7 ms·

As if the city wasn't bad enough, I guess they would rather let people get hooked on even more drugs instead of fix anything. Maybe if they are high enough the

• babyshake 4y ago
  There are some problems with psilocybin and ayahuasca but "getting hooked" isn't really one of them.
• wmichelin 4y ago
  Have you ever tried psychedelics? What makes you think they're problematic? I'm sure opiates are the primary driver of many of the problems in San Francisco, combined with a failure to charge anyone with petty property crimes. Drug prohibition doesn't work and just hurts the wrong people.
  • anon291 4y ago
    Psychedelics can induce schizophrenia, as most mind altering drugs can. The stronger the drug, the more capable. From https://www.psychedelicsdaily.com/faq/can-a-bad-trip-cause-schizophrenia/ https://www.psychedelicsdaily.com/faq/can-a-bad-trip-cause-s... > Research has shown that the use of LSD can trigger the onset of schizophrenia in people prone to schizophrenia. People who use LSD are more likely than anyone else with a psychotic disorder to consume it over a period of more than a few days at a time. I am an educated adult who understands my family's history of schizo means that these drugs are no gos for me. It's just not worth it. However, I worry that teenagers and such in their developmental years will experiment. The way these drugs are marketed by true believers you'd think they're a cure all. However, in some people they cause long-lasting, even permanent effects. A significant number of people taking psychedelics experience symptoms for years after. This is a very bad change to make to one's psyche that calls one ability to reason and decide into question. These drugs should not be encouraged.
    • nh23423fefe 4y ago
    • jlmorton 4y ago
      That link makes claims not backed up by any sources it links to that are accessible online. If you follow the chain, it eventually gets to a book unavailable online, but I am skeptical. Other research has shown no link between psychedelics and psychosis. [1] This same [1] article discusses old research which may have shown a link, and speculates that the wide prevalence of various psychotic disorders may have led to spurious findings. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
      • adnzzzzZ 4y ago
        Sorry, but I'm just going to trust my own observations of reality over some random paper. It's plainly obvious that these drugs trigger schizophrenia and other mental illnesses in a percentage of people who use them. Sometimes all it takes is a single use even. If you haven't met people who have had this happen to them then I advise you to search online for people's stories since it's not that hard to find them.
        • deadbeeves 4y ago
          However, what's unknown is whether people who develop schizophrenia due to psychedelic use wouldn't have developed it anyway for some other reason. Latent schizophrenia can be triggered by things such as stress. Besides, it's not like even given this there's no way to consume the substances safely. A simple method is to way until 25-30 years of age. Since schizophrenia most commonly develops during a person's teenage years through to early adulthood, a person who hasn't developed it by 30 probably will never develop it.
          • adnzzzzZ 4y ago
            If you're prone to it (family with history of mental illnesses) you shouldn't use it no matter your age. Why risk it? Something like schizophrenia is no joke and ruins your life completely. And if you don't find meds that work for you you literally can't fix it and go back to normal.
• pigtailgirl 4y ago
  -- the idea of getting "hooked" on psychedelics is - frankly - laughable - primarily because - well - they're not physiologically addictive - and additionally - because they're medically used to treat addiction -- https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/classic-psychedelics-arent-addictive https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/classic-psychedelics...
  • Invictus0 4y ago
    I'm appalled by your hyphen usage
    • matrix12 4y ago
      Especially the joined hyphens, they represent marriage. And as in bash, means the end of options, and the beginning of arguments.
      • pessimizer 4y ago
        "em-dash" is the word you're looking for. I like it, it's like Céline or Bukowski were forum commenters.
    • panzagl 4y ago
      Psychedelics aren't addictive- hyphens are.
  • borski 4y ago
    To be fair, while they are definitely not physiologically addictive, they can be psychologically or emotionally addictive. (I agree with you, but I think all too often people talk about addiction as if it is solely physical; emotional dependence is a real thing too)
  • mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
    thats why people never get addicted, oh wait people abuse them habitually all the time. drugs of any kind are addictive, infact even mere behaviors are addictive let alone drugs. Its truly a mark of an individual in denial when they claim their favorite drugs aren't bad for them. yes drugs are bad for you. yes even weed is bad for you and is very addictive. And people always bring up the medical use, but we all know what its going to be primarily used for. We need to treat these drugs like we do other medicine, criminalize it if its not a prescribed one unless its very weak. Its a huge problem if we let people ruin themselves with this garbage under the guise of decriminalizing for medicine, when we already are able to just prescribe them as medicine usually.
