11 ms·

Research into psychedelics, shut down for decades, is yielding results (2015)

227 points by arikr 10y ago

RCortex 10y ago
"This is far too valuable to limit to sick people" Not a word about the major negative side effects including panic attacks, seizures, and death, or how some members of the population are at far greater risk of experiencing these side effects for reasons we do not yet know or fully understand. Sure, if it helps someone near death why not, but I don't like the rosy picture this article portrays.
- kingkawn 10y ago
  Do you support the availability of the option to use chemotherapy against cancer? Yes? Then how can you possibly object to these drugs?
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  I'd like to give this comment a more thorough treatment but I don't have the gumption right now. So I'll just say: One of the side-effects of antidepressants is increased risk of suicide. So I don't really see your point.
  - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
    >So I don't really see your point here it says that you have a significant chance to develop schizophrenia after a substance induced psychosis event (18,478 cases examined) https://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2013/v74n01/v74n0115.aspx https://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2013/v74n01/v... Results: Eight-year cumulative risk to receive a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was 46% (95% CI, 35%–57%) for persons with a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis and 30% (95% CI, 14%–46%) for those with an amphetamine-induced psychosis. Although alcohol-induced psychosis was the most common type of SIP, 8-year cumulative risk for subsequent schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was only 5.0% (95% CI, 4.6%–5.5%). let the downvotes start.
    - slfnflctd 10y ago
      I think you raise a valid concern. Inducement or exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms is probably the most troubling and widely reported problem with these drugs. The famous case of Syd Barrett comes to mind. There are many such anecdotes, and I myself saw something similar first hand (the individual in question eventually got better, but it took a few months). However, considering the potential upside, to me this makes it even more important to do extensive research on all of it. Oh, and a quick note-- the only 'psychedelic' drug mentioned in the study you cited is cannabis, which from everything I've read doesn't even begin to compare to the more powerful psychoactives. Funny enough, it is the one we have the strongest link to psychosis for, but this could only be because it's been so much more widely used and studied. It seems obvious that more study is needed, insofar as it can be done ethically.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      You have to get a "psychosis event" in the first place. Conditional probability, only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem. You leave out some vital information, without it the percentages and risks you mention are meaningless. As a (university researcher inner medicine) doctor I know used to say: There have been cases of severe side-effects from placebos... meaning just mentioning something can have bad effects is meaningless without more information. > let the downvotes start. Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about. It isn't even clear to me what your point is, if there is one. It's a carefully selected piece of information that just by itself doesn't say anything useful in the context of this discussion.
      - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
        > only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem still you can't say there is no problem at all. Lets count: the population of Finland is 5.5 million; 18000 cases makes 1/3 percent of the general population - a significant number (not known if all cases have been considered by this study, lets assume they have - i would assume that half of the cases would not be reported at all, but lets skip that), lets assume that five percent of the population have taken drugs - then 1/15 users would get one. >Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about No, there is such a thing as collective bias. lets not pretend that it doesn't exist.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  I'm not aware of these drugs directly causing the death of anyone (excluding someone driving on the freeway after taking them). Do you have an example of a fatality? As for the other unpleasant effects it's true these can happen temporarily. I know some people anecdotally believe negative effects can be permanent, but I'm not aware of any research supporting cause and effect. Now weigh the risks above with the possible reward. Near death comfort (while important) is only one application. For example anxiety and OCD are life crippling for so many people, and research suggest psychedelics might offer one of the best treatments yet. The potential benefits to society are so great, the research must continue. I also see no reason you could not help out with some empirical study.
  - echlebek 10y ago
    I found a reference to LSD directly killing someone. They injected 320,000 ug intravenously! https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=220 https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=220
