonalds.
The psychodelics will not cause the illness in any way or form - rather the "experience" might trigger an existing one (that potentially can be caused by anything). Although thats still fits with the point about having a disposition to something and acting accordingly. AKA using common sense :D
I thought I went insane from
Psychedelics for about a decade.
Then I did them again in a therapeutic setting and realized I hadn’t a lot of unprocessed trauma that was causing the psychosis, depression, mania, etc.
A few theraptic sessions later, no longer diagnosable as schizophrenic, Biploar and no more suicidal ideation, anxiety, panic attacks, etc.
I’m one story, but my research indicates this is a viable path and I’m working on going back to school to be able to conduct research.
I'm not sure I understand. You had a psychologist retract schizophrenia and BPD diagnoses? Or do you just mean after taking LSD again you no longer feel like you suffer from those conditions?
About 20 years ago I was diagnosed schizophrenic after driving my car into the back of a semi in an attempt to teleport to visit my girlfriend. (Sober)
More recently (5 years ago) I was diagnosed with BPD after being suicidal on the Golden Gate Bridge.
I spent my twenties in a very visionary / mystic / mythic (schizophrenic) state of Conciousness and just didn’t discuss it for fear of being medicated.
A few years ago a found relief trough a combination of MDMA, Mushrooms, NARM Therapy, Breathwork and Relationship as a Path.
I no longer suffer the symptoms, Am no longer diagnosable, and my subjective experience was one of going into deep repressed traumas (birth, circumsicion, parents divorce, abusive step dad, etc) and feeling and releasing them.
I’ve had a psychiatrists, Ivy League hospitals, and film makers approach me for insights into how my approach might help others.
I’m aware I am an N of one, but I tempered my intuition and insights with research (when I was suicidal I was also helping Peter Theil with a private medical research startup and had access to some great minds).
Here is a podcast I did recently with more detail if it is interesting to you:
(I’m also aware that the standard advice is to avoid psychedelics if you have these conditions — for myself, I took the risk as my understanding of mental illness shifted and I was interested in going more deeply into the uncomfortable states in order to heal. For me it paid off, and hopefully it will for others as I work with researchers to expand our understanding of if my results can be replicated — so far it seems they can, with the right Support.)
I don’t think it will get the attention of marijuana, but I have hope we will legalize them again.
Most psychedelic drugs are very niche. Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions. The stigma around it will have trouble wearing off because psychedelics are such an unknown. Most people don’t do them but have heard about people having bad experiences. I hope the overall idea of moving past the War on Drugs can make things like LSD less foreign and delinquent
If you think the reaction from telling people you've dropped acid is weird, just wait until you see the reaction when you say that you enjoy the odd spot of ketamine!
I think that for most people, the closest experience they've ever had with LSD or other psychedelics is the movies, where they're portrayed as this wacky drug that makes you see dragons and other weird shit. They've all heard stories about how someone dropped a tab and their trip never ended or how they became possessed by demons or some other urban myth that they heard from someone years ago.
" Their safety and efficacy exist only within highly structured specialized treatment settings. In addition, desired outcomes depend upon the production of a temporary but profoundly regressed, disorganized and incapacitated state. Outside of that structure, psychedelics are no less abusable, acutely debilitating and liable to result in psychological damage—sometimes severe and unremitting—than they ever were."
This doesn't meet with my general experiences.
I've never understood how something like LSD can be "abused" in the way that alcohol can be abused... my experience (and the hundreds of folks I know who've used it) is that at some point, you have bad experiences with it and you stop. That's not a cyclical abuse pattern like with alcohol, where you become addicted and continue on despite the terrible toll on your health.
Similarly, of the people who have been heavily involved with psychedelics and the general outcomes aren't any worse than for the hundreds of functioning alcoholics I know.
While it is true that these kinds of drugs can put you in some really scary places and while it is true that they can possibly have longer-lasting negative effects, the article doesn't make a very compelling case to me to keep these chemicals scheduled so that only researchers have legal access to them.
Pieces like these are interesting... I can see a strand of "messianic utopianism" in some discussion of these drugs, but most of the folks I know who want these things legalized don't have an agenda beyond "I like it and have found it helpful in my life". It's a strange way to characterize the discourse... it'd be like characterizing pieces like these as having an agenda to keep these drugs out of peoples' had out some misguided sense that only clinicians know what kinds of things healthy people should do. That is clearly not what motivates most researchers I have met.
Extremely powerful psychedelics are legal in many parts of the world, even the US under specific circumstances [peyote], some have been used for thousands of years. I can only see "abuse" as bullshit justification to keep them illegal.
On the flip-side, there are extremely powerful interests that are working against legalization. "Neurons to nirvana" is a great documentary that makes a good case for that.
Anecdotally, I was at a doof (bush rave) a few years ago, where one of the punters decided to go for a stroll in the middle of the night - head full of acid - and got promptly lost. Police search and rescue were called out, big dollar costs to the state, and while the kid turned up fine in that instance, it's statistically more likely you won't turn up fine in the Australian bush.
I certainly feel that there's no absolute way to control the safety of participants in psychedelic experiences, but we should be wary of an open market approach without also considering a massive escalation in the way we teach people about safety with drug use.
I don't want to sound like one of those anti-alcohol, pro-drug people, but to continue with the anecdotes: I've seen people get into far more dangerous situations and states from drinking than I have from use of any recreational drugs.
Anytime you hear about somebody being king hit in town, I can guarantee you the perpetrator has had a skin full of piss.
Everything is driven by incentives. Alcohol is cheaper for mass production and guaranteed to have good sales and huge consumer base. A state can't just allow to flow money away by legalizing a new drug which is, probably, mutually exclusive to alcohol.
It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.
I'm sorry that you're being downvoted, but you're right. You can't easily sell, and make a profit on acid (you certainly can't patent it). The dose needed for a trip is so small; a "therapeutic" dose is even tinier.
The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely ridiculous.
I think the parent comment is saying that a person taking legal lsd would spend significantly less money than a person drinking. Lsd and alcohol would compete for recreational time. Lsd would reduce the tax income from alcohol sales, and not be able to replace it with new tax revenue. Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal.
>Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal.
They'd be taxing the sales of everything used to create it, they could require testing for purity, they could create an LSD tax, etc just like with tobacco and alcohol (and if they'd get their head out of their backside, THC containing products).
Take into account that alcohol comes in comparably big bottles and you need quite some of it to get drunk (if you are a professional of course). So, it is easier to control it's traffic than hunting for small pills which can be in everyones pockets.
Drug manufacturing isn't easy, most of the stuff is controlled and purchases of quantities of many required compounds will often immediately involve one or more government agencies, generally the DEA.
I see this a lot at work, I clear international freight through Customs (and any other applicable government agencies) for a living, and a lot of tariff numbers will flag as potential precursors by DEA.
To be fair to the person you replied to, homebrewing alcohol was illegal in the US until 1978 and you still aren't allowed to distill at home (for human consumption) without a distilled spirits permit or (for fuel use) a federal fuel alcohol permit.
You don't need a permit to buy a firearm unless it is something that is NFA and then you just need to go through the appropriate tax stamp process which is effectively a permit for that specific firearm/destructive device/accessory.
The "good" thing about salvia (re: people here talking about addiction and abuse) is that once you try it, there's a an even chance you'll never want to try psychedelics again.
The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of these restrictions in the first place.
I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc.
But there's little mandate that the government should be policing and prosecuting adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors. Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.
"but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things."
There are a lot of reasons.
The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part.
But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?
So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go.
At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side.
Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while.
Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand.
'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky.
'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave.
More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems.
It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability.
Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.
Sure, just look at the positive pressure I mentioned in the end of my post. If we took all the money spent in the police, courts, & prisons for non-violent drug use offenses, and funded totally free to use, no questions asked, walk-in rehab programs, I think that would be both a massive financial and massive cultural benefit. Throw in awareness programs, counseling, poverty-area involvement, etc, and you'd still be way in the black.
Regulating substances for purchase by minors is something that's well understood and much more agreeable. Getting it into stores and away from pushers (which can still be criminalized, just not the users) makes it much more manageable for the problem cases, and much more available for any beneficial cases (self-medication, etc).
Characterizing that everybody's going to start using hard drugs if they're decriminalized is really kind of jumping off the handle, too. People have few barriers to hard drug access as it is, where this problem affects us the most. Many value their mental & financial state and have seen too many negative examples already and abstain, even if they're a classified high-risk sort of person. Others use whatever they can get a hold of, and legislation is irrelevant to their use. Yet others dabble or use sparingly, like your bad trip example. It's a personal choice, not a legal one, that's already been made millions of times over.
Besides, consuming junk food, watching TV, internet use, etc, have none of these usage laws while having addictive and society-wide negative effects, too. The question remains why other behaviors "must" be regulated while these aren't.
Uhm... Same situation with alcohol or tobacco. It is very easy to find young adults or desperate people that will more than gladly buy you some for a share or some cash.
The problem with buying cocaine on the streets is that the quality is terrible (note: not anecdotal; I've never used cocaine AFAIK). The Dutch TV series Spuiten & Slikken (about sex & drugs, aimed at youth) broadcasted an item on that. The cocaine was ground up together with crap like washing powder, glass, and what have you.
You said regulations. Regulations are set after there is a problem. In case of psychedelics, it is a law.
If there is a problem, the regulation may be changed, and additional measures taken to get rid of it.
The main issue with these laws is that they are speculative. It is actually very likely that nothing would change much if at all, except number of arrests and related costs. Oh and reduced cut for the black market.
Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings.
(As opposed to drugs like opium, tobacco or alcohol which have always been one with few exceptions yet are less regulated.)
"Think of the children" is a cheap shot that can be used to set any number of odious laws. Show evidence of harm and how the law helps with it.
The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
> The main issue with these "laws" is that they are speculative
Sorry to pull that quote out of context, but this is just peak HN. It's beautiful.
> Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings
So we should only allow them in ritual settings then?
> The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
I actually agree with that point. However, I don't see how from any of this follows that you should simply allow them without any precautions or any restrictions. Alcohol, tobacco, even coffee is regulated.
