7 ms·

Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again

95 points by tgerhard 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bluedanieru 16y ago
It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up? And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.
- NEPatriot 16y ago
  You need a piece of paper (degree) from an educational institution to make these claims. Otherwise you get arrested/have serious problems. Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery".
  - wdewind 16y ago
    "Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery"." So have completely insane people. If only we had some way to tell when people were full of shit...oh wait, thanks science!
    - rosser 16y ago
      In the case of most pharmaceuticals, the best science can tell us is that this chemical correlates with that effect. We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake -- just that it does it. The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials. (Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works, however anathema it may be to the traditional Western mindset.)
      - nollidge 16y ago
        > We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin > The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials. Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions, toxicity profile, half-life, chemical formula, side-effects... > Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works This merely proves that anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story.
        rosser 16y ago
        re: the MoA of aspirin, I stand corrected; thank you. Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions... I only have direct experience with ayahuasca shamanism, but for that case, they do have most of those things, as well as demonstrable, and reproducible, curative effects, and have reportedly had them for thousands of years. (Obviously, that last isn't a claim I can very well verify.) ...anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story. Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't. Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.
        wdewind 16y ago
        '1) Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't. 2) Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.' 1) You're talking about a very small number of people, relatively speaking, over a very long period of time, compounded with a lot of mostly second hand, passed down knowledge that has absolutely no recorded data, ie: at best a ton of correlation without causation (correct me if I'm wrong). Humans have been wrong many times before like this, and for just as long, under similar circumstances. 2) You're talking about something very specific, reproducible, and testable. I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, but there is a very real and demonstrably greater value to this kind of information.
  - MichaelGG 16y ago
    Shamans also use things like ayahuasca, which is a MAOI and thus can have lethal interactions with other things. That might be somewhat related to the whole need for "legitimate" study.
    - rosser 16y ago
      The shamans who lead ayahuasca ceremonies are usually rather strict about who they'll let participate -- particularly if they're dealing with people from the first world, and the panoply of chemicals we put in our bodies. When I went to Peru to drink aya, we were specifically disallowed to take any Western medicines, except an anti-malarial, without consulting the shaman first (and had to discontinue use of them weeks before going down there), leaving completely aside the strict dietary and other restrictions during and for some time after the trip. They've been doing this for thousands of years; I'm pretty sure they have far a better idea of the risks than your comment seems to me to intimate. (Assuming, of course, that they aren't just brujos, there primarily to take the gringo's money. That's not a problem with the medicine as much as it is with the practitioner, however. Even then, they likely know the risks very well; they simply ignore them. As with everything else, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies.)
      - nollidge 16y ago
        Caveat emptor, indeed. If only there were some sort of rational method of inquiry involving painstaking scrutiny and freely published libraries of results were available to help consumers decide.
- moron4hire 16y ago
  Well, what's irritating to me is the reason they've had to "rediscover" it: the prohibitions our government imposes on what private individuals do to their own bodies.
  - NEPatriot 16y ago
    As far as drugs go... Our bodies belong to Pfizer/Merc. Commercialization of drugs.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - pw0ncakes 16y ago
      There are a lot of motivations behind the anti-drug movement, many of which are ignoble, but I think genuine concern is one of them. Most people don't want their children using them, and the drugs are dangerous, at least when used recklessly as they often are. Also, most people don't make the distinction between "hedonistic" drug use, such as using cocaine, and exploratory/psychedelic drug use, which is a different lifestyle altogether. Most people who have a problem with LSD aren't worried about the "free thinking", because they don't associate these drugs with expanded consciousness. They're afraid that their kid will have a bad trip and develop long-lasting psychological problems (which is unlikely but not impossible). People who are aware of the power and potential benefits of psychedelics are generally against criminalization, which decreases drug use but increases drug-related harm substantially.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - roc 16y ago
        And yet we daily send our children off into the world in, amongst and behind the wheel of automobiles, when cars have a far, far higher incidence of causing property damage, permanent debilitation and fatality. The risks of drugs are certainly real and some concern is absolutely genuine. But the dangers of drugs are treated completely out-of-context with any number of other aspects of modern life. Secondary objection: I don't think it's ever been convincingly shown that criminalization decreases drug use. Last I'd read, the opposite seems to have been occurring in areas that have legalized drugs.
- FluidDjango 16y ago
  "...what people have >>known<< for years" Well: some people. And "known" from their own uncontrolled (in the scientific sense) trials. Seems to me that the important thing in this report is the systematic research using controlled studies. Perhaps most helpful was the evidence that side-effects or negative reactions were quite infrequent and were manageable by attendants (aka "guides" in the 60s). Those types of findings might eventually open the door for public funding of research (note that most studies were funded by psychedelic-sympathetic agencies).
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments." Actually they are the first to do most of them. Back in the 60s they used to use LSD, which they no longer use because it's too long lasting and also because of its bad reputation. We also now have an empirically derived mysticism scale which wasn't available in the 60s, as well as a bunch of new methodologies that are much tighter than what they were using for the good friday experiments. Not to mention that in the 60s the studies they were doing weren't on end-of-life anxiety, and it wasn't even known that ego death was the key mediating variable. edit: And, most importantly, the reason they're doing these experiments is to get psilocybin approved as a drug by the FDA. And I somehow doubt the argument that because LSD had some similar benefits in minimally controlled trials 50 years ago, that psilocybin should now be moved to schedule 3 without safety or efficacy testing.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    "empirically derived mysticism scale" I want to hear more about this.
