4 ms·

Good, I’m supportive. Even if you think psychs are not positive or moral, it’s pure bad faith to use that as a reason to exclude them from research. It’s mind

Good, I’m supportive. Even if you think psychs are not positive or moral, it’s pure bad faith to use that as a reason to exclude them from research. It’s mind boggling that amphetamines, benzos, etc have been common in clinical settings for years, but not organic compounds derived from various fungal species (psilocybe and ergot) both of which have lived alongside us (or vice versa) for centuries if not millennia.

unmole 5y ago
> organic compounds derived from various fungal species (psilocybe and ergot) both of which have lived alongside us (or vice versa) for centuries if not millennia. Why do you think that is relevant?
- standardUser 5y ago
  There is a long history of human consumption of some substances that far surpasses that of modern pharmaceuticals.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Like lead for instance?
    - jokowueu 5y ago
      I believe what is meant here is that there is long term use of such substances so we can be sure if it's safety For example there are studies of very long term Ayahuasca use in certain south American tribes . Blood tests were taken and studied to see it's effects on them. Another one is use of iboga in other tribes in Ghana
    - lrhegeba 5y ago
      good example. due to insufficient knowledge about its effects (no theory regarding matter and its interactions) humans had to go by trial-and-error. which led to bad outcomes like consuming lead, mercury and countless others agains ailments/diseases. so, one could see it as a very long-running clinical phase II(?) trial. so thank you science for not judging morally but giving us explanations and real evidence so we can decide if and for whom it may be appropriate.
- patmorgan23 5y ago
  Co-evolution.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  They are cheap to produce. A couple of grad students working hard for 2 weeks could create enough acid to keep the entire US trippy for a year. Can’t charge exorbitant fees for something trivial to produce.
clusterfish 5y ago
Good, yes. But something being "organic" / "natural" is just a generic content-free talking point to use whenever it fits your agenda. Like you wouldn't be supporting this if these compounds were useful but -gasp- synthetic.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  They are cheap to produce. A couple of grad students working hard for 2 weeks could create enough acid to keep the entire US trippy for a year, assuming they had the blessings of the lab owner and free access to inputs. Can’t charge exorbitant fees for something trivial to produce. I’d probably respond to your tone and assumptions with a string of vulgar invective containing ‘cope’, ‘nerd’, ‘sneed’ etc but I now realize this forum is not the place.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    If by my "assumptions" you meant that you personally are the kind of person whom I would expect to lean on "natural" / "organic" talking point to push your agenda, as opposed to using that trope unknowingly (which seemed like a distinct possibility at the time), then your reaction tells me that would be the right assumption. Although I couldn't care less how much some random anon fits my assumptions, even if I had any.
    - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
      Also by organic I meant the definition from chemistry, not the yuppie bullshit definition.
      - clusterfish 5y ago
        Don't care, it's the same bullshit as yuppies, antivaxxers, druggies, and everyone else using those empty words for their agendas. Heroin, fentanyl, opiates, amphetamines, benzos, are all chemically organic, that doesn't mean shit for how they should or shouldn't be used, neither in research nor medically nor recreationally.
wolverine876 5y ago
> have lived alongside us (or vice versa) for centuries if not millennia Without addressing the overall point, I don't understand this sort of argument for drug legalization, which I hear occasionally. Almost everything on earth has lived alongside us for 200,000 years, but does that affect safety and efficacy? Should we treat people with polonium? Bleed them with leaches? Burn them with fire to get out the bad parts? Eye of newt and toe of frog? I'm not comparing the OP's treatments to those things, I'm saying that being 'natural' isn't correlated with efficacy or safety. Someone said to me recently that there was no point to vaccinations and masks because 'you can't stop nature'. I stop nature pretty well: I stop 'natural' thermodynamics with my insulated clothes and home, I stop entropy by eating, I stop gravity with a parachute and e. coli with a clean food supply. Sure, eventually I'll die, but not today.

unmole 5y ago

> organic compounds derived from various fungal species (psilocybe and ergot) both of which have lived alongside us (or vice versa) for centuries if not millennia. Why do you think that is relevant?

standardUser 5y ago
There is a long history of human consumption of some substances that far surpasses that of modern pharmaceuticals.
- unmole 5y ago
  Like lead for instance?
  - jokowueu 5y ago
    I believe what is meant here is that there is long term use of such substances so we can be sure if it's safety For example there are studies of very long term Ayahuasca use in certain south American tribes . Blood tests were taken and studied to see it's effects on them. Another one is use of iboga in other tribes in Ghana
  - lrhegeba 5y ago
    good example. due to insufficient knowledge about its effects (no theory regarding matter and its interactions) humans had to go by trial-and-error. which led to bad outcomes like consuming lead, mercury and countless others agains ailments/diseases. so, one could see it as a very long-running clinical phase II(?) trial. so thank you science for not judging morally but giving us explanations and real evidence so we can decide if and for whom it may be appropriate.
patmorgan23 5y ago
Co-evolution.
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
They are cheap to produce. A couple of grad students working hard for 2 weeks could create enough acid to keep the entire US trippy for a year. Can’t charge exorbitant fees for something trivial to produce.

clusterfish 5y ago

Good, yes. But something being "organic" / "natural" is just a generic content-free talking point to use whenever it fits your agenda. Like you wouldn't be supporting this if these compounds were useful but -gasp- synthetic.

gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
They are cheap to produce. A couple of grad students working hard for 2 weeks could create enough acid to keep the entire US trippy for a year, assuming they had the blessings of the lab owner and free access to inputs. Can’t charge exorbitant fees for something trivial to produce. I’d probably respond to your tone and assumptions with a string of vulgar invective containing ‘cope’, ‘nerd’, ‘sneed’ etc but I now realize this forum is not the place.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  If by my "assumptions" you meant that you personally are the kind of person whom I would expect to lean on "natural" / "organic" talking point to push your agenda, as opposed to using that trope unknowingly (which seemed like a distinct possibility at the time), then your reaction tells me that would be the right assumption. Although I couldn't care less how much some random anon fits my assumptions, even if I had any.
  - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
    Also by organic I meant the definition from chemistry, not the yuppie bullshit definition.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      Don't care, it's the same bullshit as yuppies, antivaxxers, druggies, and everyone else using those empty words for their agendas. Heroin, fentanyl, opiates, amphetamines, benzos, are all chemically organic, that doesn't mean shit for how they should or shouldn't be used, neither in research nor medically nor recreationally.

wolverine876 5y ago

> have lived alongside us (or vice versa) for centuries if not millennia Without addressing the overall point, I don't understand this sort of argument for drug legalization, which I hear occasionally. Almost everything on earth has lived alongside us for 200,000 years, but does that affect safety and efficacy? Should we treat people with polonium? Bleed them with leaches? Burn them with fire to get out the bad parts? Eye of newt and toe of frog? I'm not comparing the OP's treatments to those things, I'm saying that being 'natural' isn't correlated with efficacy or safety. Someone said to me recently that there was no point to vaccinations and masks because 'you can't stop nature'. I stop nature pretty well: I stop 'natural' thermodynamics with my insulated clothes and home, I stop entropy by eating, I stop gravity with a parachute and e. coli with a clean food supply. Sure, eventually I'll die, but not today.