15 ms·

Should We Loosen the Restrictions on Psychedelics?

159 points by delian66 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
WaxProlix 8y ago
Link only goes to the "Observations" page, should probably point to https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-loosen-the-restrictions-on-psychedelics/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-... Content: Psychedelics are a purely political issue at this point, as far as I know. Physiologically, they're far, far less dangerous than eg alcohol.
- folli 8y ago
  You haven't read the content, then.
sova 8y ago
YES absolutely. The research potential is there, the therapeutic potential is there, the archetypal research into the collective unconscious is there, the field is ripe and the benefits can be many many.
taurath 8y ago
Schedule 1 is clearly rediculous. I honestly think we need these powerful tools in therapeutic settings especially for addiction which is carving swathes through entire generations. I know multiple people who’ve gotten the ability and drive to grow past alcoholism using them, one can only hope it could be a tool for opiate addiction. Benefits for PTSD and traumatic experiences are practically proven at this point with MDMA.
- 1000units 8y ago
  As a counterpoint, I know multiple people who became insane after trying LSD.
  - Uberphallus 8y ago
    More often than not, those people have previous mental health problems and LSD throws them over the edge. Sometimes the trigger is a getting your head hit, sometimes receiving a prize, sometimes getting dumped, sometimes after giving birth. At the end of the day you don't see any correlation between psychedelic usage and mental health issues, same as with the examples I gave. LSD is an emotional earthquake, and should be treated as such.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      Of course there's a correlation. You've just described one of the causes yourself. Giving people very focused nudges in precisely the wrong direction is absolutely a terrible and serious effect. Many people live their life on the edge without ever falling off. Think about the prevalence of depression versus incidence of suicide as an example.
      - Uberphallus 8y ago
        There's no correlation, it can be a trigger, like giving birth can be a trigger. Let's make breeding illegal?
        1000units 8y ago
        There is a correlation between people who develop serious mental illness and people who take LSD. The effect you are describing guarantees this (under very weak and sensible assumptions).
        codyb 8y ago
        https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_health.shtml https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_health.shtml It apparently can bring out already dormant mental illnesses but is not in any way associated with the formation of new mental illnesses. We all know LSD was literally available _at the pharmacy_ in the USA up until the mid 60s right? The entire nation didn't go insane... And you can bet your ass a pharmacy will at least ID people trying to buy it, you'll know exactly how much you're getting, and there could probably even be an information packet to go with it. Currently if you want it you have to risk persecution, have no idea what strength of dose you'll be receiving, and there's definitely no information packet unless you look it up yourself. At the end of the day criminalization is causing more harm than it's solving. People have issues with all sorts of things, alcohol is a lot more negative but totally legal. In general the proper tact is to ensure access to healthcare and opportunities in our society. Then those with dormant or non dormant mental illnesses are more likely to receive the attention they deserve. Access to opportunities means people get involved in their communities and projects and become passionate about something and are less likely to abuse drugs overall. Or you can spread hogwash like "LSD makes ya insane" which is not directly what you said but how people will read it.
foolfoolz 8y ago
I don’t think it will get the attention of marijuana, but I have hope we will legalize them again. Most psychedelic drugs are very niche. Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions. The stigma around it will have trouble wearing off because psychedelics are such an unknown. Most people don’t do them but have heard about people having bad experiences. I hope the overall idea of moving past the War on Drugs can make things like LSD less foreign and delinquent
- Nursie 8y ago
  > Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions. Mention that you're interested in some of the more obscure mescaline derivatives or tryptamines and you'll get another one!
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  If you think the reaction from telling people you've dropped acid is weird, just wait until you see the reaction when you say that you enjoy the odd spot of ketamine! I think that for most people, the closest experience they've ever had with LSD or other psychedelics is the movies, where they're portrayed as this wacky drug that makes you see dragons and other weird shit. They've all heard stories about how someone dropped a tab and their trip never ended or how they became possessed by demons or some other urban myth that they heard from someone years ago.
scarecrowbob 8y ago
" Their safety and efficacy exist only within highly structured specialized treatment settings. In addition, desired outcomes depend upon the production of a temporary but profoundly regressed, disorganized and incapacitated state. Outside of that structure, psychedelics are no less abusable, acutely debilitating and liable to result in psychological damage—sometimes severe and unremitting—than they ever were." This doesn't meet with my general experiences. I've never understood how something like LSD can be "abused" in the way that alcohol can be abused... my experience (and the hundreds of folks I know who've used it) is that at some point, you have bad experiences with it and you stop. That's not a cyclical abuse pattern like with alcohol, where you become addicted and continue on despite the terrible toll on your health. Similarly, of the people who have been heavily involved with psychedelics and the general outcomes aren't any worse than for the hundreds of functioning alcoholics I know. While it is true that these kinds of drugs can put you in some really scary places and while it is true that they can possibly have longer-lasting negative effects, the article doesn't make a very compelling case to me to keep these chemicals scheduled so that only researchers have legal access to them. Pieces like these are interesting... I can see a strand of "messianic utopianism" in some discussion of these drugs, but most of the folks I know who want these things legalized don't have an agenda beyond "I like it and have found it helpful in my life". It's a strange way to characterize the discourse... it'd be like characterizing pieces like these as having an agenda to keep these drugs out of peoples' had out some misguided sense that only clinicians know what kinds of things healthy people should do. That is clearly not what motivates most researchers I have met.