    - Taek 10y ago
      (for the unfamiliar, a recreational dose is typically between 70 and 200ug. 200-400 is a heavy dose, and 400+ will leave you incoherent for many hours.)
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      To put that in perspective, the "typical" dosis according to wikipedia is ~200ug. For comparison, if you drink 10L of water, 200 espresso shots, or 600ml of 40% alcohol in one setting, you are likely to die.
      - blubb-fish 10y ago
        Let's assume a psychoactive vodka dose of 10ml and a typical dose of 100ug LSD: Then the respective vodka dose would be 10ml x (320'000ug / 100ug) = 10ml x 3200 = 32000ml = 32 l Obviously vodka would be deadly at an amount way below 32l.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  While I've heard of stories of people injuring themselves by jumping out of windows and so on, I've yet to hear a credible story about anyone dying from consumption of psychedelics, or indeed suffering seizures. Panic attacks for sure, they're quite unpleasant although in my experience pretty rare. All the statistical evidence suggests that psychedelics are quite safe compared to popular stimulants and depressives. I've had several bad trips, but I blame myself for those - smoking a ton of weed after you've also taken psychedelics is a good way to get disoriented.
  - ajryan 10y ago
    There are many lesser-known psychedlics with scarily-low lethal doses. Bromo-dragonfly and some *-NBOMe compounds are a few that killed people recently. High doses of DOC can cause extreme vasoconstriction in extremeties, resulting in necrosis. https://psychonautwiki.org https://psychonautwiki.org is a good site for investigating health risks.
anigbrowl 10y ago
At any other time in history I'd be excited about this. Under the incoming administration, I rather doubt the DEA is going to keep issuing research licenses for controlled substances.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Do we know which governments throughout the world are more liberal in this regard? I'd like to think if there was a place this sort of research could take place someone or some pharmaceutical company would be there doing it?
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    I've read of psychedelic research done in Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. MAPS has information on some international studies being carried out on psychedelics.[1] Erowid probably has some too.[2] (Curious how MAPS is HTTP and Erowid is HTTPS.) [1] - http://www.maps.org/research http://www.maps.org/research [2] - https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research/ https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research/
- drvdevd 10y ago
  The issue here isn't the DEA or the current Administration in power, but whether a profitiable "therapeutic business model" can succeed in the establishment pharma market, with respect to any controlled substance. [Edit] for obvious reasons, psychedelics are unusual in this regard, and a hard sell
- cr1895 10y ago
  The F.D.A. today has approved further clinical trials into the use of MDMA to treat PTSD: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html We can only hope this sort of research will continue to be done, elsewhere if not in the US.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 10y ago
Also: He is also the director of the substance-abuse division at Bellevue, and he told me that he had known little about psychedelics [..] until a colleague happened to mention that, in the nineteen-sixties, LSD had been used successfully to treat alcoholics. Ross did some research and was astounded at what he found. How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?! I'm not saying he should have been a fan of psychedelics all along, but he should at least have had some awareness of their history and how they came to be controlled substances.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  One would have thought such a role would require at least some formal study of the relevant subjects, which should expose you to the history of such things. I like to imagine these people actually taking LSD. While watching Bill Hicks. What a blast they'd have.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  "How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?" Because knowing too much about it - especially the positives and common usage - isn't really an important bit to know to get the job. What matters more is having the right qualifacations, being in the position to get such a promotion, and most of all, having the "correct" viewpoints on drugs and addicts.
- qwartor 10y ago
  There are two parts to the characterization at play here: 1. Psychedelics are not "abused" in the same way that other substances are. Furthermore, when psychedelics do get abused, the adverse effects are expressed differently, and patients are not routed through the same treatment channels that addictive substances see. Since psychedelics aren't addictive, users usually don't need ongoing maintenance to prevent relapses. Instead, victims of psychedelic side effects usually suffer from catastrophic burnouts after the mother of all bad trips, or persistent neurological symptoms creep in after a period of experimentation, and remain possibly for life. Once that happens people quit cold turkey, and cope with their flashbacks however they must. 2. Being a director of anything isn't a huge deal. It's not much of an auspicious title. Like manager or vice president, after you meet a thousand of them, big deal. Meanwhile, as for doctors, you'd be shocked at how sheltered some doctors are. Many of the doctors I've met only became doctors because their parents forced them into it, and they spent their youth locked in their bedrooms getting good grades, and those geeky scholarly habits stick with them into middle age. It wouldn't surprise me to meet a doctor who is a total outsider to the patient population their supposedly expected to treat through book learnin'...
