4 ms·

How is suggesting psychedelics more dangerous than suggesting the use of antidepressants? Data shows both can cause panic attacks and psychotic episodes... Bot

by fogzen 9y ago

How is suggesting psychedelics more dangerous than suggesting the use of antidepressants? Data shows both can cause panic attacks and psychotic episodes... Both drugs have mechanisms of action we don’t fully yet understand, and both may cause serious side effects.

Fnoord 9y ago
> Both drugs have mechanisms of action we don’t fully yet [sic] understand, and both may cause serious side effects. This is an extremely narrow and arbitrary ruleset you are applying... If not merely because of the word "fully". That's a given in science. > How is suggesting psychedelics more dangerous than suggesting the use of antidepressants? Because psychedelics are not approved, you don't know the source/purity, and there's a lack of professional guidance. Yes, you can get a panic attack on SSRIs. I had that when I started Fluoxetine because I almost fainted because my blood pressure was low whilst I was in a grocery store and had barely eaten. It happened a few times, though less severe (it is just low blood pressure), and went away after I got used to the drugs, which took longer than average. SSRIs are not psychoactive, and better studied. Finally, SSRIs are used under guidance by a professional. Recreational drugs, in contrast, are not.
- fogzen 9y ago
  > SSRIs are not psychoactive, and better studied. The whole point of taking SSRI's is to affect the mind, so they are literally psychoactive. They are better studied, but the risks you mentioned are associated with SSRI's as well as LSD. Do you have evidence/study that shows LSD is more dangerous than SSRIs? LSD not being studied as much doesn't mean it's more dangerous...
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > The whole point of taking SSRI's is to affect the mind, so they are literally psychoactive. Yes, they are; I meant psychedelic/hallucinogenic. > They are better studied, but the risks you mentioned are associated with SSRI's as well as LSD. Yes, but the possible side effects are well documented and users are informed and screened beforehand and there is professional guidance (by licensed professionals who studied for it) in contrast to recreational drugs use. You know better what you dabble into when you follow the regular scientific path than the alternative path which is full with shenanigans, amateurs, wannabe experts, hippies, and downright dangerous, sick human beings. > LSD not being studied as much doesn't mean it's more dangerous than any of the SSRIs. Ultimately, this is irrelevant. You look at the current scientific evidence when you decide which treatment you want to follow. Recreational usage of LSD to self-medicate is very low on that list: actually, it shouldn't even be on that list until its scientifically tested in clinical trials. The lack of that doesn't mean we should just suggest it to random strangers; we ought not to! > Do you have evidence/study that shows LSD is more dangerous than SSRIs? No, stop turning it around. The burden of proof lies at you. You claim LSD is as useful or more useful than SSRIs.
    - fogzen 9y ago
      I'm not turning anything around. The claim I was responding to was that suggesting the use of LSD was more dangerous or more irresponsible than suggesting the use of SSRIs. I'll say it again: There's no evidence the use of LSD is more dangerous than SSRI's.
- ada1981 9y ago
  Well, at least with plant medicines we have thousands of years of safe human use. Mushrooms appear to be one of the safest mind altering substances known to man, and if used responsibly, can be healing. Of course, they do show you what's inside, and for many people, they is going to terrify them. That is sort of the point though, to stare down the parts you've long ignored.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > Well, at least with plant medicines we have thousands of years of safe human use. Wow, that's the most obvious argumentum ad antiquitatem I read this year. "For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution." Sounds familiar? Straight out of the book. [1] What's more, just because its natural or plants doesn't mean it is safe. Example: botulinum toxin the most toxic toxin known to mankind which you might know better under the name botox, entirely natural produced by bacteria. What matters is that it is standardised, of known origin (traceable/provable), well studied in clinical trials, and the mechanisms well understood. SSRIs fit all those characteristics, only the latter one not. We certainly did not have thousands of years of standardised, safe human use. Heck, we didn't even have thousands of years of safe human use to begin with. We didn't have known origin (a good movie about this is Into The Wild [2], btw). Especially not with amateurs. Doctors were more proficient, but not for thousands of years with every substance. And studies, back then not. You had doctors and witches. We've come a very long way. > Mushrooms appear to be one of the safest mind altering substances known to man, and if used responsibly, can be healing. > Of course, they do show you what's inside, and for many people, they is going to terrify them. That is sort of the point though, to stare down the parts you've long ignored. I have used psilocybin, A. muscaria, Ayahuasca, MDMA (or God knows WTF it was) among a myriad of other drugs (the first 3 bought online when it was legal in my country). Terrifying it was -for the most part- not. I had fun and insightful experiences, but now that I am older I realise I was reckless [because I am sensitive to drugs and have autism]. I know you too will, at some point in your life realise how reckless you were when you used recreational drugs. And then you will perhaps realise how reckless it was to recommend that to random strangers. And perhaps you will feel utter regret. Au revoir, all the best to you. [1] https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#antiquitatem https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#antiqu... [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/
opportune 9y ago
Panic attacks from psychedelics (bad trips) are much different from regular panic attacks

