6 ms·

California Senate Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelics Like Psilocybin and LSD

103 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

andy_ppp 5y ago
My friend developed schizophrenia and killed herself after taking ayahuasca. I know a lot of people think these drugs are great but I’m much less impressed with them. I did LSD once, a microdot on my first go and while overall the experience was good it remains up there as once of the most extreme things you can do. It took me weeks afterwards to integrate the experience and I still think about what it showed me daily. If I’d have had a bad trip I think I would probably have PTSD or something close. The “jaw dropping void” my friend talks about is real, being able to place your mind almost anywhere requires a lot of care. Before doing it a friend with a lot of experience said “if things are going down a bad tunnel move your body or change/lighting/scenery/indoors/outdoors and you should come back from being trapped in the matrix”. The research on micro-dosing seems to suggest it just makes you feel cleverer (and actually worse at tasks) and as my friend said at the end of our trip: “it’s not exactly what you can call recreational”. I agree. I wouldn’t legalise them, not even for psychiatric work as it’s too difficult to know if they’ll help.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 5y ago
  Yeah but we arent going to throw people in jail for having or using them now. A separate bill will regulate retail sales and it doesnt exist yet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- gavanwilhite 5y ago
  I’m sad about your friend. You seem to be making some assumptions about causation though. I can imagine other correlations there. To make the claim that “you wouldn’t legalize them”, you’d need to make the case that prohibition and the use of state violence to police what people do with their bodies is preferred to people potentially having bad experiences.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Is pretty common for people to assume that passing a law will just make things go away. As you point out, the real world doesn't work that way.
- gallexme 5y ago
  I may would have ended my life few months later if I hadn't done ayahuasca at a familiar person I do think there is definitly inherent risk to taking psychedelics, but in my experience of offering help/harm reduction advice for 4 years to drug users it Seems to be easier tolerable than lsd /mushroom experiences, my guess it's cause it's way more sedating for most people and more difficult to wander off in personal ways to Bad places during the experience. I wouldn't legalize them either. , I would license them to anyone above 25 Years with a 3 +month education and exam instead. Note, ayahuasca may be lethal for people on medicine or drugs, ayahuasca has/is a powerful maoi which should not be combined with a lot of kinds medicine (takes 4+weeks to do it safely after many of. The ssri /antipsychotics, there many more kinds which are dangerous, or can cause a overdose of that drug easily )
- outime 5y ago
  As a counterpoint, psilocybin forced me to make uncomfortable changes in my life in just two sessions and absolutely zero effects, also very cheap. But then it took a couple months preparing myself to do it properly and with someone. It saved my life. I’m sorry about your friend. I don’t know anything about her so what I’ll say is in no way related to her (also ayahuasca is a different beast). One of the big warnings is that you should never take them if you took psychiatric medication last year or your family has a history of serious psychiatric problems. Another one is that you definitely have to have a proper set and setting so you have someone who supports you in case you see something that’s way too scary so you can rationalize it. I highly recommend “How to change your mind” from Michael Pollan to understand how these things are helping a lot of people but also to understand the inherent risks. For many people it was the only thing that saved them from suicide.
  - w0de0 5y ago
    > One of the big warnings is that you should never take them if you took psychiatric medication last year or your family has a history of serious psychiatric problems. By legalizing the drug, don’t we expect the user to make these sort of judgements themselves? Who deals with the consequences of the many poor judgments that will be made (besides the poor user themselves)? I think decriminalization, not legalization + capitalism as has happened with Marijuana, is the right choice here.
    - ViViDboarder 5y ago
      Legalizing doesn’t prohibit regulation. You can legalize with requirements such as prescriptions or require sellers to ask questions and not sell to people with certain conditions. Alcohol is legal yet regulated such that it can only be sold to people of a certain age and trust people who have a history of alcoholism or are pregnant to self regulate. Is there evidence to suggest other drugs should be treated differently?
    - msrenee 5y ago