jonasvp 10y ago
This is from 2015 and has been discussed before with some very interesting comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991025
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Just out of curiosity, how did you find that link? I just tried doing a search on DDG for: site:news.ycombinator.com "trip treatment" and it didn't seem to return anything relevant.
  - slig 10y ago
    There's a "past" link bellow each story.
  - eth0up 10y ago
    Not sure how parent found it, but for HN content, this is the best: https://hn.algolia.com https://hn.algolia.com
  - fragmede 10y ago
    I found it by plugging "http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment" http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment" into the search button at the bottom of an HN page.
skc 10y ago
I'm not knowledgeable on this topic but I'm a bit surprised that the article doesn't at any time make reference to Rick Strassman and his clinical experiments with DMT. In fact, I've noticed that LSD and DMT are very rarely referenced within the same academic discussions.
nicklovescode 10y ago
would appreciate a [2015]. Into this subject and thought it was a new result.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  Since you're into the subject, at the risk of repeating my other comment in this page and seeming to oversell it, I'd like to call your attention to the documentary "Dirty Pictures" (if you haven't seen it): https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo It's mostly of historical/political interest, but I'm repeating it here because I genuinely think if you're interested and somewhat knowledgable about this subject, you really should watch it.
noahdesu 10y ago
While this is from last year, today the FDA approved phase 3 trials of MDMA for PTSD (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html).
eevilspock 10y ago
“They were saying things like ‘I understand love is the most powerful force on the planet,’ or ‘I had an encounter with my cancer, this black cloud of smoke.’ People who had been palpably scared of death—they lost their fear. The fact that a drug given once can have such an effect for so long is an unprecedented finding. We have never had anything like it in the psychiatric field.” This is needed by everyone, not just those dying of cancer. Nearly everyone is infected with the cancer of cynicism. We are overcome by fear, too weak to do the right thing, condemned to remain prisoners of the dilemma, perpetual losers in the non-zero sum game of life. It is the source of nearly all human created folly, misery and tragedy, this election simply being a recent example. If only there was a drug that would get people to realize love can be the most powerful force on the planet, if only we had the strength of will and courage to actually love, to risk ourselves rather than play it "safe" behind self-servingly cynical justifications for doing the shit we actually do.
- swombat 10y ago
  Worth sharing: "What is love?" "The total absence of fear." "What is it that we fear?" "Love." (De Mello)
  - SamUK96 10y ago
    Mathematical break down of that: let x = love; let y = fear; let z = lack of fear. This statement is basically saying: x = z; y = x; => y = z; => We fear the lack of fear. Sorry but that quote is basically 90% redundant, with x ("love") being a trivial parametric, eliminatable variable.
    - zelias 10y ago
      Your comment is proof that it's next to impossible to reduce the nature of the human condition down to ironclad mathematical concepts.
      - qohen 10y ago
        Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/55/ https://xkcd.com/55/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- ajryan 10y ago
  In terms of dose-reponse, 100 micrograms of LSD produces effects roughly as strong as 20 milligrams of psilocybin. In terms of subjective perception of the immersion or "pushiness" of the experience, I expect almost all users experienced with both compounds would rate LSD as stronger.
drvdevd 10y ago
To any HN reader interested in this subject, I can't recommend this documentary highly enough: https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo [edit: the sheer amount of US history exposed in this documentary on the subject is incredible]
Nursie 10y ago
The more I read the more my belief is reinforced that the war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. From the social problems caused by illegality and the restriction of decent pain relief for the dying to the brake put on valuable research like this. All for what? Some sense of moral purity? Humans societies fascinate and disgust me.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  That's the attitude that lead me to my current stance: I think they should all be legalized and regulated (mostly for purity of strength and ingredients). I want this even for drugs I think are dangerous or I wouldn't personally take.