by fogzen 9y ago

Fnoord 9y ago

> Both drugs have mechanisms of action we don’t fully yet [sic] understand, and both may cause serious side effects. This is an extremely narrow and arbitrary ruleset you are applying... If not merely because of the word "fully". That's a given in science. > How is suggesting psychedelics more dangerous than suggesting the use of antidepressants? Because psychedelics are not approved, you don't know the source/purity, and there's a lack of professional guidance. Yes, you can get a panic attack on SSRIs. I had that when I started Fluoxetine because I almost fainted because my blood pressure was low whilst I was in a grocery store and had barely eaten. It happened a few times, though less severe (it is just low blood pressure), and went away after I got used to the drugs, which took longer than average. SSRIs are not psychoactive, and better studied. Finally, SSRIs are used under guidance by a professional. Recreational drugs, in contrast, are not.

fogzen 9y ago
> SSRIs are not psychoactive, and better studied. The whole point of taking SSRI's is to affect the mind, so they are literally psychoactive. They are better studied, but the risks you mentioned are associated with SSRI's as well as LSD. Do you have evidence/study that shows LSD is more dangerous than SSRIs? LSD not being studied as much doesn't mean it's more dangerous...
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > The whole point of taking SSRI's is to affect the mind, so they are literally psychoactive. Yes, they are; I meant psychedelic/hallucinogenic. > They are better studied, but the risks you mentioned are associated with SSRI's as well as LSD. Yes, but the possible side effects are well documented and users are informed and screened beforehand and there is professional guidance (by licensed professionals who studied for it) in contrast to recreational drugs use. You know better what you dabble into when you follow the regular scientific path than the alternative path which is full with shenanigans, amateurs, wannabe experts, hippies, and downright dangerous, sick human beings. > LSD not being studied as much doesn't mean it's more dangerous than any of the SSRIs. Ultimately, this is irrelevant. You look at the current scientific evidence when you decide which treatment you want to follow. Recreational usage of LSD to self-medicate is very low on that list: actually, it shouldn't even be on that list until its scientifically tested in clinical trials. The lack of that doesn't mean we should just suggest it to random strangers; we ought not to! > Do you have evidence/study that shows LSD is more dangerous than SSRIs? No, stop turning it around. The burden of proof lies at you. You claim LSD is as useful or more useful than SSRIs.
  - fogzen 9y ago
    I'm not turning anything around. The claim I was responding to was that suggesting the use of LSD was more dangerous or more irresponsible than suggesting the use of SSRIs. I'll say it again: There's no evidence the use of LSD is more dangerous than SSRI's.
ada1981 9y ago
Well, at least with plant medicines we have thousands of years of safe human use. Mushrooms appear to be one of the safest mind altering substances known to man, and if used responsibly, can be healing. Of course, they do show you what's inside, and for many people, they is going to terrify them. That is sort of the point though, to stare down the parts you've long ignored.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > Well, at least with plant medicines we have thousands of years of safe human use. Wow, that's the most obvious argumentum ad antiquitatem I read this year. "For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution." Sounds familiar? Straight out of the book. [1] What's more, just because its natural or plants doesn't mean it is safe. Example: botulinum toxin the most toxic toxin known to mankind which you might know better under the name botox, entirely natural produced by bacteria. What matters is that it is standardised, of known origin (traceable/provable), well studied in clinical trials, and the mechanisms well understood. SSRIs fit all those characteristics, only the latter one not. We certainly did not have thousands of years of standardised, safe human use. Heck, we didn't even have thousands of years of safe human use to begin with. We didn't have known origin (a good movie about this is Into The Wild [2], btw). Especially not with amateurs. Doctors were more proficient, but not for thousands of years with every substance. And studies, back then not. You had doctors and witches. We've come a very long way. > Mushrooms appear to be one of the safest mind altering substances known to man, and if used responsibly, can be healing. > Of course, they do show you what's inside, and for many people, they is going to terrify them. That is sort of the point though, to stare down the parts you've long ignored. I have used psilocybin, A. muscaria, Ayahuasca, MDMA (or God knows WTF it was) among a myriad of other drugs (the first 3 bought online when it was legal in my country). Terrifying it was -for the most part- not. I had fun and insightful experiences, but now that I am older I realise I was reckless [because I am sensitive to drugs and have autism]. I know you too will, at some point in your life realise how reckless you were when you used recreational drugs. And then you will perhaps realise how reckless it was to recommend that to random strangers. And perhaps you will feel utter regret. Au revoir, all the best to you. [1] https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#antiquitatem https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#antiqu... [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

opportune 9y ago

Panic attacks from psychedelics (bad trips) are much different from regular panic attacks