      It's illegal right now but I can still get you some by tomorrow. I'm not exactly much of a drug user either. It being illegal doesn't stop the majority of people who want it from getting it. It just makes it riskier. You don't know how strong any particular batch is going to be, you don't know if it's got anything on it that it shouldn't, and you don't feel safe going to the hospital if something goes wrong. Add in the growing evidence of the efficacy of mushrooms for psychiatric use in controlled settings and not only are we talking about increased risk by keeping it illegal, we also can't do the research to see if and at what dosage it is potentially a lifesaving medication.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  I agree that people should definitely be careful with drugs. You know how the ABS of your car gives you more control? If you lock the brakes, you run the risk of sliding out of control. Much better to let up on the brakes a bit and try to keep the wheels turning. Same for laws on things like drugs. Better to have things legal but controlled, rather than illegal and untrackable/uncontrollable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Yeah, the old trope about doing LSD and then spending a day trying not to jump out a window doesn't come from nowhere. I still support legalization though. Adults can choose what to do with their bodies.
  - loveistheanswer 5y ago
    >the old trope about doing LSD and then spending a day trying not to jump out a window doesn't come from nowhere. It seems that "old trope" actually came from the CIA's MKULTRA project where they were secretly dosing unwitting people with LSD: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Olson probably didn't jump out of that window by his own hand and the joke predates public awareness of MKULTRA by at least a decade. Ask some old hippies. They all have a story of that time or two they had to prevent a friend from self harm. Not saying it's the majority experience but it's a common enough minority that users should be aware of the possibility.
      - AndrewBissell 5y ago
        The funny thing is, those old hippies may well have been doing LSD that could be traced back to the CIA's efforts to flood the 60s counterculture with it. I don't think they did that -- or, more recently, that Peter Thiel is working on companies offering psychedelic therapeutics -- because they thought it would genuinely enlighten people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dr_dshiv 5y ago
I think it would be smart to be prepared for potential future backlash and the pendulum swinging the other way. Look at vaping. Or Timothy Leary. Is there a red team approach that can help ensure we don't misstep in the momentum to overturn the drug war?
- snarf21 5y ago
  No, my opinion is that when things are out of whack, you can't solve them by creeping back to the "proper" line. You have to swing the pendulum hard and fast and go waaaay past where you think it should be. Then it will slowly swing back and forth until it ends where it should be.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Just saying that vaping and Timothy Leary don't necessarily support that enthusiasm. Do you have a counter example?
  - hn8788 5y ago
    That assumes that there is a "correct" line. It's also been proven throughout history that your opinion has the opposite of the intended effect, women's rights are a good example. Trying to push the pendulum too hard too fast makes the people who support the status quo get very defensive and unwilling to compromise, so the situation can actually get even further from what you want.
bionhoward 5y ago
The question ought not be if we should legalize these drugs (with obvious proven medical use) but rather, why were they criminalized in the first place? "Legalize" implies we need permission from the government to control what we put into our own bodies. That doesn't really make sense in a free country. "Decriminalize" makes more sense: it rightfully implies the government screwed up when it outlawed the substance(s) in the first place... IMHO banning chemicals is a) impossible from a practical level because there are infinite chemicals and no means to enforce their use b) misguided since politicians are unqualified to assess the various technical aspects of medicinal chemistry c) counterproductive because when something people use is banned, they turn into criminals and the end result is a black market which encourages people to ignore other laws which actually DO matter (like when folks commit murder related to drug deals -- if the drug were not criminalized, then there would be no need for a black market drug deal) TLDR: Don't legalize it. Decriminalize it!
- lacksconfidence 5y ago
  Those mean completely different things to me. To me legalize it means there can be no punishment for the substance. Decriminalize it means sales and distribution are still illegal, the profits are still going to organized crime.
- soared 5y ago
  Legalize and decriminalize already have definitions from our government and mean very different things: https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation/overview-decriminalisation-legalisation/ https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation...
- tzs 5y ago
  That same argument would work equally well with pretty much every chemical that has been banned or severely restricted, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, several pesticides, several food additives, and much more. Unless you really are arguing that government should not be able to regulate any chemicals, you need to refine your argument to contain at least some elements specific to recreational or medicinal drugs.

