Psilocybin mushrooms, and other psychedelics are one of the few things that truly alleviate the suffering, which for me is now over 25 days a month. With my prescriptions covering half of that timeframe on a good month.
I might have shot myself if it wasn't for discovering this application for psychedelics after developing the condition.
For my sake, and for the sake of others suffering migraines, please educate yourself on this use case. Regardless of your opinion on psychedlic decriminalization, I absolutely implore you.
Out of curiosity, have you tried the triptan class of drugs? They are migraine pills that have some similarities to the tryptamines but are not psychoactive.
Yes. I get about 9 tablets a month covered by insurance. 9 tablets willl last me maybe 4 or 5 days. My doctor prescribes two different triptans as well as fioricet to help bridge the gap.
Imitrex has largely the same effect on my migraines as psilocybin.
They should probably be regulated, but treating them as a health issue seems like a far healthier idea than criminalising them. I believe Portugal did exactly that and got very good results.
It does require a lot of education and responsibility on the part of pharmacists and physicians, though. If I understand correctly, opiates are illegal in the US yet can be legally prescribed as part of painkillers, and with corporations pushing them hard, this has resulted in a bigger opiate addiction crisis than ever. That's clearly not the right way to do it.
It's the right way to do it if you're more interested in making money than helping people.
Drugs aren't criminalised to help addicts. Drugs are criminalised to maximise profits. The US and British establishments have centuries-old links to the drug trade, the jail trade, and the "legal" opiate trade, and decriminalisation would create significant financial inconvenience.
This doubtless sounds wildly implausible to anyone unfamiliar with the evidence. But there's ample historical record of involvement, either direct or strongly implied - from the days of the Opium Wars, to the curious history of cocaine smuggling during Iran-Contra, to the fact that opium production increased threefold after the US invasion of Afghanistan.
The article talks about decriminalization, not legalization.
Decriminalization means that you are still not allowed to sell the product in a legitimate business. If you get caught with it, instead of going in front of a judge - possibly getting a criminal record and jail time - you will get a fine and no record. This lowers the priority for the police and prosecutor to track you down.
I think the US should really start thinking about decriminalizing the use of all drugs. It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances. But legalization is a whole other story, the opioid crisis would look pale in comparison to the aftermath of selling high quality MDMA/Cocaine/Heroin with a doctors note.
> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances
No, it's not. Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels, who kill, maim, and torture people. Over the course of years of drug use, drug users have likely funded dozens of murders, mutilations, wars, etc, for nothing other than personal pleasure.
It's fine to think drugs should be decriminalized, but to claim it's a victimless crime or isn't destructive, is simply ignoring reality.
>> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances
>No, it's not.
So it's acceptable to destroy lives for use of psychoactive substances?
I don't think you meant that exactly, I guess.
> Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels
If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them.
Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa.
If it is then legalise. If there's more that's causing the problem then we need to pin that down, but 'illegal' alone is not - IMO - enough.
If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes.
> If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them.
I used to believe this, but California's experience in Marijuana legalization and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county indicate that gangs are not interested in becoming legitimate businesses. Two things happen: real businesses set up and are threatened by gang violence and gangs set up seemingly legitimate fronts that continue to funnel money.
> Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa.
But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances, especially drugs. There are many drugs you cannot receive without a prescription and most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary.
Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong, independent of the state of the law. If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.
> If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes.
To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this.
> and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county
If you wish to say this at least post some links. The ones I've found do support what you say up to a point eg <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor.... But it is an unstable situation at the moment as the story indicates, and it also says "found that after medical marijuana was legalized in California, violent crime fell 15 percent." (but temporarily it seems)
> But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances
> To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this.
I actually agree the government is to blame for the ability of gangs to control the drug market, by making them illegal. However, I choose to pursue policy decisions based on the situation right now, not the situation that could have been. Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away, anymore than withdrawing from the Middle East will mean America never has to deal with that part of the world again.
> Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree.
Certainly, and in the absence of a legal, moral way to acquire them, you should probably abstain, independent of what you think the government ought to do. Because the alternative is heinous.
Indeed, it's complicated. One thing that is interesting to note though is that, while Prohibition is frequently cast historically as a failure, it did lead to a significant reduction in alcohol consumption, as seen in the drop in cirrhosis cases. Thus, legalization also needs to be ready to handle the inevitably greater public health risks.
So why not selling drugs in pharmacy, so cartels go extinct? I think that simply selling it always slightly cheaper below black market rate for addicts on prescription is possibility to reduce issue.
I used to be okay with legalization because i thought this was true, but experience does not show that. Gangs will want to have their money no matter what. California legalized marijuana (which I think is fine), but we should be realistic about what happens when you do that. Gangs do not go away. They continue to fight for their market share and 'right' to siphon money away to their wars: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor...
