14 ms·

It seems there are plenty of unsuccessful "consciousness-tinkerers" out there: - friends and people you've met who fell off the radar, some came back and now s

It seems there are plenty of unsuccessful "consciousness-tinkerers" out there: - friends and people you've met who fell off the radar, some came back and now speak negatively about their past drug use - plenty of homeless drug users in big city streets, clearly in a bad state of mind - dead celebrities, their path documented by the media So I have a hard time understanding how these articles downplay the risks and downsides, why they even pop up on HN and are so well received. On Fentanyl the straw man is "carpet bombing Mexico", the only alternative cheaper and more dangerous versions of this drug? That sounds a little tone-deaf. It's one thing if you are well-established in life and experiment with a mushrooms from a trusted source under expert guidance - may you become a better fin-de-siècle poet. But opening the floodgates to the general public even more? Can't be good.

bagacrap 3y ago
You know it's not possible to die from shrooms right? All drugs are not heroine.
pantalaimon 3y ago
Opioids are the most dangerous as they go straight to satisfy your deepest desires like nothing else, anyone can fall for them. I feel it takes a certain kind of person to get hooked on stimulants, I just find them rather boring. Those are also drugs that can be rather subtle, so it’s possible to integrate them into daily life which makes starting an African easy. Psychedelics on the other hand are much too intense of an experience to take casually, those truly let you tinker with consciousness. Most people will take them a couple of times a year at most and are fine.
- danielbln 3y ago
  Psychdelics are only intense and borderline overwhelming with a high dose, at low/micro doses they have a very different effect/expression. That's why microdosing is a thing, and why the term "museum dose" exists.
  - spoiler 3y ago
    There's some research that shows that microdosing psilocybin isn't nearly (or at all) as effective as taking a regular dose. "Heroic" doses seem most promising from the neurological/neuroplasticity aspect, but yeah they can be... Quite something (even when you take care of S&S).
  - grugagag 3y ago
    Never heard of the museum dose term. Can you share your experience?
    - morog 3y ago
      Museum dose is somewhere between art gallery dose and planetarium dose. Under forest explorer dose and way under isolated beach dose.
    - danielbln 3y ago
      At least in the LSD world it is said that 10mcg is a microdose, 20-50mcg is a museum dose (meaning, you can appreciate and navigate a museum while being acutely affected by the effects of the psychedelic, but not to a degree that it's overwhelming/debilitating. Anything north of 100mcg is a "proper" recreational dose, and a heroic dose I believe is anything from 300mcg upwards (very dependant on person, experience, tolerance).
- FeteCommuniste 3y ago
  What does "starting an African" mean?
  - pantalaimon 3y ago
    It should mean "starting an addiction" but auto-correct decided otherwise :/
explorer83 3y ago
The short term effects of many drugs seem harmless. Because they seem harmless, it makes the anti-drug messaging seem overblown. It's usually too late once the long term effects are noticed. I wish there was a better way to get that message through other than experience.
- grugagag 3y ago
  Moderation is key. But there’s a scale to moderation that has to be learned as well.
- cmh89 3y ago
  >I wish there was a better way to get that message through other than experience. There is, puritanical American culture just wont do it. Abstinence only education, whether for sex or drug consumption doesn't work. It's completely viable to talk to kids about risk factors for different drugs. When I was growing up they acted like marijuana and heroin were the same risk factors. 'Drugs are fun until they aren't' is something kids can understand. We should also talk about how people are different and some people can do recreational drugs and never have a problem and others can do the same amounts of drugs at first and develop an addiction.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Except abstinence education is shown to delay sexual activity [0] (and possibly drug activity). Normalizing potentially dangerous behavior under the assumption that it can be safer is not a replacement for saying you probably shouldn’t do it until you’re able to understand and handle the consequences. 0 - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/382798 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
    - cmh89 3y ago
      Basing anything on one social experiment is not wise. “The weight of scientific evidence shows these programs do not help young people delay initiation of sexual intercourse,” says co-author John Santelli, professor of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School. “While abstinence is theoretically effective, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail. These programs simply do not prepare young people to avoid unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.” [0][1] Further, abstinence only sex education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy rates "After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. "[2] Informing youth about the realistic outcomes of actions, whether its sex or taking drugs, is going to be a lot more effective than just telling them not to do it. [0]https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-e... [1]https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30297-5/fulltext https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30297-5/full... [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
> But opening the floodgates to the general public even more? Can't be good. At least historically it hasn't been true[1][2]. In fact I had used nicotine gums which are easily available as OTC drug in the past to help cure my smoking addiction. Obviously I think there are certain kind of junkies who would exploit legalization and do significantly more harm to themselves than good, but they are likely doing it now anyways. Most drug users I know of do consciously care about addiction potential. [1]: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2023/01/24/gateway-drug-no-more-study-shows-legalizing-recreational-cannabis-does-not-increase https://www.colorado.edu/today/2023/01/24/gateway-drug-no-mo... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
thr_msc 3y ago
Ironically enough this is exactly what the tone for drugs was in the early mid sixties. Then the summer of love happened and people couldn't ignore tweens whoring themselves out for smack because they expanded their consciousness first. Look at the size of the average American. They can't handle cheese responsibly. But we're supposed to think that now they'll manage acid?
- silveraxe93 3y ago
  Have you ever done acid? If you want to reduce drug use, you should legalise LSD and make it easy to buy. Your average American that "can't handle cheese responsibly" will try it once, have a terrible 12h and swear off drugs for life. With no long term health effects from one dose.
  - BasedAnon 3y ago
    >Your average American that "can't handle cheese responsibly" will try it once, have a terrible 12h and swear off drugs for life You severely underestimate how much most people want to escape their lives, even if the experience is negative. It's silly to act like people don't self-harm.
    - silveraxe93 3y ago
      If they want to escape their lives they'll just become an alcoholic. I'm not denying that people will self-harm. But the argument that people will self-harm with LSD needs to ignore that there's plenty of better drugs legalised already