- sprafa 10y ago
  One of its main architects (a Nixon aide( has admitted that the War on Drugs was made up to attack subversive elements in the US, like the Black Panthers and the hippies. The idea was never about drugs, just control.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    In more detail: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
- jupiter2 10y ago
  > war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. ... All for what? Some sense of moral purity? I was, and still remain to a great deal, very anti-drug. Unless there's a system to manage it effectively, people will abuse drugs. It will destroy their lives. Let's not downplay the impact here. I've seen the negative effects far too often - from destruction of families to young girls prostituting themselves for their next fix to brutal crimes. It's horrific. The actual "War on Drugs" has always been a half-hearted effort. It has served as a political talking point and a means to control/surveil the population through fear-mongering. In much the same way that terrorism is being used to increased the powers of the surveillance state. I do agree with its' usage related to medical purposes or in any way that it can be effectively managed as a recreational activity (but I have doubts about the general population being able to manage harder drugs). Having said this, there is great value in research. I saw the value of research for the first time when I read 'DMT: The Spirit Molecule' by Rick Strassman, M.D.[1]. It was truly an eye-opening experience for this particular (naturally occurring) drug. It led me to read (for a while, many years ago) about other psychedelics as well as the research and personal stories related to their usage. Amazing stuff when managed correctly. [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&p...
crdb 10y ago
On the subject, if you've ever wondered what would happen if the US military were to invest millions of dollars into testing all kind of things from sarin to their version of super-strong LSD on volunteers (and, generally, why there was an actual queue from enlisted men to sign up to be the guinea pig for chemical weapons!), I recommend Ketchum's book about his time in exactly such a facility [1]. There's a wealth of data and analysis on the impact of many psychedelics on humans, both at large doses and for long term exposure. The anecdote that stayed with me was the guy who liked to show off the relative safety of liquid VX (yes, the nerve agent) to new arrivals by dipping his finger in it then rinsing it with water. Different times. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Warfare-Secrets-Almost-Forgotten/dp/B01FKTZP3W/ https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Warfare-Secrets-Almost-Forgo... - Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten: A Personal Story of Medical Testing of Army Volunteers, by James S. Ketchum MD
beepboopbeep 10y ago
One of the worst things that comes from the banning of drugs is the stigma attached to it in order to give reason to ban it. That stigma just doesn't let go no matter what evidence is being presented. Case in point are the incredible studies by the folks at Johns Hopkins on Psilocybin. They're not feeding people hallucinogenic mushrooms, they're giving them controlled doses of manufactured psilosybin. Incredible studies, very interesting in all ways, but the news headline is almost always some shitty pun or stupid jab about 'shrooms or "trippy" or "far out" which immediately demeans the research in the readers mind. This usually continues through the text. The author will describe the study, effects, results, etc. then punctuate it with some dumb line about it being groovy. Makes it embarassing to be associated with the results when we could be looking at some truly breakthrough approaches to therapy and who knows what else.
- droopyEyelids 10y ago
  I always write the editors of whatever magazine published an article with the tone you described and complain about it. Authors do the world a tremendous disservice delegitimizing chemicals that have the potential to treat heretofore untreatable conditions.
- jMyles 10y ago
  Although I don't disagree with the problem of stereotypes and stigmas, what I think we're seeing with the language you've identified is a movement from "they ignore you" to "they laugh at you," - remind me, what are the next two stages?
  - anthony-james 10y ago
    IIRC stage 3 is you win the primary nomination and stage 4 is you become president of the U.S.
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      I really don't want to know stage 5...
- 10y ago
overcast 10y ago
I did my own research as a freshmen in the late 90's. In my opinion, everyone should experience LSD/Mushrooms at some point in their life. They were some of the most influential, and amazing experiences I've ever had. No dependency issues, and lasts for hours.
ajryan 10y ago
Anyone interested psychedelic users' perspectives on harm reduction, health benefits, and risks should check out http://erowid.org http://erowid.org and http://bluelight.org http://bluelight.org (especially the Psychedelic Drug Discussion subforum).