Moreover, fundamentally, these gangs want to engage in criminal business. If you legalize drugs, it's not like there's no more business sectors gangs could engage in. They will continue to exist because there will always be people who do not want to follow the law. Drug legalization may help (although we don't know that), but that doesn't obviate the need for enforcement. More importantly, it does not exculpate those who fund drug wars as some kind of political statement or because it makes them feel better. That is still morally indefensible.
comparing the brain damage from lsd to sniffing nailpolish is laughable. Plenty of people have done lsd in college and gone on to live productive effective lives. I can't say the same for people addicted to nail polish...
I wish people would stop calling them magic mushrooms. The forces against legalization take every opportunity to refer to "magic mushrooms." There is nothing magical about them. Hallucinogens are awesome chemicals and can affect profound positive and negatives effects on us. They should be treated with care and afforded serious dignity, especially in calls for legalization.
One of my greatest regrets from my days [legally] selling Magic Mushrooms here in the UK many years ago was being on holiday when The Economist called to interview us (we were essentially 'market leaders'). As an Economist subscriber back then I would've leapt at the opportunity. As it was (if memory serves) my partners were reticent to talk to them, presuming they'd take a more moral stance than I would've expected, and that they took.
A lot of its NSFW so I won't try to access any of it here, but:
- drug addicts attempting to eat themselves, trash, or feces
- drug addicts prostituting themselves for a hit
- drug addicts randomly attacking passers by, just case
- drug addicts getting hit by cars after randomly running into the street
- drug addicts with leprosy, full-body scabs, necrotic flesh, exposed bone.
And that was just after volunteering for a week. A co-worker worked with AmeriCorps for a year in Skid Row and during that time, one of the social workers she worked with lost their leg to gangrene after getting an infection on Skid Row from a stray needle. A coworker of hers was beaten into a coma by a drug addict they were trying to help.
Psychotropic or psychedelic? I very much doubt Psilocybin containing mushrooms are a problem on skid row compared to meth, heroin, and cocaine. They arent even addictive.
The problem isn't the addictiveness, the problem is the effect on neural chemistry.
Psychelic compounds are just as bad to someone whose brain has been eaten away from psychotropic drugs or narcotics, and are known to trigger schizophrenia-family of disorders in individuals with latent susceptibility. Marijuana, for example, is only mildly psychotropic but triggers schizophrenic episodes in individuals with schizophrenia...
Desperate/suffering/destitute drug addicts are addicted to drugs. Psychedelic/psychotropic drugs, tryptamines in particular (i.e., the subject of the discussion), are not physically addictive. Obviously, "responsibility" and "moderation" are important considerations for ensuring personal safety in the long term, but I have trouble believing that the depravity you discuss has much at all to do with psilocybin and its ilk. These are simply not "drugs of abuse" in the typical sense. Of course, anything can be abused, and those with schizophrenic tendencies may be especially affected by drugs, but marijuana does not necessarily exacerbate these issues. In my experience, marijuana had quite the opposite effect on someone I knew - calming, etc. This is just my experience, and I am no expert on schizophrenia. The point is that anything can be abused, but I don't believe that magic mushrooms have much to do with the drug "epidemic" and its ramifications.
Arguably, a significant percentage of skid row’s residents wouldn’t be there if they had the option of buying a clean, consistent dose from a pharmacy. Instead, they have to buy dangerously tainted drugs from professional criminals, and pay hugely inflated prices for it.
Highly recommend the book Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari if you’re interested in reading a persuasive version of this viewpoint.
Arguably, a significant percentage of skid row’s residents wouldn’t be there if they had the option of buying a clean, consistent dose from a pharmacy. Instead, they have to buy dangerously tainted drugs from professional criminals, and pay hugely inflated prices for it.
This isn't even remotely true. There are plenty of homeless people in Skid Row that are there even though their drug of choice is alcohol, available cheap from the nearest liquor store, grocery, etc.
I've read Chasing the Scream and it's not a useful viewpoint on this subject.
DMT seems to have either cured or greatly minimized my ADHD. Psilocybin is very close to dimethyltryptamine. I fully support the destigmatization of psychedelics.
41 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadPsilocybin mushrooms, and other psychedelics are one of the few things that truly alleviate the suffering, which for me is now over 25 days a month. With my prescriptions covering half of that timeframe on a good month.
I might have shot myself if it wasn't for discovering this application for psychedelics after developing the condition.
For my sake, and for the sake of others suffering migraines, please educate yourself on this use case. Regardless of your opinion on psychedlic decriminalization, I absolutely implore you.
Imitrex has largely the same effect on my migraines as psilocybin.
I don't use these drugs but it's a good thing for our society if they are available cheap and clean to people who want/need them.
They should be sold behind the counter from pharmacies and not allowed to be advertised, same as cigarettes in Australia.