- armitron 8y ago
  Extremely powerful psychedelics are legal in many parts of the world, even the US under specific circumstances [peyote], some have been used for thousands of years. I can only see "abuse" as bullshit justification to keep them illegal. On the flip-side, there are extremely powerful interests that are working against legalization. "Neurons to nirvana" is a great documentary that makes a good case for that.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  Anecdotally, I was at a doof (bush rave) a few years ago, where one of the punters decided to go for a stroll in the middle of the night - head full of acid - and got promptly lost. Police search and rescue were called out, big dollar costs to the state, and while the kid turned up fine in that instance, it's statistically more likely you won't turn up fine in the Australian bush. I certainly feel that there's no absolute way to control the safety of participants in psychedelic experiences, but we should be wary of an open market approach without also considering a massive escalation in the way we teach people about safety with drug use.
gre 8y ago
Sure why not?
viach 8y ago
Everything is driven by incentives. Alcohol is cheaper for mass production and guaranteed to have good sales and huge consumer base. A state can't just allow to flow money away by legalizing a new drug which is, probably, mutually exclusive to alcohol. It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.
- justinator 8y ago
  I'm sorry that you're being downvoted, but you're right. You can't easily sell, and make a profit on acid (you certainly can't patent it). The dose needed for a trip is so small; a "therapeutic" dose is even tinier. The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely ridiculous.
  - TylerE 8y ago
    Huh? Sandoz Labs produced pharmaceutical LSD for decades
    - lev99 8y ago
      I think the parent comment is saying that a person taking legal lsd would spend significantly less money than a person drinking. Lsd and alcohol would compete for recreational time. Lsd would reduce the tax income from alcohol sales, and not be able to replace it with new tax revenue. Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal.
      - ryanmercer 8y ago
        >Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal. They'd be taxing the sales of everything used to create it, they could require testing for purity, they could create an LSD tax, etc just like with tobacco and alcohol (and if they'd get their head out of their backside, THC containing products).
        viach 8y ago
BadassFractal 8y ago
Wonder what the story with Salvia should be, you don't see people talk much about it. Seems like it's still legal in some states.
- andai 8y ago
  The "good" thing about salvia (re: people here talking about addiction and abuse) is that once you try it, there's a an even chance you'll never want to try psychedelics again.
  - collyw 8y ago
    People don't get addicted to psychedelics.
    - andai 8y ago
      Indeed, they've helped me overcome many of my addictions.
white-flame 8y ago
The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of these restrictions in the first place. I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc. But there's little mandate that the government should be policing and prosecuting adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors. Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things." There are a lot of reasons. The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part. But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store? So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go. At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side. Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while. Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand. 'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky. 'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave. More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems. It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability. Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.
smadge 8y ago
Yes.
Karishma1234 8y ago
From criminalising we need to move to regulating these drugs so more people could use it and new type of products could come into existence while people who buy them get full disclosure of what they are getting into. Linking Tobacco with Cancer was not a simple battle and was possible only because it was legal and people were open about its use. The lower tobacco consumption in developing countries was achieved because of regulation and not criminalisation.
drawkbox 8y ago
Yes, a great look into some of them is on Hamilton's Pharmacopeia on VICELAND [1] and early version of the show on Youtube [2] that delves into many of psychedelics and other drugs. Hamilton Morris does the show and is the son of Errol Morris who is a great documentary filmmaker. The documentary show takes an honest look at the origins, stories and science of substances from a scientific objective point of view. The point across many of the episodes is that locking up drugs in the immutable prison of the Controlled Substances scheduling is possibly locking up cures that might be useful down the line, besides the obvious issue of the state telling people what they can and can't put in their body, the drug wars are a unnecessary violence and costly enforcement over a health matter. The war on vegetables and plants should end and this generation should do it. Adults are responsible enough to know what they put in their body and for the ones that have trouble with addiction, the focus should be on healthcare not executive criminal force that is very costly in funds and possible uses of drugs that are locked up in the prison of the Controlled Substances Act as a controlled substance. In a free country you are responsible for yourself, the state should back off on drugs because they are more dangerous illegal than legal due to black markets, cartels, legal issues harsher than the drug and more. Due to the hard line, we miss out on scientific health advantages of these drugs and people aim to make more synthetics that mimic them that may be more harmful than the original with unknown effects. Unfortunately it looks like the US is doubling down on the drug war with the new Schedule A that allows them to put on biologically similar drugs and synthetics on the