227 points by arikr 10y ago

"This is far too valuable to limit to sick people" Not a word about the major negative side effects including panic attacks, seizures, and death, or how some members of the population are at far greater risk of experiencing these side effects for reasons we do not yet know or fully understand. Sure, if it helps someone near death why not, but I don't like the rosy picture this article portrays.

kingkawn 10y ago
Do you support the availability of the option to use chemotherapy against cancer? Yes? Then how can you possibly object to these drugs?
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
I'd like to give this comment a more thorough treatment but I don't have the gumption right now. So I'll just say: One of the side-effects of antidepressants is increased risk of suicide. So I don't really see your point.
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  >So I don't really see your point here it says that you have a significant chance to develop schizophrenia after a substance induced psychosis event (18,478 cases examined) https://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2013/v74n01/v74n0115.aspx https://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2013/v74n01/v... Results: Eight-year cumulative risk to receive a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was 46% (95% CI, 35%–57%) for persons with a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis and 30% (95% CI, 14%–46%) for those with an amphetamine-induced psychosis. Although alcohol-induced psychosis was the most common type of SIP, 8-year cumulative risk for subsequent schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was only 5.0% (95% CI, 4.6%–5.5%). let the downvotes start.
  - slfnflctd 10y ago
    I think you raise a valid concern. Inducement or exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms is probably the most troubling and widely reported problem with these drugs. The famous case of Syd Barrett comes to mind. There are many such anecdotes, and I myself saw something similar first hand (the individual in question eventually got better, but it took a few months). However, considering the potential upside, to me this makes it even more important to do extensive research on all of it. Oh, and a quick note-- the only 'psychedelic' drug mentioned in the study you cited is cannabis, which from everything I've read doesn't even begin to compare to the more powerful psychoactives. Funny enough, it is the one we have the strongest link to psychosis for, but this could only be because it's been so much more widely used and studied. It seems obvious that more study is needed, insofar as it can be done ethically.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    You have to get a "psychosis event" in the first place. Conditional probability, only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem. You leave out some vital information, without it the percentages and risks you mention are meaningless. As a (university researcher inner medicine) doctor I know used to say: There have been cases of severe side-effects from placebos... meaning just mentioning something can have bad effects is meaningless without more information. > let the downvotes start. Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about. It isn't even clear to me what your point is, if there is one. It's a carefully selected piece of information that just by itself doesn't say anything useful in the context of this discussion.
    - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
      > only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem still you can't say there is no problem at all. Lets count: the population of Finland is 5.5 million; 18000 cases makes 1/3 percent of the general population - a significant number (not known if all cases have been considered by this study, lets assume they have - i would assume that half of the cases would not be reported at all, but lets skip that), lets assume that five percent of the population have taken drugs - then 1/15 users would get one. >Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about No, there is such a thing as collective bias. lets not pretend that it doesn't exist.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
I'm not aware of these drugs directly causing the death of anyone (excluding someone driving on the freeway after taking them). Do you have an example of a fatality? As for the other unpleasant effects it's true these can happen temporarily. I know some people anecdotally believe negative effects can be permanent, but I'm not aware of any research supporting cause and effect. Now weigh the risks above with the possible reward. Near death comfort (while important) is only one application. For example anxiety and OCD are life crippling for so many people, and research suggest psychedelics might offer one of the best treatments yet. The potential benefits to society are so great, the research must continue. I also see no reason you could not help out with some empirical study.
- echlebek 10y ago
  I found a reference to LSD directly killing someone. They injected 320,000 ug intravenously! https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=220 https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=220
  - Taek 10y ago
    (for the unfamiliar, a recreational dose is typically between 70 and 200ug. 200-400 is a heavy dose, and 400+ will leave you incoherent for many hours.)
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    To put that in perspective, the "typical" dosis according to wikipedia is ~200ug. For comparison, if you drink 10L of water, 200 espresso shots, or 600ml of 40% alcohol in one setting, you are likely to die.
    - blubb-fish 10y ago
      Let's assume a psychoactive vodka dose of 10ml and a typical dose of 100ug LSD: Then the respective vodka dose would be 10ml x (320'000ug / 100ug) = 10ml x 3200 = 32000ml = 32 l Obviously vodka would be deadly at an amount way below 32l.
anigbrowl 10y ago
While I've heard of stories of people injuring themselves by jumping out of windows and so on, I've yet to hear a credible story about anyone dying from consumption of psychedelics, or indeed suffering seizures. Panic attacks for sure, they're quite unpleasant although in my experience pretty rare. All the statistical evidence suggests that psychedelics are quite safe compared to popular stimulants and depressives. I've had several bad trips, but I blame myself for those - smoking a ton of weed after you've also taken psychedelics is a good way to get disoriented.
- ajryan 10y ago
  There are many lesser-known psychedlics with scarily-low lethal doses. Bromo-dragonfly and some *-NBOMe compounds are a few that killed people recently. High doses of DOC can cause extreme vasoconstriction in extremeties, resulting in necrosis. https://psychonautwiki.org https://psychonautwiki.org is a good site for investigating health risks.