When drugs are illegal it results in crime and health issues.
It does require a lot of education and responsibility on the part of pharmacists and physicians, though. If I understand correctly, opiates are illegal in the US yet can be legally prescribed as part of painkillers, and with corporations pushing them hard, this has resulted in a bigger opiate addiction crisis than ever. That's clearly not the right way to do it.
Drugs aren't criminalised to help addicts. Drugs are criminalised to maximise profits. The US and British establishments have centuries-old links to the drug trade, the jail trade, and the "legal" opiate trade, and decriminalisation would create significant financial inconvenience.
This doubtless sounds wildly implausible to anyone unfamiliar with the evidence. But there's ample historical record of involvement, either direct or strongly implied - from the days of the Opium Wars, to the curious history of cocaine smuggling during Iran-Contra, to the fact that opium production increased threefold after the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Decriminalization means that you are still not allowed to sell the product in a legitimate business. If you get caught with it, instead of going in front of a judge - possibly getting a criminal record and jail time - you will get a fine and no record. This lowers the priority for the police and prosecutor to track you down.
I think the US should really start thinking about decriminalizing the use of all drugs. It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances. But legalization is a whole other story, the opioid crisis would look pale in comparison to the aftermath of selling high quality MDMA/Cocaine/Heroin with a doctors note.
No, it's not. Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels, who kill, maim, and torture people. Over the course of years of drug use, drug users have likely funded dozens of murders, mutilations, wars, etc, for nothing other than personal pleasure.
It's fine to think drugs should be decriminalized, but to claim it's a victimless crime or isn't destructive, is simply ignoring reality.
>No, it's not.
So it's acceptable to destroy lives for use of psychoactive substances?
I don't think you meant that exactly, I guess.
> Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels
If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them.
Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa.
If it is then legalise. If there's more that's causing the problem then we need to pin that down, but 'illegal' alone is not - IMO - enough.
> If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them.
I used to believe this, but California's experience in Marijuana legalization and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county indicate that gangs are not interested in becoming legitimate businesses. Two things happen: real businesses set up and are threatened by gang violence and gangs set up seemingly legitimate fronts that continue to funnel money.
> Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa.
But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances, especially drugs. There are many drugs you cannot receive without a prescription and most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary.
Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong, independent of the state of the law. If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.
To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this.
> and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county
If you wish to say this at least post some links. The ones I've found do support what you say up to a point eg <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor.... But it is an unstable situation at the moment as the story indicates, and it also says "found that after medical marijuana was legalized in California, violent crime fell 15 percent." (but temporarily it seems)
> But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances
There we disagree utterly. Please see an earlier post of mine <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165080>.
And 'well accepted' isn't justified here. And 'have a right' I don't automatically accept.
> most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary
Sigh. Justify 'most'
> Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong
Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree.
> If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.
Yep. Difference is, I have a choice not to.
I think we're so far apart we can't possibly agree here.
I actually agree the government is to blame for the ability of gangs to control the drug market, by making them illegal. However, I choose to pursue policy decisions based on the situation right now, not the situation that could have been. Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away, anymore than withdrawing from the Middle East will mean America never has to deal with that part of the world again.
> Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree.
Certainly, and in the absence of a legal, moral way to acquire them, you should probably abstain, independent of what you think the government ought to do. Because the alternative is heinous.
Perhaps not. It’s complicated either way. But legalizing alcohol did remove the bootlegging gangs
Moreover, fundamentally, these gangs want to engage in criminal business. If you legalize drugs, it's not like there's no more business sectors gangs could engage in. They will continue to exist because there will always be people who do not want to follow the law. Drug legalization may help (although we don't know that), but that doesn't obviate the need for enforcement. More importantly, it does not exculpate those who fund drug wars as some kind of political statement or because it makes them feel better. That is still morally indefensible.
Oh well.
By morning, they'll be very much in favor of keeping that shit as controlled as possible.
And that was just after volunteering for a week. A co-worker worked with AmeriCorps for a year in Skid Row and during that time, one of the social workers she worked with lost their leg to gangrene after getting an infection on Skid Row from a stray needle. A coworker of hers was beaten into a coma by a drug addict they were trying to help.
Psychelic compounds are just as bad to someone whose brain has been eaten away from psychotropic drugs or narcotics, and are known to trigger schizophrenia-family of disorders in individuals with latent susceptibility. Marijuana, for example, is only mildly psychotropic but triggers schizophrenic episodes in individuals with schizophrenia...
Highly recommend the book Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari if you’re interested in reading a persuasive version of this viewpoint.
This isn't even remotely true. There are plenty of homeless people in Skid Row that are there even though their drug of choice is alcohol, available cheap from the nearest liquor store, grocery, etc.
I've read Chasing the Scream and it's not a useful viewpoint on this subject.