As an analogy, we deem it useful that you can purchase a car and drive around with it. Nevertheless, we demand that you get a driver's license first, because there is enough evidence that driving is an often highly counterintuitive activity that can lead to serious damage unless you had proper training first. There is also evidence that you need certain prerequisites even with that training, which is the reason we e.g. wouldn't let a 10 year old drive at all.
In what way are they anything other than speculative?
Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.
Some actually were evidence based, such as opium laws. There was a big public health problem with opium a few centuries back - complicated with politics and economics of opium trade.
Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules.
Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.
Thanks for the correction, I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement.
However I think my point still stands. The regulation of newer drugs seems to be dictated by ideology more than anything else. In many ways we've gone backwards.
I'm reminded of David Nutt, who was sacked from his job as UK Chief Drug Advisor, simply because the evidence he quoted disagreed with the government's rhetoric.
It's still immensely hypocritical to claim that these drugs cause harm and death while giving a pass - and sometimes subsidies and tax breaks - to the commercial alcohol and tobacco dealers.
There is literally no argument that can be made about the dangers of psychedelics that can't be applied to alcohol addiction. Put crudely, alcohol really fucks people up.
Conversely the reality is that many supposedly respectable people are high on coke and other drugs. Mandatory drug testing for politicians and CEOs would reveal all kinds of interesting recreational habits.
A cynic might wonder if the use of these drugs is actually a status symbol, and if legalisation would remove some of the thrill of being able to use illegal drugs with impunity.
>Psychedelic is not a right category anyway. It is a label given by users based on perceived effects.
That's not my point. My point is that J-dawg stated that the laws prohibiting drugs in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics" are not based on evidence.
You stated that there were evidence based laws prohibiting a different set of drugs that are not in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics".
"Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places)"
They are definitely evidenced based.
We don't have to have a complete scientific run-down of opioids or THC to know their general effects on people.
We've decided that these - among many, many other substances are not for the common good - and that's why they're banned.
We don't ban alcohol for cultural and historical reasons, though it's banned in many places in addition to the fact that alcoholism was a massive social problem for a long time.
There's no 'new science' in dope that has caused us to change our laws either, just a different view towards it, and probably a better common understanding of it.
THC is classified under schedule 1, "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
There are heaps of evidence for it being useful in treating anxiety, appetite disorders, chronic pain (possibly better than opiods with much lower chance of addiction), and others.
LSD, schedule 1. Psilocybin, schedule 1. Both have been shown to be effective in treating ptsd. An analogue of the former has been shown to be the only thing clinically effective in treating cluster headaches.
the drug war is a politically and economically driven disaster that has created the single largest wave in history of disrespect for law, laws, and our legal systems.
Law, as a system, draws 100% of it's authority from the notion of being an externalized codified form of social morality. The minute Law ceases being moral and becomes merely an obvious instrument of power it's basis flounders.
If you want a world with less problems, the drug war must go immediately.
Coffee used to be regulated, until about 19th century in its countries, among them France, UK and Persia come to mind.
First two were to crack down on cafés which were sources of political opposition.
Likewise in Persia, the it was related to sultan not profiting and religious reasons.
Just wanted to say that I agree 100% with this, yet rarely hear it articulated elsewhere. The pernicious effects of pitting otherwise law-abiding people against the justice system and by proxy, the entire state, is something that I think has contributed a not insignificant part to the breakdown of community and subsequent alienation we're seeing today.
The police are supposed to be on our side, yet huge swathes of society must think of them as the 'enemy' because the law has made it so. It'll be at least a generation after legalisation, probably a couple of generations, before this toxic relationship gets healed, we can't start that process soon enough.
I wish to expound further:
The criminalization of possession and cultivation/fabrication of certain substances has created a highly lucrative black market providing revenue for entities that are less that concerned with our social welfare and more concerned with maintaining a hegemony of power.
Just a clue as to the overall impact lies in noting that the USA is the single largest consumer of Latin American cocaine production, and the role this has played in creating a climate where cartels drive governments.
(not to mention black money opportunities for shady governmental entities to dip in and out of, a la Oliver North...)
There is, but less than before most of this drugs were scheduled.
It used to be even recently that you could get strong opiates for cold and amfetamines for cough, weight loss and lethargy for instance. Or that barbiturates were prescribed for many issues related to insomnia.
> 'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave.
If we keep our focus on psychedelics, as per the article, then: no, not really. The Netherlands have had OTC, no-questions-asked, fully commoditised psychedelics available for decades.
Some got put back on the ban list in dec 2008, others still available as before. This should offer plenty actual, real world, practical data.
No need to guess or contemplate!
> Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.
How about an entire country, for over two decades? :)
I was in Lisbon a few years ago, and on basically every (major/touristy) street corner there are people trying to sell you drugs
If they spot a tourist, they'll even go so far as to follow you down the street heckling you to buy some
In a legalized country it would be sold by regulated stores, where the supply is known where it originates from (i.e. Head Shops in CA as of the 1st of this year)
> Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society
Does it really? It's easy to think of examples of behaviour that's legal but unacceptable to lesser or greater degree (increasingly smoking, "exotic" sex practices like BDSM and sex parties, using the n-word, making fun of minorities, ...)
OP asked a genius question and I hoped you have good reasons to counter him. But most of what you wrote felt like opinions and personal feelings.
I understand that non-regulated psychedelics use could potentially lead to many people hurting themselves, but that is not reason enough to regulate them IMHO.
We can not save people from themselves by regulations. What we could do is educate them.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2000. In the Netherlands many drugs, including psychedelics, have been available OTC for decades.
Both of these case studies show that you can decriminalize drugs on a wide scale. In Portugal, is had less to a decrease of abuse. I don't know the stats on the Netherlands, but I have not heard of any dire outcomes in that country either.
The key is to route a portion of the money that has been thus far used for enforcement and punishment into education, treatment, and rehabilitation.
> More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems.
What do you mean with "all sorts of problems"? Most people with "mental" problems do alcohol which is a really bad hard drugs. But if you mean with problems: treating depressions, treating all kinds of headaches, palliative treatment, not knowing what to do with your life, etc.. then what would you want to regulate for this group?
Psychedelics are a very harmless drugs; not addictive, there is no poisoning(like with alcohol), when the effect is gone you feel totally normal and healthy. The only thing you need to be careful with if you really want the best result from it is the dosage, never too much like with many other things in life.
Prohibition of psychedelics only causes criminality and harm, it doesn't solve a problem at all. It is an illusion to think that your children are not able to get their hands on it when it is prohibited. The truth is they'll get questionable quality LSD in the criminal circuit, or they'll pick magic mushrooms theirselves which can be quite tricky!
> Psychedelics are a very harmless drugs; not addictive, there is no poisoning(like with alcohol), when the effect is gone you feel totally normal and healthy.
None of this is true.
People like you promoting psychedelics are responsible for much suffering (bad trips, drug induced trauma and PTSD, long term psychological problems).
AFAIK it is MUCH more likely to feel normal and healthy after intoxication by alcohol than after intoxication by psychedelics.
All drugs should be legalized. Criminalization must not create additional costs and problems. Legal must not mean harmless. Many legal things (e.g. drugs, too much sugar, animal products, fossil fuel, ...) are harmful.
> The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness
You overestimate some of us. I'd say that I'm in that third of the population that's susceptible to my vices. It's just that I can afford less harmful drugs and I call myself a hedonist to legitimise my proclivities with a philosophy.
These communities that are ravaged by crack and alcohol (a legal drug) would continue to be ravaged by crack and alcohol, even if LSD was made legal. It's just not that kind of drug. If anything, it might benefit the community because they might gain some introspection. These communities already have access to these drugs anyway; drugs are everywhere, they just choose heroin and crack over MDMA and LSD, for whatever reason.
Despite the best efforts of the War on Drugs, they are easier to find now than ever before, in many places people can get cocaine delivered faster than pizza [1]. Anybody that wants to do drugs is doing them. There aren't many people who avoid drugs purely because they are illegal, especially in at-risk communities.
I live in a 'vulnerable' neighbourhood, ridden with heroin addiction; so much so that there's a safe injection centre for heroin and methamphetamine around the corner from me. Nobody here is missing out on heroin because it's illegal. All the addicts can have as much heroin as they can afford here, it's so easy to find. If I walk to the shops in the afternoon, I can usually eyeball at least 2 or 3 dealers, without even trying.
Legalising drugs won't have effects that are anywhere near as severe as you might think.
> 'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like
You're conflating "this is now legal" with "lots of people will start using".
Aside from that point, I think we can make an educated guess about what will happen if you extrapolate even a little from countries where they are decriminalized. It obviously doesn't map one to one, but that's a far cry from it being so hard to imagine it's basically undoable.
Thirdly, you're talking about psychedelics and suddenly it's about all hard drugs. That's veering way off topic.
You can get certain psychedelics right now with absolutely no regulation, even children can do it:
Walmart sells packets of ~60 morning glory seeds, it only takes a few hundred to have a pretty good high with visuals and everything. (use a coffee grinder because they’re hard enough to break your teeth and unlike LSD they will make you very nauseous) No one will stop you from buying these. Also, Mushrooms grow in the wild and it’s not super hard to find growing kits, although I’ve never tried that.
What makes LSD nice is that it’s safer than these and has fewer side affects. So this isn’t about giving everyone access to psychedelic drugs because they already have that, it’s really about helping them stay safe.
>Walmart sells packets of ~60 morning glory seeds, it only takes a few hundred to have a pretty good high with visuals and everything.
Stop believing the stuff you read online. If they are hallucinating, it's from the pesticides or the methylmercury coating the seeds as a fungicide combined with a heavy dose of placebo.
I've used 2 kinds of LSA approx 12 years ago, including morning glory. I can therefore tell you from personal experience that morning glory seeds are, in fact, hallucinogenic. But don't take my word from it. Just read it on Erowid or Wikipedia.
In my (rather extensive) experience, Psilocybe spp. are the safest psychedelics. LSD is generally harsher, especially at high doses. And peyote is harder on users GI tracts.
