Hacker News Reader

> Psychedelics kill noone. Their LD50 is usually too high.

Perhaps, for pure 'traditional' psychedelics like LSD. (I'm not sure if there are any known direct toxicity-related deaths from it, including doses ~1000x typical). MDMA, on the other hand, can cause fatal hyperthermia or serotonin syndrome at ~10x typical dose.

Some of the 'novel psychoactive substances' gaining recent popularity due to their ambiguous legal status have much, much worse safety profiles. The 2C-x-NBOMe family is especially troublesome in that regard.

Also, consider exactly what the 50 in LD50 means.

And we won't even consider 'drug-related' fatalities, since it's even harder to find unbiased reporting on them as a class.

It might be a very small number (and I believe it is), but it ain't zero.

> Perhaps, for pure 'traditional' psychedelics like LSD. (I'm not sure if there are any known direct toxicity-related deaths from it, including doses ~1000x typical). MDMA, on the other hand, can cause fatal hyperthermia or serotonin syndrome at ~10x typical dose.

There is the elephant that died after a massive overdose of LSD. I'm mot sure if the LSD killed it or the exertion it went through after being given the LSD killed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tusko#The_elephant_on_LSD

There is a case where 8 people snorted two lines of pure LSD each thinking it was cocaine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129381/pdf/west...). All survived with no lasting effects, although they were fortunate to receive emergency medical care within 15 minutes after administration. 5 were comatose and 3 were in respiratory arrest, but unlike the elephant none experienced convulsions.

Psilocybin mushrooms can cause allergic reactions: http://www.lycaeum.org/mv/mu/allergy_psilocybe.html

> You can't become better by taking a drug

I'm going to mostly point out that although this is an appealing idea: that we only get out of ourselves what we put in/etc./etc. there's no reason for it to be true. In fact, I'd expect that for some drugs, it's probably not true: if you're talking about a substance that has dramatic, longer term effects on the functioning of seratonin/dopamine systems in the brain.

Moving away from the kind of nebulous 'better person' realm and into a slightly more measurable/agreed upon "normal person" realm, it's patently untrue for those with nonstandard brain chemistry (and completely backed by scientific+medical consensus--drugs are a baseline treatment for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia), and so I think there's no reason why drug use should not improve the experience/behaviors of people with what our society has deemed 'normal' or 'normal-enough' brain chemistry. I don't think there's something so different about people with what are considered diseases with a larger genetic component which have lasted for centuries: they are likely caused by a combination of otherwise beneficial traits coming together in a less than beneficial way.

Also, since the diseases I mentioned often do involve long term maintenance medication taken on a daily basis (such that there's always some amount of it in a patient's bloodstream), I think it's worth also mentioning that there are treatments for otherwise drug resistant depression such as electroconvulsive therapy which are effective when used every few months or only once or twice. I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that there are likely compounds that have impacts on people's brain chemistry that last longer than the life of the drug in the bloodstream.

I'd like to note, though, that I'm not advocating going and taking psychedelic drugs in an attempt to better oneself. They're compounds which have debatable (and unresearched) longer term effects on those who imbibe them, and which have fairly established negative impact on people who take them and are at risk for developing a serious mental illness. (family history, etc.) I think that the appropriate thing to do is to pressure govt. and push society to allow for actual, well founded scientific research into the matter. (I say this as someone who has taken a psychedelic drug once, and wouldn't attribute any long term betterment or changes in personality/etc. to it. However, as someone fairly familiar with mental illness and its treatment, I think that it's reasonable to assert that drugs with strong impacts on brain chemistry--and certainly on the functioning of the seratonin system, which is often implicated in depression, bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorders might have beneficial uses in treatment of some individuals, and perhaps betterment of those with more 'normal' brain chemistry.)

> I'm going to mostly point out that although this is an appealing idea: that we only get out of ourselves what we put in/etc./etc. there's no reason for it to be true.

A) Meditation takes concerted effort (by definition). B) Meditaiton has been shown to increase empathy: http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/060608.htm Conclusion) You can put effort into improving yourself and improve yourself (in this case: become more empathetic toward others).

> They're compounds which have debatable (and unresearched) longer term effects on those who imbibe them,

25 years is pretty long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment#Doblin... But we do need more.

> and which have fairly established negative impact on people who take them and are at risk for developing a serious mental illness. (family history, etc.)

Yes. If you have a family history of schizophrenia (or other severe mental illnesses), you shouldn't try psychedelic drugs. They can precipitate schizophrenic episodes, psychotic breaks, and the like.

Other than that, I totally agree. I was just trying to clearly and succinctly discount the enlightenment-in-a-pill attitude.

Allow me to preface this by saying I think we are in agreement, but I want to make sure we understand each other.

GP was just pointing out there is no law of nature that says the things worth having require effort. Your meditation anecdote is correct, but does not address the comment. There are things which are very good for us, but take little personal effort to attain (antibiotics are a good example, to continue with the drug theme...)

I believe meditation is an important, effortful aspect to understanding myself and how I relate to the world. I also believe that the psychedelic experiences I have had have worked in a similar, complementary manner. In either case, the amount of effort it took is not necessarily connected with the value received.

(Also, FWIW, not all meditation is concerted effort. Do you mean mindfulness? I believe Zen meditation advises that you let go of everything and do not focus; the blank slate principle and all that.)

Thank you for your polite comment.

> Psychedelics kill noone. Their LD50 is usually too high.

Drugs can kill by mechanisms other than toxicity (and this includes killing people other than the user.)