5 ms·

Seriously, the only things that have ever made me think a second time about drugs are the honest descriptions of it, not the "I did drugs and now I have no teet

by Vexs 11y ago

Seriously, the only things that have ever made me think a second time about drugs are the honest descriptions of it, not the "I did drugs and now I have no teeth" kinda descriptions, but the ones that go, "When you're on meth, meth feels great! Everything is amazing, you feel like you can do so much, but when you're off it everything seems boring! So you go back for more, and eventually you're addicted." kinda descriptions. If you talk about LSD, and say, "I've had some amazing times on it, and other times I've had spiders in my eyes", I think most people would be less likely to try it. Sure, not everyone, but still more than people saying just spiders in your eyes. I mean, it's a classical argument tactic, give something up to make your point more valid. But damned if it doesn't work.

astazangasta 11y ago
Or, just do drugs. I mean, LSD is great, and people should try it. Smoking pot is also nice, I've done some great writing while stoned. Heck, Paul Erdos did amphetamines his whole life. Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?
- philwelch 11y ago
  We're not; it's just one drug cartel trying to push out the competition. Whenever you hear drug use described as "self-medicating", you're hearing the notion that drugs like Zoloft and Ritalin are ok but drugs like marijuana and MDMA aren't.
- hristov 11y ago
  Nobody has ever done any great writing while stoned. Even Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most pro-drug writers ever, said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite others to take spin on the russian roulette. If you have any mental illness in your family, it is strongly advisable you steer clear, but even if you don't, it is not worth the risk.
  - pstuart 11y ago
    > LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia Citations please. It's a powerful drug but has incredible value when used properly. If you're going to start wringing your hands over dangerous drugs, start with the killers of today: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.
    - hristov 11y ago
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196512022732302 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196512022732302
      - Cryptokeeper 11y ago
        That article is 50 years old. Perhaps this one from 2013: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063972 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... "21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental health outcomes. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems."
        thrwyycombinatr 11y ago
        But temporary schizophrenia is very common. Cmon guys, this is ridiculous. I've seen it so many times. It literally re-wires your brain. And yes, temporary schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous. This is something no one can argue. I hate pedants.
        throwawaymonoid 11y ago
        Your brain literally re-wires itself constantly. There's no such thing as "temporary schizophrenia." If you're referring to acute psychosis, as you seemingly experienced, then yes it's certainly a possible side effect--though never a permanent one. Bad experiences are usually triggered by an uncomfortable setting, or a dose for which you were not prepared. I'm sorry that was your experience, but concerned your reaction doesn't add to the scientific discussion. LSD increases glutamate and modulates the 5HTA (seratonin) subtypes, as well as having modulatory effects on D2 (dopamine) receptors--it alters conscious processes and lowers the inhibitory threshold of the action potential, allowing "new" neuronal pathways to develop. While we don't know the specific pharmacokinetic MOA, we do know it has a favorable toxicological and therapeutic profile, and that the content of one's hallucinations depend far more on the individual and the setting than the substance. Yes, it can be dangerous. Yes, you can take steps to effectively minimize the danger like you do in every other area of your life (seatbelts? helmets?). Like anything there's a cost-benefit ratio for each individual to consider--are you willing to risk a potentially terrifying experience for a chance at novel insight? I think that's a choice everyone should be able to make for themselves.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  C0nc0rdance is a scientist who makes well researched videos about various subjects, and did a few videos on the health effects of marijuana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive. LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went on the be preachers or priests later in life. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. But anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning. Amphetamines certainly seem pretty cool. Especially if you have ADHD. But it definitely has side effects and potential for addiction. It's long term effects are not well studied, and a few studies I did see were concerning. E.g. brain damage in monkeys, and a group of kids taking it did worse than the control group after 3 years. I think people should be educated on the risks and facts before they decide to take a drug. If they still want to do it, fine. But at least they know the risks. And it's not enough just to put a warning sticker on the back of it that no one reads. Even widespread education that a drug is dangerous isn't enough. Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer, but why do new people take up smoking?