list with SITSA [3]. My take is that drugs should be legal or at a minimum entirely decriminalized, there should be substance warnings but ultimately the liability of the user taking the drug is on the user, not a doctor. The only time a producer should get in legal issues is when they are selling what isn't on the label just like with food. A big problem with overdoses and drug deaths is due to people getting the wrong substance, for instance fentanyl because it is cheaper in other opioids. The hardline of putting liability on the doctors and pharma companies is also leading to patients looking for alternatives after their doctor stops their prescription for fear of legal issues, what follows is where most overdoses and trouble happens as there is no addiction help after even legal use of drugs. The hardline on opioids even further exacerbate the problem. We need a new Bill of Rights amendment for Right to Body to do this. This is a health issue not a criminal one and it is too costly to possible health advances to lock up helpful chemical configurations that need more study. We need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one. The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a health issue not a criminal one. Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every year to be medically dangerous to be kept on the list. The problem is that once drugs get classified as a controlled substance, it is very difficult to get them out because neither the public nor legislature can easily remove it. The CSA list is managed entirely wrong. The CSA was setup to target certain dissidents initially by Nixon, it is nearly criminal that the drug war is ran by an organization that is untouchable and maintained by the enforcer not the health institutions. The CSA should be completely abolished or recreated with expiring classifications, and the FDA can make recommendations on safety but then it is up to the people to decide what they do with their bodies with the liability on them. Marijuana is an example where the Controlled Substances Act harms medical uses of drugs on the list, if is very difficult to change it even with 93% medical marijuana support [4] and 64% recreational marijuana support [5] in the US. It is nearly criminal that marijuana/cannabis, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, and other drugs and psychedelics that help people which are also safer than most drugs and alcohol, based on the user themselves rather than what the state says, are criminal and not medical. [1] https://www.hulu.com/hamiltons-pharmacopeia https://www.hulu.com/hamiltons-pharmacopeia [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GH9XhvsMrwH7hC52LGWbXEQ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GH9XhvsMrwH... [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2851 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2851 [4] http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385018-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-hits-all-time-high http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385018-poll-support-for-leg... [5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-lega...
dheavy 8y ago
Yes.
tasty_freeze 8y ago
The classification of LSD as a schedule I drug is unsupportable; it was researched for 20 years before it became a 60s plaything and the threat of the counter-culture movement to the establishment was enough to get all psychedelic research killed off. But as the article points out, there are real risks. There are a large number of LSD zealots who have not just goofy but dangerous beliefs about LSD. Spend any amount of time looking at posts on /r/lsd and you'll find people claiming LSD is a sure-fire cure for depression. Sure, some people have found it helpful, but those who tried it and went off the deep end probably aren't hanging around on /r/lsd. The other frightening thing about /r/lsd is how many teenagers are there. Part of the over-representation is due to the nature of reddit. Even so, little good can come out of that cohort dabbling in psychedelics.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  I don't know what they're saying over on /r/lsd, but psychedelics can break you out of repetitive negative modes of thinking, giving you insights that last after the high is long gone. LSD is a tool that can work in in conjunction with other tools and changes you make in your life for some people some of the time.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    key word being /can/; it's a statement and a belief that IMO is very sensitive to confirmation bias. One of the key points of the psychedelics / soft drugs legalisation effort is that it would allow for a lot less red tape to do medical research on.
    - ramblerman 8y ago
      > it's a statement and a belief that IMO is very sensitive to confirmation bias. Are you saying people who no longer feel depressed are suffering from confirmation bias? :)
      - deadbunny 8y ago
        No, Surviorship Bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
bedane 8y ago
After being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for years for coping with issues a single dose of psilocybin managed to wipe out in 3 hours, I say yes.
- tzahola 8y ago
  What about the people being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for life to cope with the issues brought on by a single does of psilocybin/LSD/salvia/DMT/etc?
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    Is this a thing? I know a guy who seriously overdosed on LSD and had to spend a weekend in a hospital. Other than a severe aversion to psychedelics he wasn't seriously harmed, at least not to the point where he needs daily medication to deal. He has the worst Adderall tolerance his docs have ever seen but that's unrelated. I suppose I could ask him whether his OD made his ADD worse. For sure chronic abuse of psychedelics will cause permanent effects but I'm not aware that anything other than a life-threatening overdose of psychedelics will cause someone to need lifelong medication to manage the consequences.
  - saas_co_de 8y ago
    They don't exist. Continuing to repeat reefer madness propaganda does not make it any more true. Show one scientific study that shows any long term effect from a single dose of any of your listed substances and I will be happy to take your comment seriously.
    - tzahola 8y ago