anigbrowl 10y ago

At any other time in history I'd be excited about this. Under the incoming administration, I rather doubt the DEA is going to keep issuing research licenses for controlled substances.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Do we know which governments throughout the world are more liberal in this regard? I'd like to think if there was a place this sort of research could take place someone or some pharmaceutical company would be there doing it?
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  I've read of psychedelic research done in Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. MAPS has information on some international studies being carried out on psychedelics.[1] Erowid probably has some too.[2] (Curious how MAPS is HTTP and Erowid is HTTPS.) [1] - http://www.maps.org/research http://www.maps.org/research [2] - https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research/ https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research/
drvdevd 10y ago
The issue here isn't the DEA or the current Administration in power, but whether a profitiable "therapeutic business model" can succeed in the establishment pharma market, with respect to any controlled substance. [Edit] for obvious reasons, psychedelics are unusual in this regard, and a hard sell
cr1895 10y ago
The F.D.A. today has approved further clinical trials into the use of MDMA to treat PTSD: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html We can only hope this sort of research will continue to be done, elsewhere if not in the US.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 10y ago

Also: He is also the director of the substance-abuse division at Bellevue, and he told me that he had known little about psychedelics [..] until a colleague happened to mention that, in the nineteen-sixties, LSD had been used successfully to treat alcoholics. Ross did some research and was astounded at what he found. How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?! I'm not saying he should have been a fan of psychedelics all along, but he should at least have had some awareness of their history and how they came to be controlled substances.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
One would have thought such a role would require at least some formal study of the relevant subjects, which should expose you to the history of such things. I like to imagine these people actually taking LSD. While watching Bill Hicks. What a blast they'd have.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
"How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?" Because knowing too much about it - especially the positives and common usage - isn't really an important bit to know to get the job. What matters more is having the right qualifacations, being in the position to get such a promotion, and most of all, having the "correct" viewpoints on drugs and addicts.
qwartor 10y ago
There are two parts to the characterization at play here: 1. Psychedelics are not "abused" in the same way that other substances are. Furthermore, when psychedelics do get abused, the adverse effects are expressed differently, and patients are not routed through the same treatment channels that addictive substances see. Since psychedelics aren't addictive, users usually don't need ongoing maintenance to prevent relapses. Instead, victims of psychedelic side effects usually suffer from catastrophic burnouts after the mother of all bad trips, or persistent neurological symptoms creep in after a period of experimentation, and remain possibly for life. Once that happens people quit cold turkey, and cope with their flashbacks however they must. 2. Being a director of anything isn't a huge deal. It's not much of an auspicious title. Like manager or vice president, after you meet a thousand of them, big deal. Meanwhile, as for doctors, you'd be shocked at how sheltered some doctors are. Many of the doctors I've met only became doctors because their parents forced them into it, and they spent their youth locked in their bedrooms getting good grades, and those geeky scholarly habits stick with them into middle age. It wouldn't surprise me to meet a doctor who is a total outsider to the patient population their supposedly expected to treat through book learnin'...