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless I'm no advocate of the claims that marijuana is "harmless" or, as some even claim, "good for you". But harm is relative. Sitting in your chair all day is harmful. Eating half the food we do is harmful, as are most medications. Arguing that marijuana is "not harmless" isn't much of an argument at all.
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      According to that video, it increases cancer risk at a higher rate than cigarettes, and it is very addictive to some percent of the population.
  - pantalaimon 11y ago
    > anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning. I find that statement absurd, anything with an effect that powerful should be cherished! Would life be desirable if it were stripped from all emotions, as they too have a powerful effect on the mind? Even if you agreed to that, it wouldn't be feasible as we are biological creatures and not pure rational beings. Denying that our biological self exists, with feelings and all, doesn't solve anything. The spiritual experience you describe is just another part of the human condition, I don't quite believe that 9 out of 10 people on LSD would become preachers, but I see how it can lead to a better understanding of religion. This doesn't require superstition, quite the opposite. When you know that those effects are caused by LSD or substances contained in Mushrooms, ferns or cacti, you don't need a higher power as an explanation for this peculiar state of mind. You might however find yourself coming to conclusions about life that other people on similar states of mind (whether induced by drugs or other means is irrelevant here) had before you, and who used the vehicle of religion to transport them. So yes, psychedelics, as well as most drugs, should not be taken lightly, but banning them is like razing the Niagara Falls because someone might fall over the edge.
- qmalxp 11y ago
  I think it's a bit misleading to simply say "LSD is great and you should try it". It can be interesting, but also can be scary as fuck, and you should be in a good place mentally before trying it.
  - visarga 11y ago
    I read an article yesterday about micro-dosing LSD at a level where no hallucinations appear, but a boost in energy and creativity is felt. Like a different kind of coffee that doesn't wane after only two hours.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Microdosing of psychedelics isn't very well (or at all?) researched and it's hard to tell whether what people are experiencing is a placebo or not.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    "Snorkeling is great and you should try it," is a similar statement I might make with no qualifications or equivocation from you. Many pleasurable activities have attendant dangers that you should be aware of before engaging in them. Drugs are no different, except we surround them with the stink of moral judgment and refuse to educate people on how to use them safely.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Snorkeling and psychotropic drugs are two completely different things.
    - qmalxp 11y ago
      The difference is most people snorkeling for the first time do it with an instructor who is very much interested in their well-being. I don't think the guy who sells you LSD is gonna lose sleep if you happen to develop a lifelong mental condition.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  "Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?" I guess you could say that occasional use is not a big problem for most drugs. But I wouldn't recommend it, because most people go through some vulnerable time when they could become addicted (or otherwise abuse drugs), and at that time you don't want to have the stuff in your house or a dealer friend ready to supply. We dismiss people who join cults that sound crazy -- an alien ship coming to rescue them or something -- but I think a high percentage of people could be recruited if the cult appears at just the right time in their lives. If you are a regular user of drugs, it's like always having the cult recruiter in your house, just waiting for the right time.
  - visarga 11y ago
    > most people go through some vulnerable time when they could become addicted (or otherwise abuse drugs), and at that time you don't want to have the stuff in your house or a dealer friend ready to supply Sometimes people do drugs to cope with their other problems in life. They need drugs as a reprieve. Life can be hard and people have used alcohol, pot and many other substances to create a refuge. Of course that doesn't solve the problem, but solving the problem is not always the top priority, and many times the problem has no solution. Why should we morally deny a refuge from anxiety and suffering to other people?
    - jeffdavis 11y ago
      Sure, they can help, too. But I wouldn't recommend it, because I have no idea which drugs would help and which would make things worse. I'm not suggesting we deny anyone anything. I'm answering the question: "why do we try to convince people not to use drugs?".
- andrepd 11y ago
  "LSD is great, and people should try it" is as dishonest and misleading and agenda-pushing as "pot makes your teeth fall off".