      "Perceptual disturbances may last for 5 years or more and represent a real psychosocial distress. We reported here a case of a 18-year-old young man presenting HPPD after a mixed intoxication with psylocibin and cannabis. This report shows symptomatic recurrences persisting more than 8 months." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699 https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-doesnt-end https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-doesnt-e... "Evidence supports the association of LSD use with panic reactions, prolonged schizoaffective psychoses and post-hallucinogen perceptual disorder, the latter being present continually for as long as 5 years." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869 "Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of acute hallucinogen effects. HPPD was associated with a broader range of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide)-like substances, cannabis, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, mescaline, and psychostimulants." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235 "The Association of Salvia divinorum and Psychotic Disorders: A Review of the Literature and Case Series" https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815
crazy_monkey 8y ago
YES! Feed them to our children in healthy school lunches! Pour these into our water supply! Seed the clouds and let pyschedelics pour forth from the heavens!...
daviddahl 8y ago
Yes, no victim, no crime.
- blubb-fish 8y ago
  it really is that simple.
blubb-fish 8y ago
For me this is a simple philosophical question. An adult should be allowed to do whatever s/he likes as long as it is not harming others. If harm to others is done - even under the influence - then punishment is due. But as long as somebody just does something in private - it must be okay. I have plenty of experience with psychedlics - be it LSD, Psilocibin, DMT or 4-ACO-DMT. I know from own experience that a bad trip can be very unsettling. But as an adult it is first of all my right to take that risk and second of all it is a maturing experience. The state should not be allowed to prohibit anything when done in private. The concepts behind drug prohibition are pretty much the same as behind prohibition of homosexual practices. People also say this should not be allowed because it is bad and young children will be molested etc pp.
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  If an adult does things that harm himself and not others he should also forfeit free healthcare. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for the personal bad choices of others.
  - kimdotcom 8y ago
    We would need free healthcare to be able to forfeit it. Since we don't and insurance companies seem pretty decent at modeling risk, this would be included in the model. Look at how people who smoke are financially penalized by health insurance. The same is not true for alcohol consumers.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      In the US that's a matter of law, the insurance companies aren't allowed to adjust prices based on alcohol consumption. I guess casual drinkers (and more than casual drinkers) are a pretty big lobby group though.
  - nfoz 8y ago
    Even if it were somehow possible to implement such a mechanism, correctly (no false positives!) and efficiently, this sounds like a terrific lack of compassion. Have you never made a mistake? Can you not imagine a life in which you might have made such a mistake?
Fnoord 8y ago
I'm not sure about the legal status of san pedro and peyote cactus in the USA but it doesn't seem like the original native Americans should be oppressed further [1]. So specifically about the USA, these should be legal for religious reasons. There was a court case in The Netherlands concerning the legal status of these cactus by a religious group who used these during rituals. They won; they were allowed to use these for religious reasons. Ever since, smartshops sell these cactus. I owned a san pedro and peyote cactus myself. The peyote didn't last long, but the san pedro become huge. Eventually it was easily 2,5 meters tall. Unfortunately, it did have "spint" (red spider mite?). I never used them for drugs-related reasons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church
forkLding 8y ago
I've tried psychedelics before, and I've found them pretty boring in terms of their effects (like a minor VR experience that doesn't go away and leaves headaches) and don't see the point of their classification. I have also since avoided psychedelics because they last so long and you aren't productive during those hours.
someonewhocar3s 8y ago
After taking a lot of psychedelics, and played shaman/tripcoach to firsttimers a couple of times, I can confidently say that psychedelics are too misunderstood and difficult for commoners. Interpreting the experience without proper background invariably leads to funky thoughts, usually surrounding those pieces of experience that disappear/disfunction, such as identity, sense of self and environment, perception of non-natural persons, etc. All this leads to very zany, counterproductive and simply dangerous life philosophies. I think it would be immensely valueable for more people to have GOOD trips. To take a piece of their mind and analyze it, to use these drugs to have unparalleled experiences. But to loosen the restrictions, especially in the exceedingly naive current landscape, will only lead to widespread commercial abuse and misguidance, the nature of which affects people most likely to be irrational and confused. This is unacceptable, and should be fought against with the greatest ferocity - as it is a recipe for disaster, and you will readily find this evidenced in past situations. (e.g. hippies suffered a lot of bad stuff due to misunderstanding their drugs) I think academic and religious use should be strongly endorsed, and logged/monitored. Let's take it from there?
kjgkjhfkjf 8y ago
To the extent that drug users are burdens on society, drug use should be regulated.
1000units 8y ago
META: Many people like psychedelics because they hate themselves. Permanently rewire your personality, maybe blow out your mind entirely? No big deal.
qwerty456127 8y ago
Psychedelics are a good thing yet sure as hell not for everyone. I really doubt selling them freely in every supermarket is a good idea but I believe nobody should ever get arrested for possessing them nor even for producing them for personal consumption or sharing it with friends IMHO. I think Schedule IV is probably the most adequate status for things like LSD (which is safe physiologically but can harm some mentally sick people psyche/adequacy seriously). As for things like MDMA (which can hardly cause any psychological harm and only causes physiological harm if used improperly) or 6-APB (which has effects similar to those of MDMA but isn't known to inflict any harm at all) I would vote to legalize recreational use. And there also are some more exotic psychedelics like 5-MeO-DMT (don't confuse with regular DMT! ordinary DMT can indeed harm some people psyche though this doesn't happen often) that have little if any abuse potential for which I can see no reason to control them at all.