103 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

My friend developed schizophrenia and killed herself after taking ayahuasca. I know a lot of people think these drugs are great but I’m much less impressed with them. I did LSD once, a microdot on my first go and while overall the experience was good it remains up there as once of the most extreme things you can do. It took me weeks afterwards to integrate the experience and I still think about what it showed me daily. If I’d have had a bad trip I think I would probably have PTSD or something close. The “jaw dropping void” my friend talks about is real, being able to place your mind almost anywhere requires a lot of care. Before doing it a friend with a lot of experience said “if things are going down a bad tunnel move your body or change/lighting/scenery/indoors/outdoors and you should come back from being trapped in the matrix”. The research on micro-dosing seems to suggest it just makes you feel cleverer (and actually worse at tasks) and as my friend said at the end of our trip: “it’s not exactly what you can call recreational”. I agree. I wouldn’t legalise them, not even for psychiatric work as it’s too difficult to know if they’ll help.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vmception 5y ago
Yeah but we arent going to throw people in jail for having or using them now. A separate bill will regulate retail sales and it doesnt exist yet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gavanwilhite 5y ago
I’m sad about your friend. You seem to be making some assumptions about causation though. I can imagine other correlations there. To make the claim that “you wouldn’t legalize them”, you’d need to make the case that prohibition and the use of state violence to police what people do with their bodies is preferred to people potentially having bad experiences.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Is pretty common for people to assume that passing a law will just make things go away. As you point out, the real world doesn't work that way.
gallexme 5y ago
I may would have ended my life few months later if I hadn't done ayahuasca at a familiar person I do think there is definitly inherent risk to taking psychedelics, but in my experience of offering help/harm reduction advice for 4 years to drug users it Seems to be easier tolerable than lsd /mushroom experiences, my guess it's cause it's way more sedating for most people and more difficult to wander off in personal ways to Bad places during the experience. I wouldn't legalize them either. , I would license them to anyone above 25 Years with a 3 +month education and exam instead. Note, ayahuasca may be lethal for people on medicine or drugs, ayahuasca has/is a powerful maoi which should not be combined with a lot of kinds medicine (takes 4+weeks to do it safely after many of. The ssri /antipsychotics, there many more kinds which are dangerous, or can cause a overdose of that drug easily )
outime 5y ago
As a counterpoint, psilocybin forced me to make uncomfortable changes in my life in just two sessions and absolutely zero effects, also very cheap. But then it took a couple months preparing myself to do it properly and with someone. It saved my life. I’m sorry about your friend. I don’t know anything about her so what I’ll say is in no way related to her (also ayahuasca is a different beast). One of the big warnings is that you should never take them if you took psychiatric medication last year or your family has a history of serious psychiatric problems. Another one is that you definitely have to have a proper set and setting so you have someone who supports you in case you see something that’s way too scary so you can rationalize it. I highly recommend “How to change your mind” from Michael Pollan to understand how these things are helping a lot of people but also to understand the inherent risks. For many people it was the only thing that saved them from suicide.
- w0de0 5y ago
  > One of the big warnings is that you should never take them if you took psychiatric medication last year or your family has a history of serious psychiatric problems. By legalizing the drug, don’t we expect the user to make these sort of judgements themselves? Who deals with the consequences of the many poor judgments that will be made (besides the poor user themselves)? I think decriminalization, not legalization + capitalism as has happened with Marijuana, is the right choice here.
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    Legalizing doesn’t prohibit regulation. You can legalize with requirements such as prescriptions or require sellers to ask questions and not sell to people with certain conditions. Alcohol is legal yet regulated such that it can only be sold to people of a certain age and trust people who have a history of alcoholism or are pregnant to self regulate. Is there evidence to suggest other drugs should be treated differently?
  - msrenee 5y ago
    It's illegal right now but I can still get you some by tomorrow. I'm not exactly much of a drug user either. It being illegal doesn't stop the majority of people who want it from getting it. It just makes it riskier. You don't know how strong any particular batch is going to be, you don't know if it's got anything on it that it shouldn't, and you don't feel safe going to the hospital if something goes wrong. Add in the growing evidence of the efficacy of mushrooms for psychiatric use in controlled settings and not only are we talking about increased risk by keeping it illegal, we also can't do the research to see if and at what dosage it is potentially a lifesaving medication.
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
I agree that people should definitely be careful with drugs. You know how the ABS of your car gives you more control? If you lock the brakes, you run the risk of sliding out of control. Much better to let up on the brakes a bit and try to keep the wheels turning. Same for laws on things like drugs. Better to have things legal but controlled, rather than illegal and untrackable/uncontrollable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Yeah, the old trope about doing LSD and then spending a day trying not to jump out a window doesn't come from nowhere. I still support legalization though. Adults can choose what to do with their bodies.
- loveistheanswer 5y ago
  >the old trope about doing LSD and then spending a day trying not to jump out a window doesn't come from nowhere. It seems that "old trope" actually came from the CIA's MKULTRA project where they were secretly dosing unwitting people with LSD: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Olson probably didn't jump out of that window by his own hand and the joke predates public awareness of MKULTRA by at least a decade. Ask some old hippies. They all have a story of that time or two they had to prevent a friend from self harm. Not saying it's the majority experience but it's a common enough minority that users should be aware of the possibility.
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      The funny thing is, those old hippies may well have been doing LSD that could be traced back to the CIA's efforts to flood the 60s counterculture with it. I don't think they did that -- or, more recently, that Peter Thiel is working on companies offering psychedelic therapeutics -- because they thought it would genuinely enlighten people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dr_dshiv 5y ago