jonasvp 10y ago

This is from 2015 and has been discussed before with some very interesting comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991025

pmoriarty 10y ago
Just out of curiosity, how did you find that link? I just tried doing a search on DDG for: site:news.ycombinator.com "trip treatment" and it didn't seem to return anything relevant.
- slig 10y ago
  There's a "past" link bellow each story.
- eth0up 10y ago
  Not sure how parent found it, but for HN content, this is the best: https://hn.algolia.com https://hn.algolia.com
- fragmede 10y ago
  I found it by plugging "http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment" http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment" into the search button at the bottom of an HN page.

skc 10y ago

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic but I'm a bit surprised that the article doesn't at any time make reference to Rick Strassman and his clinical experiments with DMT. In fact, I've noticed that LSD and DMT are very rarely referenced within the same academic discussions.

nicklovescode 10y ago

would appreciate a [2015]. Into this subject and thought it was a new result.

drvdevd 10y ago
Since you're into the subject, at the risk of repeating my other comment in this page and seeming to oversell it, I'd like to call your attention to the documentary "Dirty Pictures" (if you haven't seen it): https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo It's mostly of historical/political interest, but I'm repeating it here because I genuinely think if you're interested and somewhat knowledgable about this subject, you really should watch it.

noahdesu 10y ago

While this is from last year, today the FDA approved phase 3 trials of MDMA for PTSD (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/ptsd-mdma-ecstasy.html).

eevilspock 10y ago

“They were saying things like ‘I understand love is the most powerful force on the planet,’ or ‘I had an encounter with my cancer, this black cloud of smoke.’ People who had been palpably scared of death—they lost their fear. The fact that a drug given once can have such an effect for so long is an unprecedented finding. We have never had anything like it in the psychiatric field.” This is needed by everyone, not just those dying of cancer. Nearly everyone is infected with the cancer of cynicism. We are overcome by fear, too weak to do the right thing, condemned to remain prisoners of the dilemma, perpetual losers in the non-zero sum game of life. It is the source of nearly all human created folly, misery and tragedy, this election simply being a recent example. If only there was a drug that would get people to realize love can be the most powerful force on the planet, if only we had the strength of will and courage to actually love, to risk ourselves rather than play it "safe" behind self-servingly cynical justifications for doing the shit we actually do.

swombat 10y ago
Worth sharing: "What is love?" "The total absence of fear." "What is it that we fear?" "Love." (De Mello)
- SamUK96 10y ago
  Mathematical break down of that: let x = love; let y = fear; let z = lack of fear. This statement is basically saying: x = z; y = x; => y = z; => We fear the lack of fear. Sorry but that quote is basically 90% redundant, with x ("love") being a trivial parametric, eliminatable variable.
  - zelias 10y ago
    Your comment is proof that it's next to impossible to reduce the nature of the human condition down to ironclad mathematical concepts.
    - qohen 10y ago
      Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/55/ https://xkcd.com/55/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ajryan 10y ago
In terms of dose-reponse, 100 micrograms of LSD produces effects roughly as strong as 20 milligrams of psilocybin. In terms of subjective perception of the immersion or "pushiness" of the experience, I expect almost all users experienced with both compounds would rate LSD as stronger.

drvdevd 10y ago

To any HN reader interested in this subject, I can't recommend this documentary highly enough: https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo [edit: the sheer amount of US history exposed in this documentary on the subject is incredible]