159 points by delian66 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Link only goes to the "Observations" page, should probably point to https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-loosen-the-restrictions-on-psychedelics/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-we-... Content: Psychedelics are a purely political issue at this point, as far as I know. Physiologically, they're far, far less dangerous than eg alcohol.

folli 8y ago
You haven't read the content, then.

sova 8y ago

YES absolutely. The research potential is there, the therapeutic potential is there, the archetypal research into the collective unconscious is there, the field is ripe and the benefits can be many many.

taurath 8y ago

Schedule 1 is clearly rediculous. I honestly think we need these powerful tools in therapeutic settings especially for addiction which is carving swathes through entire generations. I know multiple people who’ve gotten the ability and drive to grow past alcoholism using them, one can only hope it could be a tool for opiate addiction. Benefits for PTSD and traumatic experiences are practically proven at this point with MDMA.

1000units 8y ago
As a counterpoint, I know multiple people who became insane after trying LSD.
- Uberphallus 8y ago
  More often than not, those people have previous mental health problems and LSD throws them over the edge. Sometimes the trigger is a getting your head hit, sometimes receiving a prize, sometimes getting dumped, sometimes after giving birth. At the end of the day you don't see any correlation between psychedelic usage and mental health issues, same as with the examples I gave. LSD is an emotional earthquake, and should be treated as such.
  - 1000units 8y ago
    Of course there's a correlation. You've just described one of the causes yourself. Giving people very focused nudges in precisely the wrong direction is absolutely a terrible and serious effect. Many people live their life on the edge without ever falling off. Think about the prevalence of depression versus incidence of suicide as an example.
    - Uberphallus 8y ago
      There's no correlation, it can be a trigger, like giving birth can be a trigger. Let's make breeding illegal?
      - 1000units 8y ago
        There is a correlation between people who develop serious mental illness and people who take LSD. The effect you are describing guarantees this (under very weak and sensible assumptions).
        codyb 8y ago
        https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_health.shtml https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_health.shtml It apparently can bring out already dormant mental illnesses but is not in any way associated with the formation of new mental illnesses. We all know LSD was literally available _at the pharmacy_ in the USA up until the mid 60s right? The entire nation didn't go insane... And you can bet your ass a pharmacy will at least ID people trying to buy it, you'll know exactly how much you're getting, and there could probably even be an information packet to go with it. Currently if you want it you have to risk persecution, have no idea what strength of dose you'll be receiving, and there's definitely no information packet unless you look it up yourself. At the end of the day criminalization is causing more harm than it's solving. People have issues with all sorts of things, alcohol is a lot more negative but totally legal. In general the proper tact is to ensure access to healthcare and opportunities in our society. Then those with dormant or non dormant mental illnesses are more likely to receive the attention they deserve. Access to opportunities means people get involved in their communities and projects and become passionate about something and are less likely to abuse drugs overall. Or you can spread hogwash like "LSD makes ya insane" which is not directly what you said but how people will read it.

foolfoolz 8y ago

I don’t think it will get the attention of marijuana, but I have hope we will legalize them again. Most psychedelic drugs are very niche. Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions. The stigma around it will have trouble wearing off because psychedelics are such an unknown. Most people don’t do them but have heard about people having bad experiences. I hope the overall idea of moving past the War on Drugs can make things like LSD less foreign and delinquent

Nursie 8y ago
> Telling someone you’ve smoked pot or telling someone you’ve taken 2 hits of LSD generate very different reactions. Mention that you're interested in some of the more obscure mescaline derivatives or tryptamines and you'll get another one!
toomanybeersies 8y ago
If you think the reaction from telling people you've dropped acid is weird, just wait until you see the reaction when you say that you enjoy the odd spot of ketamine! I think that for most people, the closest experience they've ever had with LSD or other psychedelics is the movies, where they're portrayed as this wacky drug that makes you see dragons and other weird shit. They've all heard stories about how someone dropped a tab and their trip never ended or how they became possessed by demons or some other urban myth that they heard from someone years ago.

scarecrowbob 8y ago

" Their safety and efficacy exist only within highly structured specialized treatment settings. In addition, desired outcomes depend upon the production of a temporary but profoundly regressed, disorganized and incapacitated state. Outside of that structure, psychedelics are no less abusable, acutely debilitating and liable to result in psychological damage—sometimes severe and unremitting—than they ever were." This doesn't meet with my general experiences. I've never understood how something like LSD can be "abused" in the way that alcohol can be abused... my experience (and the hundreds of folks I know who've used it) is that at some point, you have bad experiences with it and you stop. That's not a cyclical abuse pattern like with alcohol, where you become addicted and continue on despite the terrible toll on your health. Similarly, of the people who have been heavily involved with psychedelics and the general outcomes aren't any worse than for the hundreds of functioning alcoholics I know. While it is true that these kinds of drugs can put you in some really scary places and while it is true that they can possibly have longer-lasting negative effects, the article doesn't make a very compelling case to me to keep these chemicals scheduled so that only researchers have legal access to them. Pieces like these are interesting... I can see a strand of "messianic utopianism" in some discussion of these drugs, but most of the folks I know who want these things legalized don't have an agenda beyond "I like it and have found it helpful in my life". It's a strange way to characterize the discourse... it'd be like characterizing pieces like these as having an agenda to keep these drugs out of peoples' had out some misguided sense that only clinicians know what kinds of things healthy people should do. That is clearly not what motivates most researchers I have met.

armitron 8y ago
Extremely powerful psychedelics are legal in many parts of the world, even the US under specific circumstances [peyote], some have been used for thousands of years. I can only see "abuse" as bullshit justification to keep them illegal. On the flip-side, there are extremely powerful interests that are working against legalization. "Neurons to nirvana" is a great documentary that makes a good case for that.
King-Aaron 8y ago
Anecdotally, I was at a doof (bush rave) a few years ago, where one of the punters decided to go for a stroll in the middle of the night - head full of acid - and got promptly lost. Police search and rescue were called out, big dollar costs to the state, and while the kid turned up fine in that instance, it's statistically more likely you won't turn up fine in the Australian bush. I certainly feel that there's no absolute way to control the safety of participants in psychedelic experiences, but we should be wary of an open market approach without also considering a massive escalation in the way we teach people about safety with drug use.

gre 8y ago

Sure why not?

viach 8y ago

Everything is driven by incentives. Alcohol is cheaper for mass production and guaranteed to have good sales and huge consumer base. A state can't just allow to flow money away by legalizing a new drug which is, probably, mutually exclusive to alcohol. It might be sound cynical, sorry if so, but again, everything is just driven by incentives.