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      I'm not an expert on this, but here is a link to one of the studies: http://csp.org/experience/docs/hood_dimensions.html http://csp.org/experience/docs/hood_dimensions.html If you went and searched Google Scholar or JSTOR I'm sure you could find the rest of the papers based on that. I'm pretty sure that Roland Griffiths also mentions it here: http://premium.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-11T23_26_55-08_00 http://premium.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-11T2...
- spot 16y ago
  This is (good) news for two reasons. 1) The evidence is now much better. The old studies weren't double blind and were otherwise flawed procedurally. 2) The government (many agencies) approved of the studies after decades of denials. EDIT: plus reason 3) demonstrating lack of negative side-effects. The scientists who are behind them have made significant (to put it mildly) sacrifices to advance a cause that you will benefit from. "Irritation" is an ungracious reaction (to put it mildly).
- r0s 16y ago
  The slight change in political climate that justifies empirical observation is very hypocritical to be sure. I think the motives behind prohibition of these substances is interesting, and is quite telling in regard to our society. One under appreciated aspect is the overwhelming religiousness of psychedelic experiences, with history as long as society itself. Such that it presents a problem to any religious philosophy that will not accept "drugs" as genuine supernatural tools, because psychedelic effects can therefore be understood through science or objective observation. And therefore all human spiritual phenomena is subject to that same scrutiny. I think this creates an unconscious dichotomy in the mind of the average person. In my personal experience this was a profound disillusionment, and well worth the perceived risk 'recreational' use implies.
josefresco 16y ago
Hey this "friend of mine" subscribes to Playboy and in this months issue there's a pretty decent article on the use of MDMA, LCD etc. for people who are dieing and need "end of life treatment"
- warfangle 16y ago
  MDMA was also (at its outset) used (in small doses) during relationship therapy and PTSD with great success. There's been little ongoing research since it was relegated to Schedule I, but there's been some at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Therapeutic_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Therapeutic_use
- pmichaud 16y ago
  MDMA might save your life (or marriage) if you find a person who can teach you how to take it (attendant... guide... whatever).
  - pw0ncakes 16y ago
    I could be wrong, and I stopped using recreational drugs altogether after developing panic disorder in 2008-- I don't know if there's a connection between my past drug use and the disorder, but I thought the first attacks were bad salvia "flashbacks" or possibly God punishing me for being reckless-- but I think that everything beneficial that can be achieved with psychoactive drugs can be achieved, in time, with meditation. The difference is that meditation takes time and discipline before you start having experiences, while drugs provide experiences right away, but aren't always safe. I've often made this analogy. Meditation is like riding your bike into the woods. When you start out, you're not in shape so you don't get very far, but you don't end up farther in than you can handle. Psychedelics are like hitchhiking: you get a lot farther, don't always know where the fuck you are, and can usually get back safely (but not always).
    - akgerber 16y ago
      And riding your bike into the woods is like meditation.
pw0ncakes 16y ago
Psychoactive drugs shouldn't be illegal, but they can be dangerous. They provide a lot of spiritual and psychological benefits for a lot of people, but have also wrecked a lot of people. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (including Rx) and alcohol are probably the worst, as far as I've seen. Psychedelics don't seem to be as damaging in general-- I think it could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin-- but becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea. I find it astonishing that, although psychedelic experiences can be very interesting and illuminating, the vast majority of frequent drug users (e.g. 2-4x/month LSD users) are exhaustingly boring people. Psychedelics are a completely different class of drug, of course, from coke and alcohol. Most people lump together utterly different behaviors (cocaine at a party vs. shrooms in the woods) into "doing drugs", and that isn't really fair. I think psychedelics have a lot of value to offer humanity, but they are dangerous and we, as a society, need to rediscover safe means of using them.
- omarchowdhury 16y ago
  Taking a psychedelic is always a taxing and challenging experience, I don't know why anyone would want to do it frequently.
  - pw0ncakes 16y ago
    Escapism and experience chasing. The experiences become a lot less profound for the frequent users, and they themselves also become a lot more messed up. The truth is that if you have a psychedelic experience every Friday night, it's not nearly as interesting. With spiritual practice, you gain a sort of humility and perspective along the way. It's not only about experiences, but also community and morality. For people who use the drugs to get the experiences, but don't grow in the other dimensions, it just leads to nihilism once the novelty wears off. Acidheads' lives become empty and there's little benefit in exploring an empty mind. Some people use LSD as a party drug, and I think this results in a lot of the bad trips. It's dangerous as well as idiotic, and indicates that a person is missing the point if you ask me, but the behavior exists. My memory of LSD was that the first 8 hours were mind-blowing and amazing (and not particularly scary) but the last 4 were a bit unpleasant, like I had an itch in my mind I couldn't scratch (but not as bad as a bad trip or a panic attack). I dropped at 3:40 pm, peaked at 6, and started getting tired of the whole endeavor by midnight. At 1:30 am I was trying desperately to get to sleep (impossible on LSD) and annoyed that my mind kept playing tricks on itself. Thankfully, my girlfriend (at the time) was there to reassure me that this was normal and would end. I've often thought, though, that the intensity of LSD and mushrooms is related to the duration of time one is in a psychedelic/meditative state (when psychedelics are not used in a meditative state, they're wasted). I bet that if I had the focus to meditate for 6 hours, it'd be as powerful of an experience (or moreso) than a shrooms trip; same with 12 hours viz. LSD.
mkramlich 16y ago
Good rule of thumb: drugs are bad. Don't mess with them. Exceptions: some aren't so bad, like caffeine or aspirin or wine. But always use in moderation.