Nursie 10y ago

The more I read the more my belief is reinforced that the war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. From the social problems caused by illegality and the restriction of decent pain relief for the dying to the brake put on valuable research like this. All for what? Some sense of moral purity? Humans societies fascinate and disgust me.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
That's the attitude that lead me to my current stance: I think they should all be legalized and regulated (mostly for purity of strength and ingredients). I want this even for drugs I think are dangerous or I wouldn't personally take.
sprafa 10y ago
One of its main architects (a Nixon aide( has admitted that the War on Drugs was made up to attack subversive elements in the US, like the Black Panthers and the hippies. The idea was never about drugs, just control.
- majewsky 10y ago
  In more detail: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
jupiter2 10y ago
> war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. ... All for what? Some sense of moral purity? I was, and still remain to a great deal, very anti-drug. Unless there's a system to manage it effectively, people will abuse drugs. It will destroy their lives. Let's not downplay the impact here. I've seen the negative effects far too often - from destruction of families to young girls prostituting themselves for their next fix to brutal crimes. It's horrific. The actual "War on Drugs" has always been a half-hearted effort. It has served as a political talking point and a means to control/surveil the population through fear-mongering. In much the same way that terrorism is being used to increased the powers of the surveillance state. I do agree with its' usage related to medical purposes or in any way that it can be effectively managed as a recreational activity (but I have doubts about the general population being able to manage harder drugs). Having said this, there is great value in research. I saw the value of research for the first time when I read 'DMT: The Spirit Molecule' by Rick Strassman, M.D.[1]. It was truly an eye-opening experience for this particular (naturally occurring) drug. It led me to read (for a while, many years ago) about other psychedelics as well as the research and personal stories related to their usage. Amazing stuff when managed correctly. [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819278?redirect=true&p...

crdb 10y ago

On the subject, if you've ever wondered what would happen if the US military were to invest millions of dollars into testing all kind of things from sarin to their version of super-strong LSD on volunteers (and, generally, why there was an actual queue from enlisted men to sign up to be the guinea pig for chemical weapons!), I recommend Ketchum's book about his time in exactly such a facility [1]. There's a wealth of data and analysis on the impact of many psychedelics on humans, both at large doses and for long term exposure. The anecdote that stayed with me was the guy who liked to show off the relative safety of liquid VX (yes, the nerve agent) to new arrivals by dipping his finger in it then rinsing it with water. Different times. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Warfare-Secrets-Almost-Forgotten/dp/B01FKTZP3W/ https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Warfare-Secrets-Almost-Forgo... - Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten: A Personal Story of Medical Testing of Army Volunteers, by James S. Ketchum MD

beepboopbeep 10y ago

One of the worst things that comes from the banning of drugs is the stigma attached to it in order to give reason to ban it. That stigma just doesn't let go no matter what evidence is being presented. Case in point are the incredible studies by the folks at Johns Hopkins on Psilocybin. They're not feeding people hallucinogenic mushrooms, they're giving them controlled doses of manufactured psilosybin. Incredible studies, very interesting in all ways, but the news headline is almost always some shitty pun or stupid jab about 'shrooms or "trippy" or "far out" which immediately demeans the research in the readers mind. This usually continues through the text. The author will describe the study, effects, results, etc. then punctuate it with some dumb line about it being groovy. Makes it embarassing to be associated with the results when we could be looking at some truly breakthrough approaches to therapy and who knows what else.

droopyEyelids 10y ago
I always write the editors of whatever magazine published an article with the tone you described and complain about it. Authors do the world a tremendous disservice delegitimizing chemicals that have the potential to treat heretofore untreatable conditions.
jMyles 10y ago
Although I don't disagree with the problem of stereotypes and stigmas, what I think we're seeing with the language you've identified is a movement from "they ignore you" to "they laugh at you," - remind me, what are the next two stages?
- anthony-james 10y ago
  IIRC stage 3 is you win the primary nomination and stage 4 is you become president of the U.S.
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    I really don't want to know stage 5...
10y ago

overcast 10y ago

I did my own research as a freshmen in the late 90's. In my opinion, everyone should experience LSD/Mushrooms at some point in their life. They were some of the most influential, and amazing experiences I've ever had. No dependency issues, and lasts for hours.

ajryan 10y ago

Anyone interested psychedelic users' perspectives on harm reduction, health benefits, and risks should check out http://erowid.org http://erowid.org and http://bluelight.org http://bluelight.org (especially the Psychedelic Drug Discussion subforum).