      - BasedAnon 3y ago
        Alcohol is much worse than LSD
        soligern 3y ago
        In a way. It has much worse physical outcomes over the long term especially if you’re drinking humongous amounts. However, alcohol/nicotine etc. don’t change your modality of thought processes or your underlying perspectives on life. Anecdotally from that perspective LSD is way, way more destructive. It can reconstruct you as a shell of the person you were, and very quickly. I’ve seen it happen so many times and anyone arguing the alcohol is worse than LSD is missing the forest for the tree.
reddit_refugee3 3y ago
Many (not all) of those things were results of the criminalization of drugs, as well as our refusal to take care of people with mental health issues. Most overdoses could be avoided by knowing exactly what you're taking, at what dose, and maybe even under supervision (like at safe injection sites; places that have gone years without a single person dying on premises). The homeless people thing is a failure of our healthcare and housing systems. Fentanyl only exists on the black market because drugs are illegal. Fentanyl is kind of a shit high compared to other opioids, it's only a problem because dealers are cutting their illegal drugs with it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- DrThunder 3y ago
  Addiction is the root issue, not overdosing. It's not enough to just stop people from dying, you need to actually give them quality of life. "The homeless people thing is a failure of our healthcare and housing systems." This is the result of drug addiction not the cause. "Many (not all) of those things were results of the criminalization of drugs" Don't agree, alcohol is perfectly legal and one of highest percentage addictions there is. Opioids are a legal prescription and also out of control.
  - randomNumber7 3y ago
    Yes, but often the root issue of addiction is mental health issues (and not only the drug itself). There are many people who occasionaly take drugs without strong addiction. It depends a bit on the drug to be fair. Like you cant "occasionaly" smoke cigarettes, either you are addicted or not. You can occasionaly drink a beer and not become an alcoholic. The people who become alcoholics almost always have some personal problems / mental health issues as a trigger. But the world wide drug policy doesnt make any sense, because even a "evil" and highly addictive drug like cocaine is actually less addicting than smoking.
derbOac 3y ago
So, I had a similar reaction. I'm about as libertarian as you can get with drug regulation, but found it odd that the article seemed to ignore the public health risk management arguments for drug regulation. Still, we allow plenty of dangerous things to go unregulated, or far less regulated than drug use. Alcohol use is a glaring example, but you could go through a litany of things that US society legally allows that are very risky: guns, motorcycles, chainsaws, BASE jumping, various chemical cleaners and solvents, all kinds of sexual behavior, and so forth and so on. Yes there are some that develop serious drug problems from use per se, but most do not, and those that do often (although not always) tend to be polyusers in the sense that if you look at their problems, it's often difficult to attribute it to a specific substance. So empirically there's a stretch to go from any use, to use of a specific substance, to such irreparable harm that it should be made illegal. There's also many other mechanisms society has for regulating drug use, like revocation of rights due to incompetence in decision making (legally speaking), and so forth. This isn't even getting into our hubris in uncertainty about potential benefits of substances, as manifested by changes in public discourse around psychedelics over the last century. Seen from this perspective, the article might have a point about drugs being treated differently, as if by absence of discussion, the author is implicitly asserting that risk management is not actually the issue. But I still think the article would have been more effective by making that argument explicitly. Then again maybe the author just thought public health risk management was a different, additional issue.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
>It seems there are plenty of unsuccessful "consciousness-tinkerers" out there: do you have some sort of stats in relation to successful ones?
yboris 3y ago
My favorite book on the subject: Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Douglas Husak The author argues that all drugs should be decriminalized. The TL;DR argument: going to jail is the worst thing the state does to a person so it needs to have an explanation of why. No rationalization can be given for the case of putting a person (user or "in possession of a drug") to jail. https://www.versobooks.com/products/1795-legalize-this https://www.versobooks.com/products/1795-legalize-this This doesn't argue that doing drugs is a good idea, but we certainly, as a society, should not put people to jail (or even give fines for that matter).
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  I’m absolutely in favor of legalizing all recreational drugs, and selling them the same way we do liquor or tobacco to adults. I also think that advertising any of them (including alcohol and tobacco) should be banned. Allow, but don’t encourage.
lazide 3y ago
For the same reason you’ll see articles talking about bar hopping, or glamorizing womanizing (less common now), or the latest celebrity shitshow, or travel to exotic locations. People like escapism and excitement and feeling good in the moment. People like to think they’re special and they’d never suffer the negative consequences. And, truthfully - most of them do escape the negative consequences. Either by reading and not doing, or by doing and not being the problem cases, or by being lucky. How many/what proportion varies by the activity of course. And so People click on it. And hence articles get read. And journalists write more articles, and the Overton window shifts. Eventually, societal backlash occurs, or it becomes normal, or it gets boring and folks find something else novel to chase.
headcanon 3y ago
The main societal issue is that we've conflated a public health issue with a criminal one, and created a system of perverse incentives and propaganda that ensures that it remains a criminal one. When a drug user is labeled a "criminal" by the state, the role of the state changes from "helping them recover and rehabilitate" to "punish and contain", which helps nobody. Yes we have rehab programs, yes we have non-prison methods for non-violent offenders, but getting the "better" end of the legal system requires the privilege of a good lawyer and knowledge of how to navigate a system that is effectively predatory without one. You have not said they should be criminalized, but too often the idea "Drugs can be harmful" is followed by "Drug use should be criminalized". Another point is that not all drugs are the same. Fentanyl is a very different drug than, say, psychedelics, and should be treated as such. A lot of that is also part of the culture of criminalization, where we treat all "illegal" drugs as the same thing, consumed by the same dehumanized "criminals" for the same hedonistic purposes. Which is totally different than "momma's little helper" that some billionaire convinced her doctor to prescribe her. By the same token, Adderall is a different drug than MDMA, but somehow one of them I'll definitely go to jail for possessing, the other I can get a doctor to prescribe to me.