But gathering Psilocybe spp. in the wild can be iffy. You're generally OK if they turn blue soon after bruising. Also, ones growing on cow shit don't taste very good :(
Growing from spores isn't that hard. We used to grow them on cooked rice, in mason jars. You put rice and water in the jars, put the lids on with the seal upward (so they don't seal) and cook ~30 minutes in a pressure canner. After they cool, just inoculate with decent sterile technique, put lids on loosely, and keep warm in the dark.
In a week or two, you have shrooms. And they taste great! We used to freeze dry them. But you can also preserve in honey. Cultures produce shrooms for a week or two, and then gradually crap out.
You can also use a food dehydrator provided you don't put the temperature too high. There's stores available who sell growkits. In The Netherlands, growkits, spores, and truffles are still legal (lol @ illegal spores, btw).
I live in a gentrifying neighbourhood in Montreal and crack is a thing.
The semi-homeless people who crash at the clinic in front of me are highly animated, talking to themselves loudly etc. for a few days after the provincial welfare cheques go out. Then it's all quiet.
It's the only neighbourhood in North America, where regular looking, polite folks come up asking for 'spare change' all the time.
>The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part.
As somebody who is pretty close to the bottom percentile of conscientious, I'd have to disagree :)
> But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?
The traditional psychedelics have the potential to become revolutionary tools in the hands of psychiatrists/psychologists, especially considering that when administered in a controled setting by a trained professional the risk of something going wrong is near zero. If you look into the literature involving the administration of LSD in the 50s, the concept of a "bad trip" was relatively unheard of.
When it comes to psychedelics "being sold at the corner store", I sincerely believe the government has no place in regulating consciousness, especially in adults. The entire idea of a bunch of monkeys locking another monkey in a cage for 20 years solely because he ate the forbidden fruit is absolutely absurd.
Let's consider the current legal framework surrounding alcohol. For the most part, It's completely legal to possess and consume, as long as you are not endangering anybody else in the process, and are an adult. This framework if applied to psychedelics, and any other drug for that matter, would still allow society to handle any problem users, while not criminalizing responsible use. The exploration of states of consciousness itself should NOT be criminalized, as long as said explorers are not causing problems for the people around them.
As a society we seem to handle alcohol pretty well, and alcohol itself has something close to the most severe health/behavioral consequences of any popular recreational drug. Alcohol use often leads to severe behavioral problems, especially violence, and can actually straight up kill you if you become addicted to it and try to stop cold turkey. If we can handle something as destructive as alcohol, we can certainly handle other comparatively benign drugs.
At the very minimum, the idea of a "schedule 1 drug" should be completely abolished. ESPECIALLY the clause which prevents research of any compound that is placed in schedule 1.
The United States has failed utterly in its "war on drugs". We've spent hundreds of billions in taxes, exploded our prison population to the largest in the world (rivaled only by russia), destabilized every country south of Texas, and yet have failed utterly in restricting the accessibility and usage of "illegal drugs". It's all absolutely ridiculous, especially considering that the stated purpose of mass criminalization in the first place was to silence political opposition.
The federal government has no right to do it anyways.
People forget the constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government, not the people.
Clarence Thomas discussed this in his dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich where homegrown medical marijuana was legally grown in California for personal use, but destroyed without due process, and with disregard to the fifth, ninth, tenth amendments, by the federal government.
In his dissent, Thomas complained that:
"the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."
I have plenty of experience with all kinds of psychedelics and don't think they should be available in your local corner store.
Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions.
Holland already did this experiment since you used to be able to buy mushrooms over the counter. Quite a few tourists lost their minds or worse.
Nobody should ever face legal consequences for personal use of any drug but they should remain hard to find.
Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you.
There is a commonly held belief in the Psychedelics community that when you are “ready” the molecule will present itself.
Ie, you decide you’d like to trip at the Phish show and the old man next to you offers you mushrooms, unsolicited, after you haven’t been offered mushrooms for 50 shows.
That type of thing.
Also interesting to note that LSD & MDMA have similar origin stories. They were both previously synthesized and catagorized as unuseful and then interesting characters had a flash of insight to resynthesize them after decades of being dormant.
> Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions.
That's the thing, you just like to think that. Yet, you offer no evidence to back your claim, or your expertise in the matter. At best, your evidence is anecdotal (so far) and cannot be used in a more general discussion about psychedelics.
After experimenting with psychedelics in my late teens (mid 90s) I wanted to know more and got a Bsc in Neuroscience from Manchester University.
My thesis was on how research in psychedelics can help us learn more about schizophrenia (I wasn't interested in any of prescribed topics so my lecturer said I could do whatever but it would have to be without guidance).
Scientific knowledge won't help much in the way of steering clear of a bad trip. It's more about common sense (set / setting, dosage) and knowing yourself and your own mind.
Thank you for clarifying that, now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.
My question to you is, do you think psychedelics should be more controlled than alcohol? Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.
I'm also wondering if we can create a set of metrics, free from anecdotal evidence and any political context, by which we can use to categorize different drugs (alcohol included) based on social harm, self harm, long lasting damage, etc. and then use this to define which of those we ban/regulate/decriminalize etc. I know that may sound a bit naive, but using a pure scientific approach to this could give us quite different results than the current state of things, where some of the most dangerous substances are legal because there's a lobby behind them.
The only thing I found similar to this is this assessment referenced on the LSD wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/me...
I like the idea of psychedelics being free to use but only in recognised centers or "retreats", under professional guidance
Holland did the OTC experiment already and there must be interesting data about this somewhere. I don't think OTC would be a good idea, maybe I'm just overly cautious.
At the moment, anyone with sufficient motivation can get psychedelics at the click of a button and here in W-Europe nobody will really face any serious legal consequences for personal use. Testing kits are widely available. The current situation is not a bad one.
> Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.
I don't think (bad) trips would cause much social harm at all actually. Psychedelics have an unpredictability to them that warrants caution in a way that doesn't apply to alcohol (or sky diving, rock climbing ...)
Medical prescriptions are required (in part) because of the potential side effects. If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through a mental hell scape, it wouldn't be available OTC either.
Just some thoughts, the discussion is a difficult one.
>> If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through...
Right... But we still sell nuts to people allergic to nuts, and we still sell alcohol to people who end up beating their wives and then think it never happened.
Thanks for the comment. Such cautioning comments by someone sane with experience are very important.
I am in favor of legalization to reduce legal, financial and social problems and not because drugs (including psychedelics including cannabis) are harmless.
Yes, it bothers me tremendously whenever I see people asking "should X be allowed?" and similar things. That's the wrong question. It comes from an original position of assuming that everything is forbidden by default, and that good reason must be given for that restriction to be lifted. This is not how the world works. It is restriction that is the aberrant case, and the one which needs to be constantly defending itself. The moment it becomes clear that the restriction is not justified, it must be gotten rid of. Restriction is inherently costly and harmful. If it is not preventing greater harm than it is causing, there's no defense for it.
When it comes to psychedelic drugs and other drugs generally, there has never been any legitimate basis for their prohibition. Even poisons like arsenic and cyanide aren't regulated the way drugs that simply make you smile for awhile are.
I suspect most people simply want to skirt the backing philosophy behind drug prohibition. They don't want to discuss whether the belief that easy pleasure is immoral has merit. They don't want to have to say out loud or try to defend the idea that people would abandon productive, full lives to pursue chemically-induced pleasure states in large numbers. Mostly because they're not confident in their ability to hold those arguments, and they fear it might make them easily swindled I think.
From criminalising we need to move to regulating these drugs so more people could use it and new type of products could come into existence while people who buy them get full disclosure of what they are getting into.
Linking Tobacco with Cancer was not a simple battle and was possible only because it was legal and people were open about its use. The lower tobacco consumption in developing countries was achieved because of regulation and not criminalisation.
Yes, a great look into some of them is on Hamilton's Pharmacopeia on VICELAND [1] and early version of the show on Youtube [2] that delves into many of psychedelics and other drugs. Hamilton Morris does the show and is the son of Errol Morris who is a great documentary filmmaker. The documentary show takes an honest look at the origins, stories and science of substances from a scientific objective point of view.
The point across many of the episodes is that locking up drugs in the immutable prison of the Controlled Substances scheduling is possibly locking up cures that might be useful down the line, besides the obvious issue of the state telling people what they can and can't put in their body, the drug wars are a unnecessary violence and costly enforcement over a health matter.
The war on vegetables and plants should end and this generation should do it. Adults are responsible enough to know what they put in their body and for the ones that have trouble with addiction, the focus should be on healthcare not executive criminal force that is very costly in funds and possible uses of drugs that are locked up in the prison of the Controlled Substances Act as a controlled substance. In a free country you are responsible for yourself, the state should back off on drugs because they are more dangerous illegal than legal due to black markets, cartels, legal issues harsher than the drug and more.
Due to the hard line, we miss out on scientific health advantages of these drugs and people aim to make more synthetics that mimic them that may be more harmful than the original with unknown effects.
Unfortunately it looks like the US is doubling down on the drug war with the new Schedule A that allows them to put on biologically similar drugs and synthetics on the list with SITSA [3].
My take is that drugs should be legal or at a minimum entirely decriminalized, there should be substance warnings but ultimately the liability of the user taking the drug is on the user, not a doctor. The only time a producer should get in legal issues is when they are selling what isn't on the label just like with food. A big problem with overdoses and drug deaths is due to people getting the wrong substance, for instance fentanyl because it is cheaper in other opioids. The hardline of putting liability on the doctors and pharma companies is also leading to patients looking for alternatives after their doctor stops their prescription for fear of legal issues, what follows is where most overdoses and trouble happens as there is no addiction help after even legal use of drugs. The hardline on opioids even further exacerbate the problem.
We need a new Bill of Rights amendment for Right to Body to do this. This is a health issue not a criminal one and it is too costly to possible health advances to lock up helpful chemical configurations that need more study. We need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one.
The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a health issue not a criminal one.
Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every year to be medically dangerous to be kept on the list.
The problem is that once drugs get classified as a controlled substance, it is very difficult to get them out because neither the public nor legislature can easily remove it. The CSA list is managed entirely wrong. The CSA was setup to target certain dissidents initially by Nixon, it is nearly criminal that the drug war is ran by an organization that is untouchable and maintained by the enforcer not the health institutions.