95 points by tgerhard 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up? And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.

NEPatriot 16y ago
You need a piece of paper (degree) from an educational institution to make these claims. Otherwise you get arrested/have serious problems. Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery".
- wdewind 16y ago
  "Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery"." So have completely insane people. If only we had some way to tell when people were full of shit...oh wait, thanks science!
  - rosser 16y ago
    In the case of most pharmaceuticals, the best science can tell us is that this chemical correlates with that effect. We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake -- just that it does it. The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials. (Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works, however anathema it may be to the traditional Western mindset.)
    - nollidge 16y ago
      > We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin > The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials. Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions, toxicity profile, half-life, chemical formula, side-effects... > Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works This merely proves that anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story.
      - rosser 16y ago
        re: the MoA of aspirin, I stand corrected; thank you. Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions... I only have direct experience with ayahuasca shamanism, but for that case, they do have most of those things, as well as demonstrable, and reproducible, curative effects, and have reportedly had them for thousands of years. (Obviously, that last isn't a claim I can very well verify.) ...anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story. Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't. Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.
        wdewind 16y ago
        '1) Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't. 2) Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.' 1) You're talking about a very small number of people, relatively speaking, over a very long period of time, compounded with a lot of mostly second hand, passed down knowledge that has absolutely no recorded data, ie: at best a ton of correlation without causation (correct me if I'm wrong). Humans have been wrong many times before like this, and for just as long, under similar circumstances. 2) You're talking about something very specific, reproducible, and testable. I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, but there is a very real and demonstrably greater value to this kind of information.
- MichaelGG 16y ago
  Shamans also use things like ayahuasca, which is a MAOI and thus can have lethal interactions with other things. That might be somewhat related to the whole need for "legitimate" study.
  - rosser 16y ago
    The shamans who lead ayahuasca ceremonies are usually rather strict about who they'll let participate -- particularly if they're dealing with people from the first world, and the panoply of chemicals we put in our bodies. When I went to Peru to drink aya, we were specifically disallowed to take any Western medicines, except an anti-malarial, without consulting the shaman first (and had to discontinue use of them weeks before going down there), leaving completely aside the strict dietary and other restrictions during and for some time after the trip. They've been doing this for thousands of years; I'm pretty sure they have far a better idea of the risks than your comment seems to me to intimate. (Assuming, of course, that they aren't just brujos, there primarily to take the gringo's money. That's not a problem with the medicine as much as it is with the practitioner, however. Even then, they likely know the risks very well; they simply ignore them. As with everything else, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies.)
    - nollidge 16y ago
      Caveat emptor, indeed. If only there were some sort of rational method of inquiry involving painstaking scrutiny and freely published libraries of results were available to help consumers decide.
moron4hire 16y ago
Well, what's irritating to me is the reason they've had to "rediscover" it: the prohibitions our government imposes on what private individuals do to their own bodies.
- NEPatriot 16y ago
  As far as drugs go... Our bodies belong to Pfizer/Merc. Commercialization of drugs.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - pw0ncakes 16y ago