bagacrap 3y ago

You know it's not possible to die from shrooms right? All drugs are not heroine.

pantalaimon 3y ago

Opioids are the most dangerous as they go straight to satisfy your deepest desires like nothing else, anyone can fall for them. I feel it takes a certain kind of person to get hooked on stimulants, I just find them rather boring. Those are also drugs that can be rather subtle, so it’s possible to integrate them into daily life which makes starting an African easy. Psychedelics on the other hand are much too intense of an experience to take casually, those truly let you tinker with consciousness. Most people will take them a couple of times a year at most and are fine.

danielbln 3y ago
Psychdelics are only intense and borderline overwhelming with a high dose, at low/micro doses they have a very different effect/expression. That's why microdosing is a thing, and why the term "museum dose" exists.
- spoiler 3y ago
  There's some research that shows that microdosing psilocybin isn't nearly (or at all) as effective as taking a regular dose. "Heroic" doses seem most promising from the neurological/neuroplasticity aspect, but yeah they can be... Quite something (even when you take care of S&S).
- grugagag 3y ago
  Never heard of the museum dose term. Can you share your experience?
  - morog 3y ago
    Museum dose is somewhere between art gallery dose and planetarium dose. Under forest explorer dose and way under isolated beach dose.
  - danielbln 3y ago
    At least in the LSD world it is said that 10mcg is a microdose, 20-50mcg is a museum dose (meaning, you can appreciate and navigate a museum while being acutely affected by the effects of the psychedelic, but not to a degree that it's overwhelming/debilitating. Anything north of 100mcg is a "proper" recreational dose, and a heroic dose I believe is anything from 300mcg upwards (very dependant on person, experience, tolerance).
FeteCommuniste 3y ago
What does "starting an African" mean?
- pantalaimon 3y ago
  It should mean "starting an addiction" but auto-correct decided otherwise :/

explorer83 3y ago

The short term effects of many drugs seem harmless. Because they seem harmless, it makes the anti-drug messaging seem overblown. It's usually too late once the long term effects are noticed. I wish there was a better way to get that message through other than experience.