The CSA should be completely abolished or recreated with expiring classifications, and the FDA can make recommendations on safety but then it is up to the people to decide what they do with their bodies with the liability on them.
Marijuana is an example where the Controlled Substances Act harms medical uses of drugs on th...
The classification of LSD as a schedule I drug is unsupportable; it was researched for 20 years before it became a 60s plaything and the threat of the counter-culture movement to the establishment was enough to get all psychedelic research killed off.
But as the article points out, there are real risks. There are a large number of LSD zealots who have not just goofy but dangerous beliefs about LSD. Spend any amount of time looking at posts on /r/lsd and you'll find people claiming LSD is a sure-fire cure for depression. Sure, some people have found it helpful, but those who tried it and went off the deep end probably aren't hanging around on /r/lsd.
The other frightening thing about /r/lsd is how many teenagers are there. Part of the over-representation is due to the nature of reddit. Even so, little good can come out of that cohort dabbling in psychedelics.
I don't know what they're saying over on /r/lsd, but psychedelics can break you out of repetitive negative modes of thinking, giving you insights that last after the high is long gone. LSD is a tool that can work in in conjunction with other tools and changes you make in your life for some people some of the time.
What about the people being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for life to cope with the issues brought on by a single does of psilocybin/LSD/salvia/DMT/etc?
I know a guy who seriously overdosed on LSD and had to spend a weekend in a hospital. Other than a severe aversion to psychedelics he wasn't seriously harmed, at least not to the point where he needs daily medication to deal. He has the worst Adderall tolerance his docs have ever seen but that's unrelated. I suppose I could ask him whether his OD made his ADD worse.
For sure chronic abuse of psychedelics will cause permanent effects but I'm not aware that anything other than a life-threatening overdose of psychedelics will cause someone to need lifelong medication to manage the consequences.
They don't exist. Continuing to repeat reefer madness propaganda does not make it any more true.
Show one scientific study that shows any long term effect from a single dose of any of your listed substances and I will be happy to take your comment seriously.
"Perceptual disturbances may last for 5 years or more and represent a real psychosocial distress. We reported here a case of a 18-year-old young man presenting HPPD after a mixed intoxication with psylocibin and cannabis. This report shows symptomatic recurrences persisting more than 8 months."
"Evidence supports the association of LSD use with panic reactions, prolonged schizoaffective psychoses and post-hallucinogen perceptual disorder, the latter being present continually for as long as 5 years."
"Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of acute hallucinogen effects. HPPD was associated with a broader range of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide)-like substances, cannabis, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, mescaline, and psychostimulants."
I have met a lot of people who have experience psychedelics, and I know people who avoid them after a negative experience (much the same way people avoid tequila after one particular night), but I'm yet to meet anybody, or hear of anybody, who has had long term negative effects from psychedelics that requires medication.
I'm sure that maybe they do exist, but it's an exceedingly small percentage of people who try them. People are also allergic to peanuts, yet we don't ban peanuts for the few that will die if they come into contact with them.
Instead, they probably need to go deeper into the material that came up on the trip in a supportive setting (at least, that has worked for me a number of times).
Not to delegitimise your experience, but every time there's a discussion on HN about recreational drugs, there's always someone who claims that MDMA/shrooms/LSD/ketamine/weed/etc cured their depression.
It's not just for mental health issues, but for any health issues, everyone on HN seems to have their pet cure. Just look at the 20 different (often contradictory) opinions that appear every time there's a discussion on diet or weight loss here.
I'm not saying that psychedelics (or other drugs) won't help with depression or other mental health issues, but from experience it's certainly not necessarily the cure-all like some people here like to make it out to be.
Different treatments work for different people in different situations. People should be wary of taking medical advice from Hacker News.
He's not saying it'll work for everybody but that people should have access to a treatment option which may work for them.
Let's not forget that this experience is not just this poster. There have been quite a few studies showing positive affects on the depressed with the use of hallucinogens.
Also, I'm not totally sure, and I may be wrong, but I have a feeling if you read that comment and are interested your first step isn't to immediately walk outside and go to Jam band concert to score some hallucinogens so you can test this theory out for yourself ;-). I have a feeling people do a bit more research.
But it's true especially for people with mental illness that hallucinogens should be taken with extreme care.
When you find a treatment for something that has been plaguing you for years, the only thing you want to do is shout it from the rooftops. GODDAMIT IM FREE! Here’s how I did it...
I agree with your sentiment, but there is a lot of off label prescribing and research on ketamine for depression. Much more so than any of the other substances.
It's still in its infancy and doctors are still scamming patients with $600+ IV infusions.
It's important to set the context. Those with treatment resistant mental illness are looking for other options. It makes sense, but often they are vulnerable to pseudoscience.
YES! Feed them to our children in healthy school lunches! Pour these into our water supply! Seed the clouds and let pyschedelics pour forth from the heavens!...
An adult should be allowed to do whatever s/he likes as long as it is not harming others. If harm to others is done - even under the influence - then punishment is due. But as long as somebody just does something in private - it must be okay.
I have plenty of experience with psychedlics - be it LSD, Psilocibin, DMT or 4-ACO-DMT. I know from own experience that a bad trip can be very unsettling. But as an adult it is first of all my right to take that risk and second of all it is a maturing experience.
The state should not be allowed to prohibit anything when done in private. The concepts behind drug prohibition are pretty much the same as behind prohibition of homosexual practices. People also say this should not be allowed because it is bad and young children will be molested etc pp.
If an adult does things that harm himself and not others he should also forfeit free healthcare. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for the personal bad choices of others.
Even if it were somehow possible to implement such a mechanism, correctly (no false positives!) and efficiently, this sounds like a terrific lack of compassion. Have you never made a mistake? Can you not imagine a life in which you might have made such a mistake?
For me it's a complex philosophical question without a clear answer.
Where I live (downtown of big city) there are a lot of people visibly addicted to drugs, on the streets, generally living lives that appear tragic to themselves and others. We can say "punishment is due" for each offense they take (theft, violence, public nudity, etc.), but it's probably better to describe those as symptoms of a drug addiction. "Punishment" rarely helps people get out of a downward spiral.
Humans are complex. We do things that we know we don't want to do. Sometimes we need help from ourselves. And the general society does have an interest in keeping people out of a life of addiction that leads to crime and self-injury.
I'm not at all an expert on these matters and I don't advocate a particular set of regulations or deregulations to try and "solve" these sets of problems. But I'm not sold by your simple narrative, because there is a strong link between (some types of) drug use and harm to others (and self). So it just doesn't seem clear-cut.
But with this approach to train adults to not take responsibility. I am all for placing full responsibility on every adult - one has to learn to deal with this of course and the current state of society is opposing it. Otherwise people couldn't sue manufacturers for having put their pets into microwave ovens or for getting cancer from smoking. I know this will cause colateral damage from people doing stupid or bad things on drugs - but the opposite isn't much better - to train a generation towards non-responsibility - this is probably causing more damage. We are just used to it. If somebody decides to take drugs and destroy his/her life - that is very sad - but so be it. Those people should be helped - and even this will be easier when taking drugs is not being criminalized.
Does the idea of "training adults to not take responsibility" have merit? It sounds like naive pop psychology.
We could remove all guard-rails (literal and figurative) from society. I guess you could say I'd be more "responsible" for staying alive under this scenario. But why is that good? It's just more inefficient and unpleasant for everyone to have to carefully check their every move in case something's trying to scam or possess them. The more you're tested, the more likely you'll fail. When instead we can just generally agree, via democratic means, to fix those systemic problems across-the-board. Then we can get on to solving better problems.
My own pop psych: you don't "conquer" temptation, so much as it wears at you. And it wears at some members of your community more than others. You solve it by removing the temptation (or yourself from it), not by facing it over and over.
As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails us. I will gladly accept limitations on my own entertainment if it helps my neighbour through a difficult struggle.
well - with more responsibility the force of natural selection will become more prominent - I don't think that is a bad thing.
and the idea of recent generations having to face less and less responsibility is not just pop psychology. I think it is quite obvious with parents picking up their children at school (helicopter parenting) despite public transportation being more comfortable and crime rates being lower than in the past.
> And it wears at some members of your community more than others.
Those may seek help or suffer - their choice.
> As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails us.
And this is not being done by prohibiting drugs but by working on the reasons why people start to abuse drugs.
What we should do for people who are addicted to drugs is unclear. What we should not do to people who are addicted to drugs is clear and that is to put them in prison.
People become addicted for psychological reasons and because of hopelessness. Those reasons need to be addressed by counseling.
Of course when talking about a society dealing with drugs in a liberal fashion one quickly ends up imagining utopias where people don't have reasons to escape their sad reality. Thinking about better worlds is not a bad thing at all - it's just painful realizing how faaaaar away we are from it.
It really shouldn't be. It's a pragmatic question, based on what the likely outcomes and benefits or harms would be for deregulation.
> second of all it is a maturing experience.
Psychedelics put you at far higher risk of experiencing psychosis and other mental health issues. Don't rose-tint it as "maturing experience". You might not have an adverse response. Plenty have.
My stance it to place the responsibility for educating yourself about LSD before taking it on an adult. If that adult doesn't do that - then that's no different to me from driving too fast and causing an accident or trying to climb a mountain without proper preparation and equipment.
Adults have the right to die, to suffer and to harm themselves - I prefer to not get there. But I don't see why the state should base laws on this b/c this will also affect the freedom of me and others who act responsible.
I'm not sure about the legal status of san pedro and peyote cactus in the USA but it doesn't seem like the original native Americans should be oppressed further [1]. So specifically about the USA, these should be legal for religious reasons.
There was a court case in The Netherlands concerning the legal status of these cactus by a religious group who used these during rituals. They won; they were allowed to use these for religious reasons. Ever since, smartshops sell these cactus. I owned a san pedro and peyote cactus myself. The peyote didn't last long, but the san pedro become huge. Eventually it was easily 2,5 meters tall. Unfortunately, it did have "spint" (red spider mite?). I never used them for drugs-related reasons.