    There are a lot of motivations behind the anti-drug movement, many of which are ignoble, but I think genuine concern is one of them. Most people don't want their children using them, and the drugs are dangerous, at least when used recklessly as they often are. Also, most people don't make the distinction between "hedonistic" drug use, such as using cocaine, and exploratory/psychedelic drug use, which is a different lifestyle altogether. Most people who have a problem with LSD aren't worried about the "free thinking", because they don't associate these drugs with expanded consciousness. They're afraid that their kid will have a bad trip and develop long-lasting psychological problems (which is unlikely but not impossible). People who are aware of the power and potential benefits of psychedelics are generally against criminalization, which decreases drug use but increases drug-related harm substantially.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - roc 16y ago
      And yet we daily send our children off into the world in, amongst and behind the wheel of automobiles, when cars have a far, far higher incidence of causing property damage, permanent debilitation and fatality. The risks of drugs are certainly real and some concern is absolutely genuine. But the dangers of drugs are treated completely out-of-context with any number of other aspects of modern life. Secondary objection: I don't think it's ever been convincingly shown that criminalization decreases drug use. Last I'd read, the opposite seems to have been occurring in areas that have legalized drugs.
FluidDjango 16y ago
"...what people have >>known<< for years" Well: some people. And "known" from their own uncontrolled (in the scientific sense) trials. Seems to me that the important thing in this report is the systematic research using controlled studies. Perhaps most helpful was the evidence that side-effects or negative reactions were quite infrequent and were manageable by attendants (aka "guides" in the 60s). Those types of findings might eventually open the door for public funding of research (note that most studies were funded by psychedelic-sympathetic agencies).
Alex3917 16y ago
"These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments." Actually they are the first to do most of them. Back in the 60s they used to use LSD, which they no longer use because it's too long lasting and also because of its bad reputation. We also now have an empirically derived mysticism scale which wasn't available in the 60s, as well as a bunch of new methodologies that are much tighter than what they were using for the good friday experiments. Not to mention that in the 60s the studies they were doing weren't on end-of-life anxiety, and it wasn't even known that ego death was the key mediating variable. edit: And, most importantly, the reason they're doing these experiments is to get psilocybin approved as a drug by the FDA. And I somehow doubt the argument that because LSD had some similar benefits in minimally controlled trials 50 years ago, that psilocybin should now be moved to schedule 3 without safety or efficacy testing.
- philwelch 16y ago
  "empirically derived mysticism scale" I want to hear more about this.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    I'm not an expert on this, but here is a link to one of the studies: http://csp.org/experience/docs/hood_dimensions.html http://csp.org/experience/docs/hood_dimensions.html If you went and searched Google Scholar or JSTOR I'm sure you could find the rest of the papers based on that. I'm pretty sure that Roland Griffiths also mentions it here: http://premium.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-11T23_26_55-08_00 http://premium.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-11T2...
spot 16y ago
This is (good) news for two reasons. 1) The evidence is now much better. The old studies weren't double blind and were otherwise flawed procedurally. 2) The government (many agencies) approved of the studies after decades of denials. EDIT: plus reason 3) demonstrating lack of negative side-effects. The scientists who are behind them have made significant (to put it mildly) sacrifices to advance a cause that you will benefit from. "Irritation" is an ungracious reaction (to put it mildly).
r0s 16y ago
The slight change in political climate that justifies empirical observation is very hypocritical to be sure. I think the motives behind prohibition of these substances is interesting, and is quite telling in regard to our society. One under appreciated aspect is the overwhelming religiousness of psychedelic experiences, with history as long as society itself. Such that it presents a problem to any religious philosophy that will not accept "drugs" as genuine supernatural tools, because psychedelic effects can therefore be understood through science or objective observation. And therefore all human spiritual phenomena is subject to that same scrutiny. I think this creates an unconscious dichotomy in the mind of the average person. In my personal experience this was a profound disillusionment, and well worth the perceived risk 'recreational' use implies.