justinator 8y ago
I'm sorry that you're being downvoted, but you're right. You can't easily sell, and make a profit on acid (you certainly can't patent it). The dose needed for a trip is so small; a "therapeutic" dose is even tinier. The prison sentences for those who have produced acid are also completely ridiculous.
- TylerE 8y ago
  Huh? Sandoz Labs produced pharmaceutical LSD for decades
  - lev99 8y ago
    I think the parent comment is saying that a person taking legal lsd would spend significantly less money than a person drinking. Lsd and alcohol would compete for recreational time. Lsd would reduce the tax income from alcohol sales, and not be able to replace it with new tax revenue. Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal.
    - ryanmercer 8y ago
      >Governments have a fanical incentive to keep lsd illegal. They'd be taxing the sales of everything used to create it, they could require testing for purity, they could create an LSD tax, etc just like with tobacco and alcohol (and if they'd get their head out of their backside, THC containing products).
      - viach 8y ago

BadassFractal 8y ago

Wonder what the story with Salvia should be, you don't see people talk much about it. Seems like it's still legal in some states.

andai 8y ago
The "good" thing about salvia (re: people here talking about addiction and abuse) is that once you try it, there's a an even chance you'll never want to try psychedelics again.
- collyw 8y ago
  People don't get addicted to psychedelics.
  - andai 8y ago
    Indeed, they've helped me overcome many of my addictions.

white-flame 8y ago

The headline's question should really be reframed to question the validity of these restrictions in the first place. I'm not a user of any of these sorts of substances, nor condone them, but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things. Sure, driving under the influence should be policed as a safety hazard, showing up to work out of your gourd should still get you fired, etc. But there's little mandate that the government should be policing and prosecuting adults for potentially self-destructive private behaviors. Especially in light of all the other addictive and potentially self-destructive legal activities people are heavily involved in, any pretense of that mandate crumbles. Only when it threatens the safety, or disrupts the public civility, of other non-involved people should there even be a thought of government intervention. Any other conception to reduce individual drug use should be positive pressure like awareness programs and rehab centers.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"but there's zero reason for a free country to police personal use of such things." There are a lot of reasons. The people on HN and their social circles are waaay on the high end of conscientiousness. They have nary any risk from something like LSD for the most part. But - wide open and fairly unregulated use? Available at the corner store? So many types will try it, more than a few times. Younger kids will definitely try it and I think for developing minds it's totally a no-go. At least 1/3 of the population are very susceptible to vices or risky behaviours - in my 'very mixed' neighbourhood there are so many people who might be using it as part of their 'escape mix' (currently crack and alcohol) and consistent use of this stuff is just bad news, moreover, there's too many ways to have a 'bad trip' (in the psychological sense) even for those of us on the conscientious side. Let's say I know 'a guy' who only did it twice but the second trip was so whacky he wouldn't ever touch it again and suffered a some of ego/identity collapse issues from it for a while. Psychedelics are generally safe enough, and non-additive to the point where we really don't see a lot of crossover among the street level problem folks who's vices are crack and alcohol ... but that's because the supply/demand equation in the current 'regulated' scenario implies very little demand. 'Unregulated' almost means 'ubiquitous' and also much more integrated as part of 'accepted behaviour' in society, and there are just way, way too many people for whom this would be risky. 'Legalizing hard drugs' is kind of a theoretical issue because I think it's hard for us to contemplate what actual widespread use would look like, and also hard for us to consider how regular people behave. More to the point: the regulations are not for you, they're for the 33%-ish of folks who have all sorts of problems. It should definitely be decriminalized, to the point wherein anyone who wants to jump through a few hoops can have access, but I don't think we want to have widespread availability. Maybe we might want to do an experiment in a city somewhere to see, but even then, I feel the results would be highly politicized, as they are with 'harm reduction clinics' ... it's hard to get at the truth of it.

smadge 8y ago

Yes.

Karishma1234 8y ago

From criminalising we need to move to regulating these drugs so more people could use it and new type of products could come into existence while people who buy them get full disclosure of what they are getting into. Linking Tobacco with Cancer was not a simple battle and was possible only because it was legal and people were open about its use. The lower tobacco consumption in developing countries was achieved because of regulation and not criminalisation.