I've tried psychedelics before, and I've found them pretty boring in terms of their effects (like a minor VR experience that doesn't go away and leaves headaches) and don't see the point of their classification.
I have also since avoided psychedelics because they last so long and you aren't productive during those hours.
After taking a lot of psychedelics, and played shaman/tripcoach to firsttimers a couple of times, I can confidently say that psychedelics are too misunderstood and difficult for commoners.
Interpreting the experience without proper background invariably leads to funky thoughts, usually surrounding those pieces of experience that disappear/disfunction, such as identity, sense of self and environment, perception of non-natural persons, etc. All this leads to very zany, counterproductive and simply dangerous life philosophies.
I think it would be immensely valueable for more people to have GOOD trips. To take a piece of their mind and analyze it, to use these drugs to have unparalleled experiences.
But to loosen the restrictions, especially in the exceedingly naive current landscape, will only lead to widespread commercial abuse and misguidance, the nature of which affects people most likely to be irrational and confused. This is unacceptable, and should be fought against with the greatest ferocity - as it is a recipe for disaster, and you will readily find this evidenced in past situations. (e.g. hippies suffered a lot of bad stuff due to misunderstanding their drugs)
I think academic and religious use should be strongly endorsed, and logged/monitored. Let's take it from there?
Psychedelics are a good thing yet sure as hell not for everyone. I really doubt selling them freely in every supermarket is a good idea but I believe nobody should ever get arrested for possessing them nor even for producing them for personal consumption or sharing it with friends IMHO. I think Schedule IV is probably the most adequate status for things like LSD (which is safe physiologically but can harm some mentally sick people psyche/adequacy seriously). As for things like MDMA (which can hardly cause any psychological harm and only causes physiological harm if used improperly) or 6-APB (which has effects similar to those of MDMA but isn't known to inflict any harm at all) I would vote to legalize recreational use. And there also are some more exotic psychedelics like 5-MeO-DMT (don't confuse with regular DMT! ordinary DMT can indeed harm some people psyche though this doesn't happen often) that have little if any abuse potential for which I can see no reason to control them at all.
198 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadContent: Psychedelics are a purely political issue at this point, as far as I know. Physiologically, they're far, far less dangerous than eg alcohol.
This is the "my uncle works at Nintendo" of psychedelics.
This thread is a long and predictably basic discussion on a topic that I think has been beaten to death. Your comment, however, made reading the thread worthwhile.
At the end of the day you don't see any correlation between psychedelic usage and mental health issues, same as with the examples I gave. LSD is an emotional earthquake, and should be treated as such.
Many people live their life on the edge without ever falling off. Think about the prevalence of depression versus incidence of suicide as an example.
It apparently can bring out already dormant mental illnesses but is not in any way associated with the formation of new mental illnesses.
We all know LSD was literally available _at the pharmacy_ in the USA up until the mid 60s right? The entire nation didn't go insane... And you can bet your ass a pharmacy will at least ID people trying to buy it, you'll know exactly how much you're getting, and there could probably even be an information packet to go with it. Currently if you want it you have to risk persecution, have no idea what strength of dose you'll be receiving, and there's definitely no information packet unless you look it up yourself.
At the end of the day criminalization is causing more harm than it's solving. People have issues with all sorts of things, alcohol is a lot more negative but totally legal.
In general the proper tact is to ensure access to healthcare and opportunities in our society. Then those with dormant or non dormant mental illnesses are more likely to receive the attention they deserve. Access to opportunities means people get involved in their communities and projects and become passionate about something and are less likely to abuse drugs overall.
Or you can spread hogwash like "LSD makes ya insane" which is not directly what you said but how people will read it.
The victim does not know in advance.
The victim does not care afterwards because the result is the same.
Like I've mentioned upthread, I've known a number of people who have clearly suffered from having tried LSD. Some of them will admit it was the worst decision they've ever made. Others will deny it, strongly encourage you to try it, and if you press them for how it might help you exactly they cannot explain, but there is a glimmer of anxiety and recognition that it changed them deeply in ways they are not comfortable with. And they want you to join them.
It's very chilling. It reminds me of how you'll see in some gay communities when someone contracts HIV they will compulsively spread it to as many people as possible.
Do you have a source for this?
Your claim seems like a very broad and negative generalizatuon of an entire group of diverse people, who are often marginalized.
Lettuce sometimes carries ecoli bacteria and spreads outbreaks amongst tens or hundreds of people at once. Should we ban lettuce too?
And, I dunno what people you hang out with, but most people I've met are pretty hesitant to just shove hard drugs into their bodies. It's not like everyone would be forced to eat LSD if it became legal tomorrow.
And I know plenty of people who've had bad trips (and many many more that have not) and none of them have gone insane or become mentally ill afterwards. I mean, just look at a concert like Woodstock for instance. Half a million people in attendance, huge counter culture movement, and shit tons of LSD. Look at Burning Man, there are drug overdoses, but they don't appear to be caused by LSD as searches for LSD overdose yield exactly zero relevant results.
I just think perhaps you've been told LSD is bad your whole life when, really, it's not that bad. Take it with care. Don't go dropping tabs when you haven't done your research. But the literal vast vast vast majority of people who take it are fine, and many report it being a positive life changing experience for them.
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/new-studies-fail-find-associ...
Psychedelics bring forth what needs to be looked at; if one doesn’t have an intention or support to do that, they may want to want until they do.
The same could probably be said for falling in love or starting a company as well.
In fact, my guess is that romantic relationships and entrepreneurship probably trigger “underlying mental issues” with at least as much frequency as psychedelics.
Well, it certainly would help the cost of food come down and start reducing greenhouse gas emissions...
The article actually talks about depression. How many suicides are or can be averted with psychedelics? You can’t judge things like that in a vacuum.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness
A single LSD trip can ruin you, as many people have proven in these past tens of years.
Using psychedelics is like playing russian roulette. Proven countless times. The effects of a reasonable dose of psychedelics ranges from weird experience to psychosis (you do not recognize false beliefs) to the worst action you have made.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/28/why-were-early-psychede...
There is a reason why alcohol and tobacco are accepted in almost all societies while opioids and psychedelics are treated differently.
IMO too many people suffer already from psychosis. E.g. flat earthers, denial of climate change denial, denial of urgent action against climate change, low carb diet is healthy,...
Judging what is real and what not is already difficult for many without psychedelics.
Read about Donald Trump or Scott Pruitt, the ex-EPA administrator.
You’re praising the de facto drug of violence, comparable in social harm only to heroin, as “socially acceptable”, while grossly misrepresenting the actual harm potential of substances like LSD (“Openness To Experience” is “Russian roulette”, seriously? So is a trip to the Grand Canyon.)
Then you just call anyone you disagree with mentally ill… You know Donald Trump is a teetotaler, right?
To your last comment, maybe this is surprising, but I'm a teetotaler myself.
Have you ever tried LSD yourself?
TL;DR, don't do LSD if you've not slept properly for a week.
But that's not really any different than people predisposed to heart disease smoking or drinking alcohol or eating McDonalds.
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/new-studies-fail-find-associ...
Then I did them again in a therapeutic setting and realized I hadn’t a lot of unprocessed trauma that was causing the psychosis, depression, mania, etc.
A few theraptic sessions later, no longer diagnosable as schizophrenic, Biploar and no more suicidal ideation, anxiety, panic attacks, etc.
I’m one story, but my research indicates this is a viable path and I’m working on going back to school to be able to conduct research.
About 20 years ago I was diagnosed schizophrenic after driving my car into the back of a semi in an attempt to teleport to visit my girlfriend. (Sober)
More recently (5 years ago) I was diagnosed with BPD after being suicidal on the Golden Gate Bridge.
I spent my twenties in a very visionary / mystic / mythic (schizophrenic) state of Conciousness and just didn’t discuss it for fear of being medicated.
A few years ago a found relief trough a combination of MDMA, Mushrooms, NARM Therapy, Breathwork and Relationship as a Path.
I no longer suffer the symptoms, Am no longer diagnosable, and my subjective experience was one of going into deep repressed traumas (birth, circumsicion, parents divorce, abusive step dad, etc) and feeling and releasing them.
I’ve had a psychiatrists, Ivy League hospitals, and film makers approach me for insights into how my approach might help others.
I’m aware I am an N of one, but I tempered my intuition and insights with research (when I was suicidal I was also helping Peter Theil with a private medical research startup and had access to some great minds).
Here is a podcast I did recently with more detail if it is interesting to you:
https://thethirdwave.co/podcast/episode-48-anthony-adams/
(I’m also aware that the standard advice is to avoid psychedelics if you have these conditions — for myself, I took the risk as my understanding of mental illness shifted and I was interested in going more deeply into the uncomfortable states in order to heal. For me it paid off, and hopefully it will for others as I work with researchers to expand our understanding of if my results can be replicated — so far it seems they can, with the right Support.)
Most psychedelic drugs are very niche. Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions. The stigma around it will have trouble wearing off because psychedelics are such an unknown. Most people don’t do them but have heard about people having bad experiences. I hope the overall idea of moving past the War on Drugs can make things like LSD less foreign and delinquent
Mention that you're interested in some of the more obscure mescaline derivatives or tryptamines and you'll get another one!
I think that for most people, the closest experience they've ever had with LSD or other psychedelics is the movies, where they're portrayed as this wacky drug that makes you see dragons and other weird shit. They've all heard stories about how someone dropped a tab and their trip never ended or how they became possessed by demons or some other urban myth that they heard from someone years ago.
This doesn't meet with my general experiences.
I've never understood how something like LSD can be "abused" in the way that alcohol can be abused... my experience (and the hundreds of folks I know who've used it) is that at some point, you have bad experiences with it and you stop. That's not a cyclical abuse pattern like with alcohol, where you become addicted and continue on despite the terrible toll on your health.
Similarly, of the people who have been heavily involved with psychedelics and the general outcomes aren't any worse than for the hundreds of functioning alcoholics I know.
While it is true that these kinds of drugs can put you in some really scary places and while it is true that they can possibly have longer-lasting negative effects, the article doesn't make a very compelling case to me to keep these chemicals scheduled so that only researchers have legal access to them.
