6 ms·
Psychedelics can trigger psychosis too.
by max-a 11y ago
Psychedelics can trigger psychosis too.
- trxcllnt 11y agoThere is evidence that does not agree with (edit: support) this statement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819185302.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819185302.ht...
- akjetma 11y agoTriggering psychosis != causing longterm mental illness. I think parties on both sides of the debate over the safety of psychedelics would agree that they can and often do trigger psychosis. And both parties probably agree, at this point, that they do not cause mental illness.
- throwupaway1138 11y agoHow is psychosis not mental illness? You are splitting hairs.
- chippy 11y agoI think the key word was "longterm" with the assumption that psychois is more associated with short term episodes.
- throwupaway1138 11y agoYes, but the dividing criteria is completely arbitrary. The medical term would be chronic. To me psychosis means a form of mental illness, so it looks like the GP doesn't have a clue.
- adrusi 11y agoThats like saying heart palpitations is an illness and therefore when someone takes a large dose of cocaine and gets an irregular heartbeat, they have a heart problem. Any definition you're thinking of that places any psychotic episode as a definite indicator of mental illness is completely irrelevant as soon as the subject is under the influence of a mind-altering drug.
- DanBC 11y agoOne episode of psychosis is not a life long psychotic illness. When people say "psychedelics cause mental illness" that could mean: * Someone with no underlying mental illness takes a few doses of LSD and is left with a life long psychotic illness * Someone with no underlying mental illness regularly takes huge doses of LSD, and ends up with a life long psychotic illness * Someone with underlying mental illness has that illness surfaced by LSD use, when it would have gone un-known if they hadn't taken psychedelics * Someone with underlying mental illness has that illness surfaced by LSD. But it probably would have happened anyway. * Someone with mental illness has that illness temporarily triggered by LSD. Because LSD is illegal and it's very hard to research we don't know much about the interactions of LSD and mental illness. While I'm strongly pro-legalisation I do find it problematic when people dismiss any possible harms of drug use, when it's fine to say we don't know, but should legalise anyway.
- Taek 11y agoWhat if doctors could prescribe drugs for recreational reasons? Then you are getting them from a setting where can be informed about the dangers, and a professional can tell you if you have personal risk factors (for example, I have a friend with a heart condition who is at very high risk of heart attack under the influence of cocaine). And then the professionals can help measure dependency and long term effects, and people can participate in studies and contribute to the science of recreational drug use. Drugs are always medical grade, never laced with other substances, and doctors can recommend safe alternatives to the dangerous recreational drugs. Power dynamics between a doctor and an addict may pose ethical problems, but if the doctor has the proper oversight these problems can be mitigated.
- MichaelGG 11y agoNo, doctors should have less power. It's absolutely embarrassing and disgusting that individuals must seek approval of another person just to get permission to buy certain medicines. Outside of things that require coordination (like antibiotics), there should be no prescription requirements. (There may need to be waivers and a statement of understanding before purchasing things, sure.) Doctors already regulate recreational and personal-enhancement via their strangehold on opiates and stimulants. We don't need to further this system.
- fossuser 11y agoWhile this book is only one anecdote with severe extenuating circumstances - it's a pretty good read. http://www.amazon.com/And-Then-Thought-Was-Fish-ebook/dp/B008DZEWF8 http://www.amazon.com/And-Then-Thought-Was-Fish-ebook/dp/B00... It's also online as part of his blog: http://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode-part-1 http://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode-part-1
- douche 11y agoDefinitely a fantastic read. Terrifying, but incredibly interesting. The author seems like an otherwise fairly well-adjusted person now - but it must be incredibly weird to look back at memories from when you were that completely out-to-lunch.
- mistermann 11y agoIt's a bit long but I think well worth reading!
- littletimmy 11y agoTo be fair, water can also poison you. Nothing is risk-free.
- sanoli 11y agoYeah, russian roullette isn't risk-free, just like drinking water, so let's do it.
- DennisP 11y agoThe interviewee acknowledged that, and said people with predispositions to it should not take these therapies. They have reliable screening tests.
- kaffeemitsahne 11y agoHow do they work, and how reliable? Seems like a pretty difficult thing to determine which healthy people are predisposed to mental ilness and which aren't.
- cma 11y agoYou have to be skeptical of psychological screening after Lisa Nowak passed some of the most stringent screening out there and still did her diaper drive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak
- tptacek 11y agoThey have reliable screening tests for what?
- DennisP 11y agoAccording to the interviewee, for vulnerability to serious negative outcomes from psychedelic therapies.
- tptacek 11y agoSince we don't have reliable screening for basic mental illnesses, I find it implausible that we have "reliable" screening for these kinds of vulnerabilities. I must be missing something; any thoughts?
- DennisP 11y agoIt's not my specialty, I was just pointing out something mentioned in the article, by a researcher in the area. If you have references that contradict his claim, I'd be interested in seeing them.