drawkbox 8y ago

Yes, a great look into some of them is on Hamilton's Pharmacopeia on VICELAND [1] and early version of the show on Youtube [2] that delves into many of psychedelics and other drugs. Hamilton Morris does the show and is the son of Errol Morris who is a great documentary filmmaker. The documentary show takes an honest look at the origins, stories and science of substances from a scientific objective point of view. The point across many of the episodes is that locking up drugs in the immutable prison of the Controlled Substances scheduling is possibly locking up cures that might be useful down the line, besides the obvious issue of the state telling people what they can and can't put in their body, the drug wars are a unnecessary violence and costly enforcement over a health matter. The war on vegetables and plants should end and this generation should do it. Adults are responsible enough to know what they put in their body and for the ones that have trouble with addiction, the focus should be on healthcare not executive criminal force that is very costly in funds and possible uses of drugs that are locked up in the prison of the Controlled Substances Act as a controlled substance. In a free country you are responsible for yourself, the state should back off on drugs because they are more dangerous illegal than legal due to black markets, cartels, legal issues harsher than the drug and more. Due to the hard line, we miss out on scientific health advantages of these drugs and people aim to make more synthetics that mimic them that may be more harmful than the original with unknown effects. Unfortunately it looks like the US is doubling down on the drug war with the new Schedule A that allows them to put on biologically similar drugs and synthetics on the list with SITSA [3]. My take is that drugs should be legal or at a minimum entirely decriminalized, there should be substance warnings but ultimately the liability of the user taking the drug is on the user, not a doctor. The only time a producer should get in legal issues is when they are selling what isn't on the label just like with food. A big problem with overdoses and drug deaths is due to people getting the wrong substance, for instance fentanyl because it is cheaper in other opioids. The hardline of putting liability on the doctors and pharma companies is also leading to patients looking for alternatives after their doctor stops their prescription for fear of legal issues, what follows is where most overdoses and trouble happens as there is no addiction help after even legal use of drugs. The hardline on opioids even further exacerbate the problem. We need a new Bill of Rights amendment for Right to Body to do this. This is a health issue not a criminal one and it is too costly to possible health advances to lock up helpful chemical configurations that need more study. We need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one. The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a health issue not a criminal one. Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every year to be medically dangerous to be kept on the list. The problem is that once drugs get classified as a controlled substance, it is very difficult to get them out because neither the public nor legislature can easily remove it. The CSA list is managed entirely wrong. The CSA was setup to target certain dissidents initially by Nixon, it is nearly criminal that the drug war is ran by an organization that is untouchable and maintained by the enforcer not the health institutions. The CSA should be completely abolished or recreated with expiring classifications, and the FDA can make recommendations on safety but then it is up to the people to decide what they do with their bodies with the liability on them. Marijuana is an example where the Controlled Substances Act harms medical uses of drugs on the list, if is very difficult to change it even with 93% medical marijuana support [4] and 64% recreational marijuana support [5] in the US. It is nearly criminal that marijuana/cannabis, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, and other drugs and psychedelics that help people which are also safer than most drugs and alcohol, based on the user themselves rather than what the state says, are criminal and not medical. [1] https://www.hulu.com/hamiltons-pharmacopeia https://www.hulu.com/hamiltons-pharmacopeia [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GH9XhvsMrwH7hC52LGWbXEQ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GH9XhvsMrwH... [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2851 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2851 [4] http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385018-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-hits-all-time-high http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385018-poll-support-for-leg... [5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-lega...

dheavy 8y ago

Yes.

tasty_freeze 8y ago

The classification of LSD as a schedule I drug is unsupportable; it was researched for 20 years before it became a 60s plaything and the threat of the counter-culture movement to the establishment was enough to get all psychedelic research killed off. But as the article points out, there are real risks. There are a large number of LSD zealots who have not just goofy but dangerous beliefs about LSD. Spend any amount of time looking at posts on /r/lsd and you'll find people claiming LSD is a sure-fire cure for depression. Sure, some people have found it helpful, but those who tried it and went off the deep end probably aren't hanging around on /r/lsd. The other frightening thing about /r/lsd is how many teenagers are there. Part of the over-representation is due to the nature of reddit. Even so, little good can come out of that cohort dabbling in psychedelics.

Simon_says 8y ago
I don't know what they're saying over on /r/lsd, but psychedelics can break you out of repetitive negative modes of thinking, giving you insights that last after the high is long gone. LSD is a tool that can work in in conjunction with other tools and changes you make in your life for some people some of the time.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  key word being /can/; it's a statement and a belief that IMO is very sensitive to confirmation bias. One of the key points of the psychedelics / soft drugs legalisation effort is that it would allow for a lot less red tape to do medical research on.
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    > it's a statement and a belief that IMO is very sensitive to confirmation bias. Are you saying people who no longer feel depressed are suffering from confirmation bias? :)
    - deadbunny 8y ago
      No, Surviorship Bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

bedane 8y ago

After being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for years for coping with issues a single dose of psilocybin managed to wipe out in 3 hours, I say yes.

tzahola 8y ago
What about the people being prescribed benzos, SSRIs, etc. for life to cope with the issues brought on by a single does of psilocybin/LSD/salvia/DMT/etc?
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Is this a thing? I know a guy who seriously overdosed on LSD and had to spend a weekend in a hospital. Other than a severe aversion to psychedelics he wasn't seriously harmed, at least not to the point where he needs daily medication to deal. He has the worst Adderall tolerance his docs have ever seen but that's unrelated. I suppose I could ask him whether his OD made his ADD worse. For sure chronic abuse of psychedelics will cause permanent effects but I'm not aware that anything other than a life-threatening overdose of psychedelics will cause someone to need lifelong medication to manage the consequences.
- saas_co_de 8y ago
  They don't exist. Continuing to repeat reefer madness propaganda does not make it any more true. Show one scientific study that shows any long term effect from a single dose of any of your listed substances and I will be happy to take your comment seriously.
  - tzahola 8y ago
    "Perceptual disturbances may last for 5 years or more and represent a real psychosocial distress. We reported here a case of a 18-year-old young man presenting HPPD after a mixed intoxication with psylocibin and cannabis. This report shows symptomatic recurrences persisting more than 8 months." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963699 https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-doesnt-end https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-trip-that-doesnt-e... "Evidence supports the association of LSD use with panic reactions, prolonged schizoaffective psychoses and post-hallucinogen perceptual disorder, the latter being present continually for as long as 5 years." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8251869 "Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of acute hallucinogen effects. HPPD was associated with a broader range of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide)-like substances, cannabis, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, mescaline, and psychostimulants." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29209235 "The Association of Salvia divinorum and Psychotic Disorders: A Review of the Literature and Case Series" https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2015.1073815

crazy_monkey 8y ago

YES! Feed them to our children in healthy school lunches! Pour these into our water supply! Seed the clouds and let pyschedelics pour forth from the heavens!...