Pieces like these are interesting... I can see a strand of "messianic utopianism" in some discussion of these drugs, but most of the folks I know who want these things legalized don't have an agenda beyond "I like it and have found it helpful in my life". It's a strange way to characterize the discourse... it'd be like characterizing pieces like these as having an agenda to keep these drugs out of peoples' had out some misguided sense that only clinicians know what kinds of things healthy people should do. That is clearly not what motivates most researchers I have met.
On the flip-side, there are extremely powerful interests that are working against legalization. "Neurons to nirvana" is a great documentary that makes a good case for that.
I certainly feel that there's no absolute way to control the safety of participants in psychedelic experiences, but we should be wary of an open market approach without also considering a massive escalation in the way we teach people about safety with drug use.
For alcohol with choose taxation and information campaigns. Why should other drugs be handled with (ineffective) criminalization and prosecution?
Anytime you hear about somebody being king hit in town, I can guarantee you the perpetrator has had a skin full of piss.
It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.
The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely ridiculous.
Sandoz Labs produced pharmaceutical LSD for decades
They'd be taxing the sales of everything used to create it, they could require testing for purity, they could create an LSD tax, etc just like with tobacco and alcohol (and if they'd get their head out of their backside, THC containing products).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEA_list_of_chemicals
I see this a lot at work, I clear international freight through Customs (and any other applicable government agencies) for a living, and a lot of tariff numbers will flag as potential precursors by DEA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_microdosing
https://www.hillbillystills.com/hillbilly-flute-s/190.htm
Unlike firearms, the seller does not have to verify it.
I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc.
But there's little mandate that the government should be policing and prosecuting adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors. Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.
There are a lot of reasons.
The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part.
But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?
So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go.
At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side.
Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while.
Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand.
'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky.
'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave.
More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems.
It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability.
Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.
Regulating substances for purchase by minors is something that's well understood and much more agreeable. Getting it into stores and away from pushers (which can still be criminalized, just not the users) makes it much more manageable for the problem cases, and much more available for any beneficial cases (self-medication, etc).
Characterizing that everybody's going to start using hard drugs if they're decriminalized is really kind of jumping off the handle, too. People have few barriers to hard drug access as it is, where this problem affects us the most. Many value their mental & financial state and have seen too many negative examples already and abstain, even if they're a classified high-risk sort of person. Others use whatever they can get a hold of, and legislation is irrelevant to their use. Yet others dabble or use sparingly, like your bad trip example. It's a personal choice, not a legal one, that's already been made millions of times over.
Besides, consuming junk food, watching TV, internet use, etc, have none of these usage laws while having addictive and society-wide negative effects, too. The question remains why other behaviors "must" be regulated while these aren't.
Cocaine, though, offered to me all the time!
Never seen cocaine though..
It tends to get snorted ;)
The problem with buying cocaine on the streets is that the quality is terrible (note: not anecdotal; I've never used cocaine AFAIK). The Dutch TV series Spuiten & Slikken (about sex & drugs, aimed at youth) broadcasted an item on that. The cocaine was ground up together with crap like washing powder, glass, and what have you.
If there is a problem, the regulation may be changed, and additional measures taken to get rid of it.
The main issue with these laws is that they are speculative. It is actually very likely that nothing would change much if at all, except number of arrests and related costs. Oh and reduced cut for the black market.
Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings. (As opposed to drugs like opium, tobacco or alcohol which have always been one with few exceptions yet are less regulated.)
"Think of the children" is a cheap shot that can be used to set any number of odious laws. Show evidence of harm and how the law helps with it.
The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
Sorry to pull that quote out of context, but this is just peak HN. It's beautiful.
> Psychedelics have been available and used throughout history with few problems in ritual settings
So we should only allow them in ritual settings then?
> The real reason psychedelics were banned in the US is to have a reason to jail politically inconvenient people in Vietnam era and bunch of the world has followed the leader.
I actually agree with that point. However, I don't see how from any of this follows that you should simply allow them without any precautions or any restrictions. Alcohol, tobacco, even coffee is regulated.
As an analogy, we deem it useful that you can purchase a car and drive around with it. Nevertheless, we demand that you get a driver's license first, because there is enough evidence that driving is an often highly counterintuitive activity that can lead to serious damage unless you had proper training first. There is also evidence that you need certain prerequisites even with that training, which is the reason we e.g. wouldn't let a 10 year old drive at all.
Drug laws are certainly not evidence based (in most places). They are based on ideologically driven speculation about the imagined consequences of legalisation.
Likewise how barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines are scheduled in various schedules. Many and high profile cases with deaths or major harm were linked to misuse of these drugs.
However I think my point still stands. The regulation of newer drugs seems to be dictated by ideology more than anything else. In many ways we've gone backwards.
I'm reminded of David Nutt, who was sacked from his job as UK Chief Drug Advisor, simply because the evidence he quoted disagreed with the government's rhetoric.
There is literally no argument that can be made about the dangers of psychedelics that can't be applied to alcohol addiction. Put crudely, alcohol really fucks people up.
Conversely the reality is that many supposedly respectable people are high on coke and other drugs. Mandatory drug testing for politicians and CEOs would reveal all kinds of interesting recreational habits.
A cynic might wonder if the use of these drugs is actually a status symbol, and if legalisation would remove some of the thrill of being able to use illegal drugs with impunity.
Psychedelic is not a right category anyway. It is a label given by users based on perceived effects.
That's not my point. My point is that J-dawg stated that the laws prohibiting drugs in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics" are not based on evidence.
You stated that there were evidence based laws prohibiting a different set of drugs that are not in the group that we as human beings who are not trying to deliberately misunderstand each other for internet points all understand as "psychedelics".
Your assertion does not invalidate his statement.
I mean, "analgesic" is a label based entirely on perceived effects, and it's one of the most common medical drug classes (by sale volume).
They are definitely evidenced based.
We don't have to have a complete scientific run-down of opioids or THC to know their general effects on people.
We've decided that these - among many, many other substances are not for the common good - and that's why they're banned.
We don't ban alcohol for cultural and historical reasons, though it's banned in many places in addition to the fact that alcoholism was a massive social problem for a long time.
There's no 'new science' in dope that has caused us to change our laws either, just a different view towards it, and probably a better common understanding of it.
There are heaps of evidence for it being useful in treating anxiety, appetite disorders, chronic pain (possibly better than opiods with much lower chance of addiction), and others.
LSD, schedule 1. Psilocybin, schedule 1. Both have been shown to be effective in treating ptsd. An analogue of the former has been shown to be the only thing clinically effective in treating cluster headaches.
Methamphetamine is schedule 2.
Drug laws are not evidence based.
the drug war is a politically and economically driven disaster that has created the single largest wave in history of disrespect for law, laws, and our legal systems.
Law, as a system, draws 100% of it's authority from the notion of being an externalized codified form of social morality. The minute Law ceases being moral and becomes merely an obvious instrument of power it's basis flounders.
If you want a world with less problems, the drug war must go immediately.
Likewise in Persia, the it was related to sultan not profiting and religious reasons.
The police are supposed to be on our side, yet huge swathes of society must think of them as the 'enemy' because the law has made it so. It'll be at least a generation after legalisation, probably a couple of generations, before this toxic relationship gets healed, we can't start that process soon enough.
Just a clue as to the overall impact lies in noting that the USA is the single largest consumer of Latin American cocaine production, and the role this has played in creating a climate where cartels drive governments. (not to mention black money opportunities for shady governmental entities to dip in and out of, a la Oliver North...)
However, abuse potential or evidence of harm should be first demonstrated before scheduling a substance this high.
It used to be even recently that you could get strong opiates for cold and amfetamines for cough, weight loss and lethargy for instance. Or that barbiturates were prescribed for many issues related to insomnia.
And, the onus is on me to have coverage to protect myself from such a situation.
Opium dens?
If we keep our focus on psychedelics, as per the article, then: no, not really. The Netherlands have had OTC, no-questions-asked, fully commoditised psychedelics available for decades.
Some got put back on the ban list in dec 2008, others still available as before. This should offer plenty actual, real world, practical data.
No need to guess or contemplate!
> Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.
How about an entire country, for over two decades? :)
right?
I was in Lisbon a few years ago, and on basically every (major/touristy) street corner there are people trying to sell you drugs
If they spot a tourist, they'll even go so far as to follow you down the street heckling you to buy some
In a legalized country it would be sold by regulated stores, where the supply is known where it originates from (i.e. Head Shops in CA as of the 1st of this year)
Does it really? It's easy to think of examples of behaviour that's legal but unacceptable to lesser or greater degree (increasingly smoking, "exotic" sex practices like BDSM and sex parties, using the n-word, making fun of minorities, ...)
I understand that non-regulated psychedelics use could potentially lead to many people hurting themselves, but that is not reason enough to regulate them IMHO.
We can not save people from themselves by regulations. What we could do is educate them.
Empirically, it has been shown to be wrong.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2000. In the Netherlands many drugs, including psychedelics, have been available OTC for decades.
Both of these case studies show that you can decriminalize drugs on a wide scale. In Portugal, is had less to a decrease of abuse. I don't know the stats on the Netherlands, but I have not heard of any dire outcomes in that country either.
The key is to route a portion of the money that has been thus far used for enforcement and punishment into education, treatment, and rehabilitation.
We did: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/741...
What do you mean with "all sorts of problems"? Most people with "mental" problems do alcohol which is a really bad hard drugs. But if you mean with problems: treating depressions, treating all kinds of headaches, palliative treatment, not knowing what to do with your life, etc.. then what would you want to regulate for this group?
Psychedelics are a very harmless drugs; not addictive, there is no poisoning(like with alcohol), when the effect is gone you feel totally normal and healthy. The only thing you need to be careful with if you really want the best result from it is the dosage, never too much like with many other things in life.
Prohibition of psychedelics only causes criminality and harm, it doesn't solve a problem at all. It is an illusion to think that your children are not able to get their hands on it when it is prohibited. The truth is they'll get questionable quality LSD in the criminal circuit, or they'll pick magic mushrooms theirselves which can be quite tricky!
None of this is true.