I think it would be smart to be prepared for potential future backlash and the pendulum swinging the other way. Look at vaping. Or Timothy Leary. Is there a red team approach that can help ensure we don't misstep in the momentum to overturn the drug war?

snarf21 5y ago
No, my opinion is that when things are out of whack, you can't solve them by creeping back to the "proper" line. You have to swing the pendulum hard and fast and go waaaay past where you think it should be. Then it will slowly swing back and forth until it ends where it should be.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Just saying that vaping and Timothy Leary don't necessarily support that enthusiasm. Do you have a counter example?
- hn8788 5y ago
  That assumes that there is a "correct" line. It's also been proven throughout history that your opinion has the opposite of the intended effect, women's rights are a good example. Trying to push the pendulum too hard too fast makes the people who support the status quo get very defensive and unwilling to compromise, so the situation can actually get even further from what you want.

bionhoward 5y ago

The question ought not be if we should legalize these drugs (with obvious proven medical use) but rather, why were they criminalized in the first place? "Legalize" implies we need permission from the government to control what we put into our own bodies. That doesn't really make sense in a free country. "Decriminalize" makes more sense: it rightfully implies the government screwed up when it outlawed the substance(s) in the first place... IMHO banning chemicals is a) impossible from a practical level because there are infinite chemicals and no means to enforce their use b) misguided since politicians are unqualified to assess the various technical aspects of medicinal chemistry c) counterproductive because when something people use is banned, they turn into criminals and the end result is a black market which encourages people to ignore other laws which actually DO matter (like when folks commit murder related to drug deals -- if the drug were not criminalized, then there would be no need for a black market drug deal) TLDR: Don't legalize it. Decriminalize it!

lacksconfidence 5y ago
Those mean completely different things to me. To me legalize it means there can be no punishment for the substance. Decriminalize it means sales and distribution are still illegal, the profits are still going to organized crime.
soared 5y ago
Legalize and decriminalize already have definitions from our government and mean very different things: https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation/overview-decriminalisation-legalisation/ https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation...
tzs 5y ago
That same argument would work equally well with pretty much every chemical that has been banned or severely restricted, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, several pesticides, several food additives, and much more. Unless you really are arguing that government should not be able to regulate any chemicals, you need to refine your argument to contain at least some elements specific to recreational or medicinal drugs.