daviddahl 8y ago

Yes, no victim, no crime.

blubb-fish 8y ago
it really is that simple.

blubb-fish 8y ago

For me this is a simple philosophical question. An adult should be allowed to do whatever s/he likes as long as it is not harming others. If harm to others is done - even under the influence - then punishment is due. But as long as somebody just does something in private - it must be okay. I have plenty of experience with psychedlics - be it LSD, Psilocibin, DMT or 4-ACO-DMT. I know from own experience that a bad trip can be very unsettling. But as an adult it is first of all my right to take that risk and second of all it is a maturing experience. The state should not be allowed to prohibit anything when done in private. The concepts behind drug prohibition are pretty much the same as behind prohibition of homosexual practices. People also say this should not be allowed because it is bad and young children will be molested etc pp.

philliphaydon 8y ago
If an adult does things that harm himself and not others he should also forfeit free healthcare. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for the personal bad choices of others.
- kimdotcom 8y ago
  We would need free healthcare to be able to forfeit it. Since we don't and insurance companies seem pretty decent at modeling risk, this would be included in the model. Look at how people who smoke are financially penalized by health insurance. The same is not true for alcohol consumers.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    In the US that's a matter of law, the insurance companies aren't allowed to adjust prices based on alcohol consumption. I guess casual drinkers (and more than casual drinkers) are a pretty big lobby group though.
- nfoz 8y ago
  Even if it were somehow possible to implement such a mechanism, correctly (no false positives!) and efficiently, this sounds like a terrific lack of compassion. Have you never made a mistake? Can you not imagine a life in which you might have made such a mistake?

Fnoord 8y ago

I'm not sure about the legal status of san pedro and peyote cactus in the USA but it doesn't seem like the original native Americans should be oppressed further [1]. So specifically about the USA, these should be legal for religious reasons. There was a court case in The Netherlands concerning the legal status of these cactus by a religious group who used these during rituals. They won; they were allowed to use these for religious reasons. Ever since, smartshops sell these cactus. I owned a san pedro and peyote cactus myself. The peyote didn't last long, but the san pedro become huge. Eventually it was easily 2,5 meters tall. Unfortunately, it did have "spint" (red spider mite?). I never used them for drugs-related reasons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church

forkLding 8y ago

I've tried psychedelics before, and I've found them pretty boring in terms of their effects (like a minor VR experience that doesn't go away and leaves headaches) and don't see the point of their classification. I have also since avoided psychedelics because they last so long and you aren't productive during those hours.

someonewhocar3s 8y ago

After taking a lot of psychedelics, and played shaman/tripcoach to firsttimers a couple of times, I can confidently say that psychedelics are too misunderstood and difficult for commoners. Interpreting the experience without proper background invariably leads to funky thoughts, usually surrounding those pieces of experience that disappear/disfunction, such as identity, sense of self and environment, perception of non-natural persons, etc. All this leads to very zany, counterproductive and simply dangerous life philosophies. I think it would be immensely valueable for more people to have GOOD trips. To take a piece of their mind and analyze it, to use these drugs to have unparalleled experiences. But to loosen the restrictions, especially in the exceedingly naive current landscape, will only lead to widespread commercial abuse and misguidance, the nature of which affects people most likely to be irrational and confused. This is unacceptable, and should be fought against with the greatest ferocity - as it is a recipe for disaster, and you will readily find this evidenced in past situations. (e.g. hippies suffered a lot of bad stuff due to misunderstanding their drugs) I think academic and religious use should be strongly endorsed, and logged/monitored. Let's take it from there?

kjgkjhfkjf 8y ago

To the extent that drug users are burdens on society, drug use should be regulated.

1000units 8y ago

META: Many people like psychedelics because they hate themselves. Permanently rewire your personality, maybe blow out your mind entirely? No big deal.

qwerty456127 8y ago

Psychedelics are a good thing yet sure as hell not for everyone. I really doubt selling them freely in every supermarket is a good idea but I believe nobody should ever get arrested for possessing them nor even for producing them for personal consumption or sharing it with friends IMHO. I think Schedule IV is probably the most adequate status for things like LSD (which is safe physiologically but can harm some mentally sick people psyche/adequacy seriously). As for things like MDMA (which can hardly cause any psychological harm and only causes physiological harm if used improperly) or 6-APB (which has effects similar to those of MDMA but isn't known to inflict any harm at all) I would vote to legalize recreational use. And there also are some more exotic psychedelics like 5-MeO-DMT (don't confuse with regular DMT! ordinary DMT can indeed harm some people psyche though this doesn't happen often) that have little if any abuse potential for which I can see no reason to control them at all.