4 ms·

Like anything else, doesn't that depend on the concentration?

by rib3ye 5y ago

colechristensen 5y ago
Psychedelics have other dangers than acute toxicity. Not that I’m giving medical advice but it is extraordinarily difficult to die as a result of an overdose of most pure psychedelics which aren’t strange “research chemicals”. (Although I vaguely remember reading about a guy who accidentally took something like tens of thousands of effective doses of LSD being in a coma for quite a while) However their power is in their ability to reshape your mind… and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong.
- pvarangot 5y ago
  > and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong. I think the risk of developing a long term mental illness from psychedelic use are overstated because of societies stigma with temporary psychosis. A healthy person can come back from those "psychotomimetic" episodes really quickly, even quicker than with opioid induced psychosis. It's not really mysterious or undesirable as you make it sound. People that develop long term issues from psychedelic use are also at risk of developing those from basically all other psychoactive substances, specially marihuana and opioids. The motivations for making psychedelics schedule 1 where political and not related to that risk at all though. Drinking a lot can also create temporary psychosis and long term personality changes. There's also lots of studies about how marihuana also results in psychosis or triggers mania in some people. Neither alcohol nor Marihuana show as promising results for things like fighting depression, fatigue, social anxiety, as psychedelics or at fighting PTSD as MDMA does. Alcohol and now weed are legal mostly because of other economic and political interests. The sad reality is no one gives a fuck about the people that could benefit from research into psychedelic medicine, except pharmaceutical companies that make billions out of treatments that are 20 years behind, and they want them to be schedule 1 forever.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    With drugs you get two choices: ineffective or potentially dangerous, often both. People want to believe that the thing they like is safe, but every drug that can do anything is dangerous. That's the whole idea, a drug is a lever to make change, not a magical "make everything better" solution. You push the lever too far and you get things you don't want. It's not just temporary psychosis (which sometimes isn't so temporary). It can trigger major changes in personality, or latent mental illnesses which tend to only manifest with a push (schizophrenia is one). It's not a coincidence that psychedelics have been used in religious ceremonies throughout human history. They can give people religion, and without direction they can turn people into troubling zealots for just about anything (and often the drug itself). People who experienced this and became cultural icons are part of the reason they got banned. (turn on, tune in, drop out) There is even a considerable group that want to re-name psychedelics to "entheogens" which has a rough etymology of "to put god into". I have personally felt this and it scared the fuck out of me.
    - totesraunch 5y ago
      Every single thing humans do and consume is 'potentially dangerous'. Existence is dangerous.
      - colechristensen 5y ago
        If you extend the definition of the word or phrase to apply to everything it is meaningless and might as well not be used. That is not how I am using it.
    - stadium 5y ago
      > With drugs you get two choices: ineffective or potentially dangerous, often both. What type of drugs? Pharmaceutical or recreational? Natural or man-made? Taken to escape or numb, or with respect and gratitude? Abused or moderated? There is a wide spectrum of outcomes when consuming any substance. Many more than two. > They can give people religion, and without direction they can turn people into troubling zealots for just about anything (and often the drug itself) Religion, politics, or any belief system can breed this without drugs. Selling salvation or enlightenment by taking a substance attracts the emotionally vulnerable. And wouldn't that actually decrease if they could be taken by anyone in a safe and controlled environment alongside a licenced therapist, instead of underground? What are you advocating for or against? I'm genuinely interested, I sense fear and worry in what you wrote but don't really understand the point you are trying to make.

Like anything else, doesn't that depend on the concentration?

by rib3ye 5y ago

Like anything else, doesn't that depend on the concentration?

Psychedelics have other dangers than acute toxicity. Not that I’m giving medical advice but it is extraordinarily difficult to die as a result of an overdose of most pure psychedelics which aren’t strange “research chemicals”. (Although I vaguely remember reading about a guy who accidentally took something like tens of thousands of effective doses of LSD being in a coma for quite a while) However their power is in their ability to reshape your mind… and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong.

pvarangot 5y ago
> and that they can do in very undesirable ways if done wrong. I think the risk of developing a long term mental illness from psychedelic use are overstated because of societies stigma with temporary psychosis. A healthy person can come back from those "psychotomimetic" episodes really quickly, even quicker than with opioid induced psychosis. It's not really mysterious or undesirable as you make it sound. People that develop long term issues from psychedelic use are also at risk of developing those from basically all other psychoactive substances, specially marihuana and opioids. The motivations for making psychedelics schedule 1 where political and not related to that risk at all though. Drinking a lot can also create temporary psychosis and long term personality changes. There's also lots of studies about how marihuana also results in psychosis or triggers mania in some people. Neither alcohol nor Marihuana show as promising results for things like fighting depression, fatigue, social anxiety, as psychedelics or at fighting PTSD as MDMA does. Alcohol and now weed are legal mostly because of other economic and political interests. The sad reality is no one gives a fuck about the people that could benefit from research into psychedelic medicine, except pharmaceutical companies that make billions out of treatments that are 20 years behind, and they want them to be schedule 1 forever.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  With drugs you get two choices: ineffective or potentially dangerous, often both. People want to believe that the thing they like is safe, but every drug that can do anything is dangerous. That's the whole idea, a drug is a lever to make change, not a magical "make everything better" solution. You push the lever too far and you get things you don't want. It's not just temporary psychosis (which sometimes isn't so temporary). It can trigger major changes in personality, or latent mental illnesses which tend to only manifest with a push (schizophrenia is one). It's not a coincidence that psychedelics have been used in religious ceremonies throughout human history. They can give people religion, and without direction they can turn people into troubling zealots for just about anything (and often the drug itself). People who experienced this and became cultural icons are part of the reason they got banned. (turn on, tune in, drop out) There is even a considerable group that want to re-name psychedelics to "entheogens" which has a rough etymology of "to put god into". I have personally felt this and it scared the fuck out of me.
  - totesraunch 5y ago
    Every single thing humans do and consume is 'potentially dangerous'. Existence is dangerous.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      If you extend the definition of the word or phrase to apply to everything it is meaningless and might as well not be used. That is not how I am using it.
  - stadium 5y ago
    > With drugs you get two choices: ineffective or potentially dangerous, often both. What type of drugs? Pharmaceutical or recreational? Natural or man-made? Taken to escape or numb, or with respect and gratitude? Abused or moderated? There is a wide spectrum of outcomes when consuming any substance. Many more than two. > They can give people religion, and without direction they can turn people into troubling zealots for just about anything (and often the drug itself) Religion, politics, or any belief system can breed this without drugs. Selling salvation or enlightenment by taking a substance attracts the emotionally vulnerable. And wouldn't that actually decrease if they could be taken by anyone in a safe and controlled environment alongside a licenced therapist, instead of underground? What are you advocating for or against? I'm genuinely interested, I sense fear and worry in what you wrote but don't really understand the point you are trying to make.