Comment by pvarangot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvarangot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong.

I think the risk of developing a long term mental illness from psychedelic use are overstated because of societies stigma with temporary psychosis. A healthy person can come back from those "psychotomimetic" episodes really quickly, even quicker than with opioid induced psychosis. It's not really mysterious or undesirable as you make it sound. People that develop long term issues from psychedelic use are also at risk of developing those from basically all other psychoactive substances, specially marihuana and opioids.

The motivations for making psychedelics schedule 1 where political and not related to that risk at all though. Drinking a lot can also create temporary psychosis and long term personality changes. There's also lots of studies about how marihuana also results in psychosis or triggers mania in some people. Neither alcohol nor Marihuana show as promising results for things like fighting depression, fatigue, social anxiety, as psychedelics or at fighting PTSD as MDMA does.

Alcohol and now weed are legal mostly because of other economic and political interests. The sad reality is no one gives a fuck about the people that could benefit from research into psychedelic medicine, except pharmaceutical companies that make billions out of treatments that are 20 years behind, and they want them to be schedule 1 forever.

With drugs you get two choices: ineffective or potentially dangerous, often both.

People want to believe that the thing they like is safe, but every drug that can do anything is dangerous. That's the whole idea, a drug is a lever to make change, not a magical "make everything better" solution. You push the lever too far and you get things you don't want.

It's not just temporary psychosis (which sometimes isn't so temporary). It can trigger major changes in personality, or latent mental illnesses which tend to only manifest with a push (schizophrenia is one).

It's not a coincidence that psychedelics have been used in religious ceremonies throughout human history. They can give people religion, and without direction they can turn people into troubling zealots for just about anything (and often the drug itself). People who experienced this and became cultural icons are part of the reason they got banned. (turn on, tune in, drop out)

There is even a considerable group that want to re-name psychedelics to "entheogens" which has a rough etymology of "to put god into".

I have personally felt this and it scared the fuck out of me.

Every single thing humans do and consume is 'potentially dangerous'. Existence is dangerous.

If you extend the definition of the word or phrase to apply to everything it is meaningless and might as well not be used. That is not how I am using it.

> With drugs you get two choices: ineffective or potentially dangerous, often both.

What type of drugs? Pharmaceutical or recreational? Natural or man-made? Taken to escape or numb, or with respect and gratitude? Abused or moderated?

There is a wide spectrum of outcomes when consuming any substance. Many more than two.

> They can give people religion, and without direction they can turn people into troubling zealots for just about anything (and often the drug itself)

Religion, politics, or any belief system can breed this without drugs. Selling salvation or enlightenment by taking a substance attracts the emotionally vulnerable. And wouldn't that actually decrease if they could be taken by anyone in a safe and controlled environment alongside a licenced therapist, instead of underground?

What are you advocating for or against? I'm genuinely interested, I sense fear and worry in what you wrote but don't really understand the point you are trying to make.

>What type of drugs?

All.

My point seems to have not gotten across.

Let me restate. Either a "drug" is fake and worthless, or it is dangerous. There isn't a third direction. If it does anything, it can do too much of it.

>Religion, politics, or any belief system can breed this without drugs.

Hallucinogens are major religious experiences in pill form with proper dosage (or whatever your preferred delivery method). There isn't really a comparison between something that can readily deliver a life changing experience on demand and those other things.

>What are you advocating for or against? I'm genuinely interested, I sense fear and worry in what you wrote but don't really understand the point you are trying to make.

I'm advocating against treating this class of drugs like they are magical perfect safe toys. They are powerful, and dangerous tools that can do a lot of good things, but any powerful tool can be misused or have serious drawbacks. I am not against "dangerous" things, there's no such thing as complete safety. I'm advocating for respect and understanding. There is a reason historically and prehistorically they were almost always used within a structured (usually religious) environment.

There is space for respect and understanding in between fake & worthless and dangerous. These are multidimensional problems.

The titled study seems very thoughtfully designed and operated, in a professional, ethical, and scientific manner.

I'm with you on the last point. It's good to be aware of past abuses, but I also see a future where we can integrate what nature has provided into our lives in a respectful and grateful way and grow from it. Definitely not a pill to pop and fix something. A therapy based approach to psychedelics makes a ton of sense to me.

Besides the "it's not that binary" thing that other people already told you, and that I agree with, there's a few other misconceptions I think:

> It's not a coincidence that psychedelics have been used in religious ceremonies throughout human history.

I don't think the reason is that they are good "brainwashing" drugs and religion is inherently about changing everyone's personality. I think what you are referring to as "religion" was not "religion" back then, but "religion, science, medicine and the state" which where all usually together and perceived as a single entity. The main reason they were using psychedelics may be that they are very effective, cheap, easy to extract from plants, and that they at a large scale work in addressing a lot of maladies. What was tuned for "brainwashing" and "controlling people" where the ceremonies, the drugs don't "do that" on their own.

The CIA conducted a lot of research into using LSD for brainwashing. So did Mossad, to use them for kidnapping people but making it seem like they are willingly going with them. They are not effective for this. Most of the literature agrees that high doses are more likely to help with depression and anxiety than to have any bad consequences.

And yeah they make you easier to manipulate and more suggestible. So do benzodiazepines and alcohol but with no of the benefits. You just need to be a little bit careful when taking them if you are struggling with any mental issue. Just like everything else.

> I have personally felt this and it scared the fuck out of me.

Do you have any experience administering psychedelics or with the vast literature about administering psychedelics? Because yeah, research has been banned in the US for a while, but this things have been around since the 50s. There's a lot of published research and a lot of literature from community use.

I think you may just be projecting your own experience here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com