• bloppe 4y ago
  Honestly we need more people to believe this to bring this dam rent down
  • kurthr 4y ago
    Exactly! Everyone here should hate this terrible place... why is the rent so damn high? I love the "I just moved here" crowd complaining about how bad things are, and I miss the pre-1999 days when artists could afford to live in the city. Even Oakland is expensive now.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • fosk 4y ago
      I am frankly tired of hearing this non-sense. NYC is more expensive than SF and it is very much a vibrant place. For a decade SF complained about tech and actively drove companies away, because they wanted “their culture” back. Fine, then tech organizations left after covid (and their money left too), and now SF complains that tech organizations are not supporting the city anymore with their money and their employees, and you get entire areas of town (ie: Fidi) which are empty and small business are struggling. Who exactly do you think was supporting the outrageous spending and programs of San Francisco? Artists playing the piano in a bar, or hundreds of millions of dollar in taxes paid by tech and its employees? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Now - finally - we get to see “SF culture” in full force without technology organizations and their employees: meth-addicted zombies with violent outbursts, tents everywhere, human poop and needles, salmonella outbreaks, go ahead and complete the list. Nobody wants to live in a place like this: not the artists, not the families, and now not even tech workers. There are plenty of great cities to go to, why would anybody move to San Francisco and deal with these quality of life problems?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • kurthr 4y ago
• junon 4y ago
  Clearly spoken by someone who has exactly zero exposure to such drugs. For example, they're typically not addictive.
  • mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
    typically not addictive. Anyone who takes them runs the risk of being addicted to the experience hence the abuse of these drugs in the first place. It may not be the same kind of addiction but they still go back time and time again. Furthermore various mental issues can come from them so even if you don't get addicted you can still be harmed. Its a useless past-time thats dangerous and is less fun than other mediums of entertainment. Rather than reduce yourself to an incoherent mess for a while you can spend the money doing basically anything else for a better time. Hang out with friends, travel somewhere in you state or country, play some video games, anything else is better. Its a useless risk that should be banned, other than medical use, to protect society.
    • junon 4y ago
      You don't get addicted to experiences. You get addicted to chemicals. You are approaching a scientific topic from an emotional stance. You cannot do that.
• SpaceL10n 4y ago
  I view this as a pragmatic solution to a common problem amongst law enforcement agencies which is constrained resources. Focusing on the bad drugs and leaving the hippies alone seems like a sound step forward.
• TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  All our problems would be solved if we simply jailed everyone who put the wrong kind of mushrooms on their pizza
• Ixiaus 4y ago
  > Psychedelics (serotonergic hallucinogens) are powerful psychoactive substances that alter perception and mood and affect numerous cognitive processes. They are generally considered physiologically safe and do not lead to dependence or addiction. ... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813425/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813425/ Decriminalizing psychedelics is likely to help with the treatment of mental health problems that often lead people to substance abuse. The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated and harmful. Some substances are certainly dangerous. Psychedelics are not in most cases. Condemning people who are using dangerous substances perpetuates the cycle of shame which keeps people from being able to heal.
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    > The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated and harmful. Sure, once you're already physically addicted, taking the next hit isn't a character flaw. But being willing to take the first hit before you're addicted is absolutely a gigantic character flaw.
    • Ixiaus 4y ago
      No. It is not.
• quickthrowman 4y ago
  Hallucinogens have the lowest addiction potential of any illegal drug, by a large margin.
• cowmix 4y ago
  I was just there for the first time in two years. Based on all the comments here on HN, I expected to walk through a hell-scape. After spending a week, mostly on foot in the city... a lot of this talk seems overblown.
  • systemvoltage 4y ago
    I visit SF occassionally from East Bay. Absolute disaster. Where did you go? I think situation is more dire than it seems in East Bay. Both are succumbing to third-world urban decay and infrastructure rot.
    • novok 4y ago
      It really is area specific, and I think that is on purpose. When there was the superbowl in SF, all of a sudden certain BART stations stopped smelling like piss and homeless population in those areas were not there any more. Tell me where the homeless camps are around the marina or other wealthy neighborhoods of SF with high foot traffic. Suspiciously missing or hard to find... Since it's done on purpose, if SF wanted to actually revitalize their downtown they would lay down the law on their mainline tunnel transit stations, caltrain stations, ferry stations, tourist hotel hot spots and market st like they lay down the law in the marina with it's crazy high foot traffic. Yes it is 'moving the problem around', but at least it makes people feel safe and not nauseated where they enter and exit from SF. I bet one good chunk of why people are not coming back to offices to SF is because the transit safety and cleanliness experience is not good there.
      • systemvoltage 4y ago
        I've had my car broken into 3 times in different parts of SF. Nothing visible anywhere inside the car. They took things like coins and a utility knife from the center console, and once I made the mistake of having a dash cam which was promptly stolen. Never again. Criminals are not localized in SF. They roam around in cars smashing and grabbing.
  • ceeplusplus 4y ago
• StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  Drugs are effectively legal in San Fransisco already. Just walk down the street and take a look around. Psychedelics are not addictive and 99.999% of the people you see walking the streets like zombies are not on psychedelics.