People like you promoting psychedelics are responsible for much suffering (bad trips, drug induced trauma and PTSD, long term psychological problems).
AFAIK it is MUCH more likely to feel normal and healthy after intoxication by alcohol than after intoxication by psychedelics.
All drugs should be legalized. Criminalization must not create additional costs and problems. Legal must not mean harmless. Many legal things (e.g. drugs, too much sugar, animal products, fossil fuel, ...) are harmful.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.ns...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome
https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychedelics/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drugs/
https://www.livescience.com/16287-mushrooms-alter-personalit...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/the-ps...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/28/why-were-early-psychede...
You overestimate some of us. I'd say that I'm in that third of the population that's susceptible to my vices. It's just that I can afford less harmful drugs and I call myself a hedonist to legitimise my proclivities with a philosophy.
These communities that are ravaged by crack and alcohol (a legal drug) would continue to be ravaged by crack and alcohol, even if LSD was made legal. It's just not that kind of drug. If anything, it might benefit the community because they might gain some introspection. These communities already have access to these drugs anyway; drugs are everywhere, they just choose heroin and crack over MDMA and LSD, for whatever reason.
Despite the best efforts of the War on Drugs, they are easier to find now than ever before, in many places people can get cocaine delivered faster than pizza [1]. Anybody that wants to do drugs is doing them. There aren't many people who avoid drugs purely because they are illegal, especially in at-risk communities.
I live in a 'vulnerable' neighbourhood, ridden with heroin addiction; so much so that there's a safe injection centre for heroin and methamphetamine around the corner from me. Nobody here is missing out on heroin because it's illegal. All the addicts can have as much heroin as they can afford here, it's so easy to find. If I walk to the shops in the afternoon, I can usually eyeball at least 2 or 3 dealers, without even trying.
Legalising drugs won't have effects that are anywhere near as severe as you might think.
[1] https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/gds-2018/cokeinoes-cocaine-...
You're conflating "this is now legal" with "lots of people will start using".
Aside from that point, I think we can make an educated guess about what will happen if you extrapolate even a little from countries where they are decriminalized. It obviously doesn't map one to one, but that's a far cry from it being so hard to imagine it's basically undoable.
Thirdly, you're talking about psychedelics and suddenly it's about all hard drugs. That's veering way off topic.
I always love that argument "but Bobby and Sally Sue are going to start shooting up heroin on the playground at recess if we make it legal!!!" or...
"hey they made heroin legal" "Fancy that, so what time did you want to see this movie?"
As far as I know Nickleback is still legal and we don’t see widespread use.
Walmart sells packets of ~60 morning glory seeds, it only takes a few hundred to have a pretty good high with visuals and everything. (use a coffee grinder because they’re hard enough to break your teeth and unlike LSD they will make you very nauseous) No one will stop you from buying these. Also, Mushrooms grow in the wild and it’s not super hard to find growing kits, although I’ve never tried that.
What makes LSD nice is that it’s safer than these and has fewer side affects. So this isn’t about giving everyone access to psychedelic drugs because they already have that, it’s really about helping them stay safe.
Stop believing the stuff you read online. If they are hallucinating, it's from the pesticides or the methylmercury coating the seeds as a fungicide combined with a heavy dose of placebo.
Not sure if the variety sold at Walmart will produce an effect. Also not sure if they’ve been treated with something to make you ill.
But gathering Psilocybe spp. in the wild can be iffy. You're generally OK if they turn blue soon after bruising. Also, ones growing on cow shit don't taste very good :(
Growing from spores isn't that hard. We used to grow them on cooked rice, in mason jars. You put rice and water in the jars, put the lids on with the seal upward (so they don't seal) and cook ~30 minutes in a pressure canner. After they cool, just inoculate with decent sterile technique, put lids on loosely, and keep warm in the dark.
In a week or two, you have shrooms. And they taste great! We used to freeze dry them. But you can also preserve in honey. Cultures produce shrooms for a week or two, and then gradually crap out.
Is it making a come-back?
The semi-homeless people who crash at the clinic in front of me are highly animated, talking to themselves loudly etc. for a few days after the provincial welfare cheques go out. Then it's all quiet.
It's the only neighbourhood in North America, where regular looking, polite folks come up asking for 'spare change' all the time.
Also - crack has a specific odour.
As somebody who is pretty close to the bottom percentile of conscientious, I'd have to disagree :)
> But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store?
The traditional psychedelics have the potential to become revolutionary tools in the hands of psychiatrists/psychologists, especially considering that when administered in a controled setting by a trained professional the risk of something going wrong is near zero. If you look into the literature involving the administration of LSD in the 50s, the concept of a "bad trip" was relatively unheard of.
When it comes to psychedelics "being sold at the corner store", I sincerely believe the government has no place in regulating consciousness, especially in adults. The entire idea of a bunch of monkeys locking another monkey in a cage for 20 years solely because he ate the forbidden fruit is absolutely absurd.
Let's consider the current legal framework surrounding alcohol. For the most part, It's completely legal to possess and consume, as long as you are not endangering anybody else in the process, and are an adult. This framework if applied to psychedelics, and any other drug for that matter, would still allow society to handle any problem users, while not criminalizing responsible use. The exploration of states of consciousness itself should NOT be criminalized, as long as said explorers are not causing problems for the people around them.
As a society we seem to handle alcohol pretty well, and alcohol itself has something close to the most severe health/behavioral consequences of any popular recreational drug. Alcohol use often leads to severe behavioral problems, especially violence, and can actually straight up kill you if you become addicted to it and try to stop cold turkey. If we can handle something as destructive as alcohol, we can certainly handle other comparatively benign drugs.
At the very minimum, the idea of a "schedule 1 drug" should be completely abolished. ESPECIALLY the clause which prevents research of any compound that is placed in schedule 1.
The United States has failed utterly in its "war on drugs". We've spent hundreds of billions in taxes, exploded our prison population to the largest in the world (rivaled only by russia), destabilized every country south of Texas, and yet have failed utterly in restricting the accessibility and usage of "illegal drugs". It's all absolutely ridiculous, especially considering that the stated purpose of mass criminalization in the first place was to silence political opposition.
People forget the constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government, not the people.
Clarence Thomas discussed this in his dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich where homegrown medical marijuana was legally grown in California for personal use, but destroyed without due process, and with disregard to the fifth, ninth, tenth amendments, by the federal government.
In his dissent, Thomas complained that:
"the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions.
Holland already did this experiment since you used to be able to buy mushrooms over the counter. Quite a few tourists lost their minds or worse.
Nobody should ever face legal consequences for personal use of any drug but they should remain hard to find.
Anyway everyone knows you don't find acid, acid finds you.
What does that mean?
Ie, you decide you’d like to trip at the Phish show and the old man next to you offers you mushrooms, unsolicited, after you haven’t been offered mushrooms for 50 shows.
That type of thing.
Also interesting to note that LSD & MDMA have similar origin stories. They were both previously synthesized and catagorized as unuseful and then interesting characters had a flash of insight to resynthesize them after decades of being dormant.
That's the thing, you just like to think that. Yet, you offer no evidence to back your claim, or your expertise in the matter. At best, your evidence is anecdotal (so far) and cannot be used in a more general discussion about psychedelics.
My thesis was on how research in psychedelics can help us learn more about schizophrenia (I wasn't interested in any of prescribed topics so my lecturer said I could do whatever but it would have to be without guidance).
Scientific knowledge won't help much in the way of steering clear of a bad trip. It's more about common sense (set / setting, dosage) and knowing yourself and your own mind.
My question to you is, do you think psychedelics should be more controlled than alcohol? Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.
I'm also wondering if we can create a set of metrics, free from anecdotal evidence and any political context, by which we can use to categorize different drugs (alcohol included) based on social harm, self harm, long lasting damage, etc. and then use this to define which of those we ban/regulate/decriminalize etc. I know that may sound a bit naive, but using a pure scientific approach to this could give us quite different results than the current state of things, where some of the most dangerous substances are legal because there's a lobby behind them. The only thing I found similar to this is this assessment referenced on the LSD wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/me...
Holland did the OTC experiment already and there must be interesting data about this somewhere. I don't think OTC would be a good idea, maybe I'm just overly cautious.
At the moment, anyone with sufficient motivation can get psychedelics at the click of a button and here in W-Europe nobody will really face any serious legal consequences for personal use. Testing kits are widely available. The current situation is not a bad one.
> Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip.
I don't think (bad) trips would cause much social harm at all actually. Psychedelics have an unpredictability to them that warrants caution in a way that doesn't apply to alcohol (or sky diving, rock climbing ...)
Medical prescriptions are required (in part) because of the potential side effects. If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through a mental hell scape, it wouldn't be available OTC either.
Just some thoughts, the discussion is a difficult one.
Right... But we still sell nuts to people allergic to nuts, and we still sell alcohol to people who end up beating their wives and then think it never happened.
I don’t believe your point is reasonable at all.
I am in favor of legalization to reduce legal, financial and social problems and not because drugs (including psychedelics including cannabis) are harmless.
When it comes to psychedelic drugs and other drugs generally, there has never been any legitimate basis for their prohibition. Even poisons like arsenic and cyanide aren't regulated the way drugs that simply make you smile for awhile are.
I suspect most people simply want to skirt the backing philosophy behind drug prohibition. They don't want to discuss whether the belief that easy pleasure is immoral has merit. They don't want to have to say out loud or try to defend the idea that people would abandon productive, full lives to pursue chemically-induced pleasure states in large numbers. Mostly because they're not confident in their ability to hold those arguments, and they fear it might make them easily swindled I think.
Linking Tobacco with Cancer was not a simple battle and was possible only because it was legal and people were open about its use. The lower tobacco consumption in developing countries was achieved because of regulation and not criminalisation.
The point across many of the episodes is that locking up drugs in the immutable prison of the Controlled Substances scheduling is possibly locking up cures that might be useful down the line, besides the obvious issue of the state telling people what they can and can't put in their body, the drug wars are a unnecessary violence and costly enforcement over a health matter.