josefresco 16y ago

Hey this "friend of mine" subscribes to Playboy and in this months issue there's a pretty decent article on the use of MDMA, LCD etc. for people who are dieing and need "end of life treatment"

warfangle 16y ago
MDMA was also (at its outset) used (in small doses) during relationship therapy and PTSD with great success. There's been little ongoing research since it was relegated to Schedule I, but there's been some at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Therapeutic_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Therapeutic_use
pmichaud 16y ago
MDMA might save your life (or marriage) if you find a person who can teach you how to take it (attendant... guide... whatever).
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  I could be wrong, and I stopped using recreational drugs altogether after developing panic disorder in 2008-- I don't know if there's a connection between my past drug use and the disorder, but I thought the first attacks were bad salvia "flashbacks" or possibly God punishing me for being reckless-- but I think that everything beneficial that can be achieved with psychoactive drugs can be achieved, in time, with meditation. The difference is that meditation takes time and discipline before you start having experiences, while drugs provide experiences right away, but aren't always safe. I've often made this analogy. Meditation is like riding your bike into the woods. When you start out, you're not in shape so you don't get very far, but you don't end up farther in than you can handle. Psychedelics are like hitchhiking: you get a lot farther, don't always know where the fuck you are, and can usually get back safely (but not always).
  - akgerber 16y ago
    And riding your bike into the woods is like meditation.

pw0ncakes 16y ago

Psychoactive drugs shouldn't be illegal, but they can be dangerous. They provide a lot of spiritual and psychological benefits for a lot of people, but have also wrecked a lot of people. Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines (including Rx) and alcohol are probably the worst, as far as I've seen. Psychedelics don't seem to be as damaging in general-- I think it could even be argued that alcohol is more dangerous than psilocybin-- but becoming an acid-head is a terrible idea. I find it astonishing that, although psychedelic experiences can be very interesting and illuminating, the vast majority of frequent drug users (e.g. 2-4x/month LSD users) are exhaustingly boring people. Psychedelics are a completely different class of drug, of course, from coke and alcohol. Most people lump together utterly different behaviors (cocaine at a party vs. shrooms in the woods) into "doing drugs", and that isn't really fair. I think psychedelics have a lot of value to offer humanity, but they are dangerous and we, as a society, need to rediscover safe means of using them.

omarchowdhury 16y ago
Taking a psychedelic is always a taxing and challenging experience, I don't know why anyone would want to do it frequently.
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  Escapism and experience chasing. The experiences become a lot less profound for the frequent users, and they themselves also become a lot more messed up. The truth is that if you have a psychedelic experience every Friday night, it's not nearly as interesting. With spiritual practice, you gain a sort of humility and perspective along the way. It's not only about experiences, but also community and morality. For people who use the drugs to get the experiences, but don't grow in the other dimensions, it just leads to nihilism once the novelty wears off. Acidheads' lives become empty and there's little benefit in exploring an empty mind. Some people use LSD as a party drug, and I think this results in a lot of the bad trips. It's dangerous as well as idiotic, and indicates that a person is missing the point if you ask me, but the behavior exists. My memory of LSD was that the first 8 hours were mind-blowing and amazing (and not particularly scary) but the last 4 were a bit unpleasant, like I had an itch in my mind I couldn't scratch (but not as bad as a bad trip or a panic attack). I dropped at 3:40 pm, peaked at 6, and started getting tired of the whole endeavor by midnight. At 1:30 am I was trying desperately to get to sleep (impossible on LSD) and annoyed that my mind kept playing tricks on itself. Thankfully, my girlfriend (at the time) was there to reassure me that this was normal and would end. I've often thought, though, that the intensity of LSD and mushrooms is related to the duration of time one is in a psychedelic/meditative state (when psychedelics are not used in a meditative state, they're wasted). I bet that if I had the focus to meditate for 6 hours, it'd be as powerful of an experience (or moreso) than a shrooms trip; same with 12 hours viz. LSD.

mkramlich 16y ago

Good rule of thumb: drugs are bad. Don't mess with them. Exceptions: some aren't so bad, like caffeine or aspirin or wine. But always use in moderation.