3 ms·

> Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions.

> Hard to explain why. I like to think I have a higher than average understanding about them and they've still dragged me through hell on one or two occasions. That's the thing, you just like to think that. Yet, you offer no evidence to back your claim, or your expertise in the matter. At best, your evidence is anecdotal (so far) and cannot be used in a more general discussion about psychedelics.

stef25 8y ago
After experimenting with psychedelics in my late teens (mid 90s) I wanted to know more and got a Bsc in Neuroscience from Manchester University. My thesis was on how research in psychedelics can help us learn more about schizophrenia (I wasn't interested in any of prescribed topics so my lecturer said I could do whatever but it would have to be without guidance). Scientific knowledge won't help much in the way of steering clear of a bad trip. It's more about common sense (set / setting, dosage) and knowing yourself and your own mind.
- crypt1d 8y ago
  Thank you for clarifying that, now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. My question to you is, do you think psychedelics should be more controlled than alcohol? Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip. I'm also wondering if we can create a set of metrics, free from anecdotal evidence and any political context, by which we can use to categorize different drugs (alcohol included) based on social harm, self harm, long lasting damage, etc. and then use this to define which of those we ban/regulate/decriminalize etc. I know that may sound a bit naive, but using a pure scientific approach to this could give us quite different results than the current state of things, where some of the most dangerous substances are legal because there's a lobby behind them. The only thing I found similar to this is this assessment referenced on the LSD wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/media/File:Rational_harm_assessment_of_drugs_radar_plot.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/me...
  - stef25 8y ago
    I like the idea of psychedelics being free to use but only in recognised centers or "retreats", under professional guidance Holland did the OTC experiment already and there must be interesting data about this somewhere. I don't think OTC would be a good idea, maybe I'm just overly cautious. At the moment, anyone with sufficient motivation can get psychedelics at the click of a button and here in W-Europe nobody will really face any serious legal consequences for personal use. Testing kits are widely available. The current situation is not a bad one. > Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip. I don't think (bad) trips would cause much social harm at all actually. Psychedelics have an unpredictability to them that warrants caution in a way that doesn't apply to alcohol (or sky diving, rock climbing ...) Medical prescriptions are required (in part) because of the potential side effects. If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through a mental hell scape, it wouldn't be available OTC either. Just some thoughts, the discussion is a difficult one.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      >> If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through... Right... But we still sell nuts to people allergic to nuts, and we still sell alcohol to people who end up beating their wives and then think it never happened. I don’t believe your point is reasonable at all.

stef25 8y ago

After experimenting with psychedelics in my late teens (mid 90s) I wanted to know more and got a Bsc in Neuroscience from Manchester University. My thesis was on how research in psychedelics can help us learn more about schizophrenia (I wasn't interested in any of prescribed topics so my lecturer said I could do whatever but it would have to be without guidance). Scientific knowledge won't help much in the way of steering clear of a bad trip. It's more about common sense (set / setting, dosage) and knowing yourself and your own mind.

crypt1d 8y ago
Thank you for clarifying that, now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. My question to you is, do you think psychedelics should be more controlled than alcohol? Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip. I'm also wondering if we can create a set of metrics, free from anecdotal evidence and any political context, by which we can use to categorize different drugs (alcohol included) based on social harm, self harm, long lasting damage, etc. and then use this to define which of those we ban/regulate/decriminalize etc. I know that may sound a bit naive, but using a pure scientific approach to this could give us quite different results than the current state of things, where some of the most dangerous substances are legal because there's a lobby behind them. The only thing I found similar to this is this assessment referenced on the LSD wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/media/File:Rational_harm_assessment_of_drugs_radar_plot.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#/me...
- stef25 8y ago
  I like the idea of psychedelics being free to use but only in recognised centers or "retreats", under professional guidance Holland did the OTC experiment already and there must be interesting data about this somewhere. I don't think OTC would be a good idea, maybe I'm just overly cautious. At the moment, anyone with sufficient motivation can get psychedelics at the click of a button and here in W-Europe nobody will really face any serious legal consequences for personal use. Testing kits are widely available. The current situation is not a bad one. > Given how intoxication by alcohol can cause as much social harm as a bad trip. I don't think (bad) trips would cause much social harm at all actually. Psychedelics have an unpredictability to them that warrants caution in a way that doesn't apply to alcohol (or sky diving, rock climbing ...) Medical prescriptions are required (in part) because of the potential side effects. If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through a mental hell scape, it wouldn't be available OTC either. Just some thoughts, the discussion is a difficult one.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> If 1% of all paracetamols would drag the person through... Right... But we still sell nuts to people allergic to nuts, and we still sell alcohol to people who end up beating their wives and then think it never happened. I don’t believe your point is reasonable at all.