by Vexs 11y ago

astazangasta 11y ago

Or, just do drugs. I mean, LSD is great, and people should try it. Smoking pot is also nice, I've done some great writing while stoned. Heck, Paul Erdos did amphetamines his whole life. Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?

philwelch 11y ago
We're not; it's just one drug cartel trying to push out the competition. Whenever you hear drug use described as "self-medicating", you're hearing the notion that drugs like Zoloft and Ritalin are ok but drugs like marijuana and MDMA aren't.
hristov 11y ago
Nobody has ever done any great writing while stoned. Even Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most pro-drug writers ever, said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite others to take spin on the russian roulette. If you have any mental illness in your family, it is strongly advisable you steer clear, but even if you don't, it is not worth the risk.
- pstuart 11y ago
  > LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia Citations please. It's a powerful drug but has incredible value when used properly. If you're going to start wringing your hands over dangerous drugs, start with the killers of today: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.
  - hristov 11y ago
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196512022732302 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196512022732302
    - Cryptokeeper 11y ago
      That article is 50 years old. Perhaps this one from 2013: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063972 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... "21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental health outcomes. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems."
      - thrwyycombinatr 11y ago
        But temporary schizophrenia is very common. Cmon guys, this is ridiculous. I've seen it so many times. It literally re-wires your brain. And yes, temporary schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous. This is something no one can argue. I hate pedants.
        throwawaymonoid 11y ago
        Your brain literally re-wires itself constantly. There's no such thing as "temporary schizophrenia." If you're referring to acute psychosis, as you seemingly experienced, then yes it's certainly a possible side effect--though never a permanent one. Bad experiences are usually triggered by an uncomfortable setting, or a dose for which you were not prepared. I'm sorry that was your experience, but concerned your reaction doesn't add to the scientific discussion. LSD increases glutamate and modulates the 5HTA (seratonin) subtypes, as well as having modulatory effects on D2 (dopamine) receptors--it alters conscious processes and lowers the inhibitory threshold of the action potential, allowing "new" neuronal pathways to develop. While we don't know the specific pharmacokinetic MOA, we do know it has a favorable toxicological and therapeutic profile, and that the content of one's hallucinations depend far more on the individual and the setting than the substance. Yes, it can be dangerous. Yes, you can take steps to effectively minimize the danger like you do in every other area of your life (seatbelts? helmets?). Like anything there's a cost-benefit ratio for each individual to consider--are you willing to risk a potentially terrifying experience for a chance at novel insight? I think that's a choice everyone should be able to make for themselves.
Houshalter 11y ago
C0nc0rdance is a scientist who makes well researched videos about various subjects, and did a few videos on the health effects of marijuana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive. LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went on the be preachers or priests later in life. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. But anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning. Amphetamines certainly seem pretty cool. Especially if you have ADHD. But it definitely has side effects and potential for addiction. It's long term effects are not well studied, and a few studies I did see were concerning. E.g. brain damage in monkeys, and a group of kids taking it did worse than the control group after 3 years. I think people should be educated on the risks and facts before they decide to take a drug. If they still want to do it, fine. But at least they know the risks. And it's not enough just to put a warning sticker on the back of it that no one reads. Even widespread education that a drug is dangerous isn't enough. Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer, but why do new people take up smoking?
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless I'm no advocate of the claims that marijuana is "harmless" or, as some even claim, "good for you". But harm is relative. Sitting in your chair all day is harmful. Eating half the food we do is harmful, as are most medications. Arguing that marijuana is "not harmless" isn't much of an argument at all.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    According to that video, it increases cancer risk at a higher rate than cigarettes, and it is very addictive to some percent of the population.
- pantalaimon 11y ago
  > anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning. I find that statement absurd, anything with an effect that powerful should be cherished! Would life be desirable if it were stripped from all emotions, as they too have a powerful effect on the mind? Even if you agreed to that, it wouldn't be feasible as we are biological creatures and not pure rational beings. Denying that our biological self exists, with feelings and all, doesn't solve anything. The spiritual experience you describe is just another part of the human condition, I don't quite believe that 9 out of 10 people on LSD would become preachers, but I see how it can lead to a better understanding of religion. This doesn't require superstition, quite the opposite. When you know that those effects are caused by LSD or substances contained in Mushrooms, ferns or cacti, you don't need a higher power as an explanation for this peculiar state of mind. You might however find yourself coming to conclusions about life that other people on similar states of mind (whether induced by drugs or other means is irrelevant here) had before you, and who used the vehicle of religion to transport them. So yes, psychedelics, as well as most drugs, should not be taken lightly, but banning them is like razing the Niagara Falls because someone might fall over the edge.
qmalxp 11y ago
I think it's a bit misleading to simply say "LSD is great and you should try it". It can be interesting, but also can be scary as fuck, and you should be in a good place mentally before trying it.
- visarga 11y ago
  I read an article yesterday about micro-dosing LSD at a level where no hallucinations appear, but a boost in energy and creativity is felt. Like a different kind of coffee that doesn't wane after only two hours.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Microdosing of psychedelics isn't very well (or at all?) researched and it's hard to tell whether what people are experiencing is a placebo or not.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  "Snorkeling is great and you should try it," is a similar statement I might make with no qualifications or equivocation from you. Many pleasurable activities have attendant dangers that you should be aware of before engaging in them. Drugs are no different, except we surround them with the stink of moral judgment and refuse to educate people on how to use them safely.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Snorkeling and psychotropic drugs are two completely different things.
  - qmalxp 11y ago
    The difference is most people snorkeling for the first time do it with an instructor who is very much interested in their well-being. I don't think the guy who sells you LSD is gonna lose sleep if you happen to develop a lifelong mental condition.
jeffdavis 11y ago
"Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?" I guess you could say that occasional use is not a big problem for most drugs. But I wouldn't recommend it, because most people go through some vulnerable time when they could become addicted (or otherwise abuse drugs), and at that time you don't want to have the stuff in your house or a dealer friend ready to supply. We dismiss people who join cults that sound crazy -- an alien ship coming to rescue them or something -- but I think a high percentage of people could be recruited if the cult appears at just the right time in their lives. If you are a regular user of drugs, it's like always having the cult recruiter in your house, just waiting for the right time.
- visarga 11y ago
  > most people go through some vulnerable time when they could become addicted (or otherwise abuse drugs), and at that time you don't want to have the stuff in your house or a dealer friend ready to supply Sometimes people do drugs to cope with their other problems in life. They need drugs as a reprieve. Life can be hard and people have used alcohol, pot and many other substances to create a refuge. Of course that doesn't solve the problem, but solving the problem is not always the top priority, and many times the problem has no solution. Why should we morally deny a refuge from anxiety and suffering to other people?
  - jeffdavis 11y ago
    Sure, they can help, too. But I wouldn't recommend it, because I have no idea which drugs would help and which would make things worse. I'm not suggesting we deny anyone anything. I'm answering the question: "why do we try to convince people not to use drugs?".
andrepd 11y ago
"LSD is great, and people should try it" is as dishonest and misleading and agenda-pushing as "pot makes your teeth fall off".