The war on vegetables and plants should end and this generation should do it. Adults are responsible enough to know what they put in their body and for the ones that have trouble with addiction, the focus should be on healthcare not executive criminal force that is very costly in funds and possible uses of drugs that are locked up in the prison of the Controlled Substances Act as a controlled substance. In a free country you are responsible for yourself, the state should back off on drugs because they are more dangerous illegal than legal due to black markets, cartels, legal issues harsher than the drug and more.
Due to the hard line, we miss out on scientific health advantages of these drugs and people aim to make more synthetics that mimic them that may be more harmful than the original with unknown effects.
Unfortunately it looks like the US is doubling down on the drug war with the new Schedule A that allows them to put on biologically similar drugs and synthetics on the list with SITSA [3].
My take is that drugs should be legal or at a minimum entirely decriminalized, there should be substance warnings but ultimately the liability of the user taking the drug is on the user, not a doctor. The only time a producer should get in legal issues is when they are selling what isn't on the label just like with food. A big problem with overdoses and drug deaths is due to people getting the wrong substance, for instance fentanyl because it is cheaper in other opioids. The hardline of putting liability on the doctors and pharma companies is also leading to patients looking for alternatives after their doctor stops their prescription for fear of legal issues, what follows is where most overdoses and trouble happens as there is no addiction help after even legal use of drugs. The hardline on opioids even further exacerbate the problem.
We need a new Bill of Rights amendment for Right to Body to do this. This is a health issue not a criminal one and it is too costly to possible health advances to lock up helpful chemical configurations that need more study. We need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one.
The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a health issue not a criminal one.
Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every year to be medically dangerous to be kept on the list.
The problem is that once drugs get classified as a controlled substance, it is very difficult to get them out because neither the public nor legislature can easily remove it. The CSA list is managed entirely wrong. The CSA was setup to target certain dissidents initially by Nixon, it is nearly criminal that the drug war is ran by an organization that is untouchable and maintained by the enforcer not the health institutions.
The CSA should be completely abolished or recreated with expiring classifications, and the FDA can make recommendations on safety but then it is up to the people to decide what they do with their bodies with the liability on them.
Marijuana is an example where the Controlled Substances Act harms medical uses of drugs on th...
But as the article points out, there are real risks. There are a large number of LSD zealots who have not just goofy but dangerous beliefs about LSD. Spend any amount of time looking at posts on /r/lsd and you'll find people claiming LSD is a sure-fire cure for depression. Sure, some people have found it helpful, but those who tried it and went off the deep end probably aren't hanging around on /r/lsd.
The other frightening thing about /r/lsd is how many teenagers are there. Part of the over-representation is due to the nature of reddit. Even so, little good can come out of that cohort dabbling in psychedelics.
One of the key points of the psychedelics / soft drugs legalisation effort is that it would allow for a lot less red tape to do medical research on.
Are you saying people who no longer feel depressed are suffering from confirmation bias? :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
I know a guy who seriously overdosed on LSD and had to spend a weekend in a hospital. Other than a severe aversion to psychedelics he wasn't seriously harmed, at least not to the point where he needs daily medication to deal. He has the worst Adderall tolerance his docs have ever seen but that's unrelated. I suppose I could ask him whether his OD made his ADD worse.
For sure chronic abuse of psychedelics will cause permanent effects but I'm not aware that anything other than a life-threatening overdose of psychedelics will cause someone to need lifelong medication to manage the consequences.
Show one scientific study that shows any long term effect from a single dose of any of your listed substances and I will be happy to take your comment seriously.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-doesnt-e...
"Evidence supports the association of LSD use with panic reactions, prolonged schizoaffective psychoses and post-hallucinogen perceptual disorder, the latter being present continually for as long as 5 years."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869
"Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of acute hallucinogen effects. HPPD was associated with a broader range of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide)-like substances, cannabis, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, mescaline, and psychostimulants."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235
"The Association of Salvia divinorum and Psychotic Disorders: A Review of the Literature and Case Series"
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/new-studies-fail-find-associ...
I'm sure that maybe they do exist, but it's an exceedingly small percentage of people who try them. People are also allergic to peanuts, yet we don't ban peanuts for the few that will die if they come into contact with them.
Instead, they probably need to go deeper into the material that came up on the trip in a supportive setting (at least, that has worked for me a number of times).
It's not just for mental health issues, but for any health issues, everyone on HN seems to have their pet cure. Just look at the 20 different (often contradictory) opinions that appear every time there's a discussion on diet or weight loss here.
I'm not saying that psychedelics (or other drugs) won't help with depression or other mental health issues, but from experience it's certainly not necessarily the cure-all like some people here like to make it out to be.
Different treatments work for different people in different situations. People should be wary of taking medical advice from Hacker News.
Let's not forget that this experience is not just this poster. There have been quite a few studies showing positive affects on the depressed with the use of hallucinogens.
Also, I'm not totally sure, and I may be wrong, but I have a feeling if you read that comment and are interested your first step isn't to immediately walk outside and go to Jam band concert to score some hallucinogens so you can test this theory out for yourself ;-). I have a feeling people do a bit more research.
But it's true especially for people with mental illness that hallucinogens should be taken with extreme care.
It's still in its infancy and doctors are still scamming patients with $600+ IV infusions.
It's important to set the context. Those with treatment resistant mental illness are looking for other options. It makes sense, but often they are vulnerable to pseudoscience.
An adult should be allowed to do whatever s/he likes as long as it is not harming others. If harm to others is done - even under the influence - then punishment is due. But as long as somebody just does something in private - it must be okay.
I have plenty of experience with psychedlics - be it LSD, Psilocibin, DMT or 4-ACO-DMT. I know from own experience that a bad trip can be very unsettling. But as an adult it is first of all my right to take that risk and second of all it is a maturing experience.
The state should not be allowed to prohibit anything when done in private. The concepts behind drug prohibition are pretty much the same as behind prohibition of homosexual practices. People also say this should not be allowed because it is bad and young children will be molested etc pp.
Since we don't and insurance companies seem pretty decent at modeling risk, this would be included in the model.
Look at how people who smoke are financially penalized by health insurance.
The same is not true for alcohol consumers.
I guess casual drinkers (and more than casual drinkers) are a pretty big lobby group though.
Now, if the government is manufacturing and selling without advertising that might be closer to the platonic ideal you're describing.
I mean nothing is bad by itself - we don't prohibit knives b/c people stab each other.
Where I live (downtown of big city) there are a lot of people visibly addicted to drugs, on the streets, generally living lives that appear tragic to themselves and others. We can say "punishment is due" for each offense they take (theft, violence, public nudity, etc.), but it's probably better to describe those as symptoms of a drug addiction. "Punishment" rarely helps people get out of a downward spiral.
Humans are complex. We do things that we know we don't want to do. Sometimes we need help from ourselves. And the general society does have an interest in keeping people out of a life of addiction that leads to crime and self-injury.
I'm not at all an expert on these matters and I don't advocate a particular set of regulations or deregulations to try and "solve" these sets of problems. But I'm not sold by your simple narrative, because there is a strong link between (some types of) drug use and harm to others (and self). So it just doesn't seem clear-cut.
We could remove all guard-rails (literal and figurative) from society. I guess you could say I'd be more "responsible" for staying alive under this scenario. But why is that good? It's just more inefficient and unpleasant for everyone to have to carefully check their every move in case something's trying to scam or possess them. The more you're tested, the more likely you'll fail. When instead we can just generally agree, via democratic means, to fix those systemic problems across-the-board. Then we can get on to solving better problems.
My own pop psych: you don't "conquer" temptation, so much as it wears at you. And it wears at some members of your community more than others. You solve it by removing the temptation (or yourself from it), not by facing it over and over.
As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails us. I will gladly accept limitations on my own entertainment if it helps my neighbour through a difficult struggle.
and the idea of recent generations having to face less and less responsibility is not just pop psychology. I think it is quite obvious with parents picking up their children at school (helicopter parenting) despite public transportation being more comfortable and crime rates being lower than in the past.
> And it wears at some members of your community more than others.
Those may seek help or suffer - their choice.
> As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails us.
And this is not being done by prohibiting drugs but by working on the reasons why people start to abuse drugs.
Of course when talking about a society dealing with drugs in a liberal fashion one quickly ends up imagining utopias where people don't have reasons to escape their sad reality. Thinking about better worlds is not a bad thing at all - it's just painful realizing how faaaaar away we are from it.
It really shouldn't be. It's a pragmatic question, based on what the likely outcomes and benefits or harms would be for deregulation.
> second of all it is a maturing experience.
Psychedelics put you at far higher risk of experiencing psychosis and other mental health issues. Don't rose-tint it as "maturing experience". You might not have an adverse response. Plenty have.
Adults have the right to die, to suffer and to harm themselves - I prefer to not get there. But I don't see why the state should base laws on this b/c this will also affect the freedom of me and others who act responsible.
There was a court case in The Netherlands concerning the legal status of these cactus by a religious group who used these during rituals. They won; they were allowed to use these for religious reasons. Ever since, smartshops sell these cactus. I owned a san pedro and peyote cactus myself. The peyote didn't last long, but the san pedro become huge. Eventually it was easily 2,5 meters tall. Unfortunately, it did have "spint" (red spider mite?). I never used them for drugs-related reasons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church
Interpreting the experience without proper background invariably leads to funky thoughts, usually surrounding those pieces of experience that disappear/disfunction, such as identity, sense of self and environment, perception of non-natural persons, etc. All this leads to very zany, counterproductive and simply dangerous life philosophies.
I think it would be immensely valueable for more people to have GOOD trips. To take a piece of their mind and analyze it, to use these drugs to have unparalleled experiences.
But to loosen the restrictions, especially in the exceedingly naive current landscape, will only lead to widespread commercial abuse and misguidance, the nature of which affects people most likely to be irrational and confused. This is unacceptable, and should be fought against with the greatest ferocity - as it is a recipe for disaster, and you will readily find this evidenced in past situations. (e.g. hippies suffered a lot of bad stuff due to misunderstanding their drugs)
I think academic and religious use should be strongly endorsed, and logged/monitored. Let's take it from there?
Many people like psychedelics because they hate themselves.
Permanently rewire your personality, maybe blow out your mind entirely? No big deal.