grugagag 3y ago
Moderation is key. But there’s a scale to moderation that has to be learned as well.
cmh89 3y ago
>I wish there was a better way to get that message through other than experience. There is, puritanical American culture just wont do it. Abstinence only education, whether for sex or drug consumption doesn't work. It's completely viable to talk to kids about risk factors for different drugs. When I was growing up they acted like marijuana and heroin were the same risk factors. 'Drugs are fun until they aren't' is something kids can understand. We should also talk about how people are different and some people can do recreational drugs and never have a problem and others can do the same amounts of drugs at first and develop an addiction.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Except abstinence education is shown to delay sexual activity [0] (and possibly drug activity). Normalizing potentially dangerous behavior under the assumption that it can be safer is not a replacement for saying you probably shouldn’t do it until you’re able to understand and handle the consequences. 0 - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/382798 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
  - cmh89 3y ago
    Basing anything on one social experiment is not wise. “The weight of scientific evidence shows these programs do not help young people delay initiation of sexual intercourse,” says co-author John Santelli, professor of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School. “While abstinence is theoretically effective, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail. These programs simply do not prepare young people to avoid unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.” [0][1] Further, abstinence only sex education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy rates "After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. "[2] Informing youth about the realistic outcomes of actions, whether its sex or taking drugs, is going to be a lot more effective than just telling them not to do it. [0]https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-e... [1]https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30297-5/fulltext https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30297-5/full... [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

> But opening the floodgates to the general public even more? Can't be good. At least historically it hasn't been true[1][2]. In fact I had used nicotine gums which are easily available as OTC drug in the past to help cure my smoking addiction. Obviously I think there are certain kind of junkies who would exploit legalization and do significantly more harm to themselves than good, but they are likely doing it now anyways. Most drug users I know of do consciously care about addiction potential. [1]: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2023/01/24/gateway-drug-no-more-study-shows-legalizing-recreational-cannabis-does-not-increase https://www.colorado.edu/today/2023/01/24/gateway-drug-no-mo... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

thr_msc 3y ago

Ironically enough this is exactly what the tone for drugs was in the early mid sixties. Then the summer of love happened and people couldn't ignore tweens whoring themselves out for smack because they expanded their consciousness first. Look at the size of the average American. They can't handle cheese responsibly. But we're supposed to think that now they'll manage acid?

silveraxe93 3y ago
Have you ever done acid? If you want to reduce drug use, you should legalise LSD and make it easy to buy. Your average American that "can't handle cheese responsibly" will try it once, have a terrible 12h and swear off drugs for life. With no long term health effects from one dose.
- BasedAnon 3y ago
  >Your average American that "can't handle cheese responsibly" will try it once, have a terrible 12h and swear off drugs for life You severely underestimate how much most people want to escape their lives, even if the experience is negative. It's silly to act like people don't self-harm.
  - silveraxe93 3y ago
    If they want to escape their lives they'll just become an alcoholic. I'm not denying that people will self-harm. But the argument that people will self-harm with LSD needs to ignore that there's plenty of better drugs legalised already
    - BasedAnon 3y ago
      Alcohol is much worse than LSD
      - soligern 3y ago
        In a way. It has much worse physical outcomes over the long term especially if you’re drinking humongous amounts. However, alcohol/nicotine etc. don’t change your modality of thought processes or your underlying perspectives on life. Anecdotally from that perspective LSD is way, way more destructive. It can reconstruct you as a shell of the person you were, and very quickly. I’ve seen it happen so many times and anyone arguing the alcohol is worse than LSD is missing the forest for the tree.

reddit_refugee3 3y ago

Many (not all) of those things were results of the criminalization of drugs, as well as our refusal to take care of people with mental health issues. Most overdoses could be avoided by knowing exactly what you're taking, at what dose, and maybe even under supervision (like at safe injection sites; places that have gone years without a single person dying on premises). The homeless people thing is a failure of our healthcare and housing systems. Fentanyl only exists on the black market because drugs are illegal. Fentanyl is kind of a shit high compared to other opioids, it's only a problem because dealers are cutting their illegal drugs with it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DrThunder 3y ago
Addiction is the root issue, not overdosing. It's not enough to just stop people from dying, you need to actually give them quality of life. "The homeless people thing is a failure of our healthcare and housing systems." This is the result of drug addiction not the cause. "Many (not all) of those things were results of the criminalization of drugs" Don't agree, alcohol is perfectly legal and one of highest percentage addictions there is. Opioids are a legal prescription and also out of control.
- randomNumber7 3y ago
  Yes, but often the root issue of addiction is mental health issues (and not only the drug itself). There are many people who occasionaly take drugs without strong addiction. It depends a bit on the drug to be fair. Like you cant "occasionaly" smoke cigarettes, either you are addicted or not. You can occasionaly drink a beer and not become an alcoholic. The people who become alcoholics almost always have some personal problems / mental health issues as a trigger. But the world wide drug policy doesnt make any sense, because even a "evil" and highly addictive drug like cocaine is actually less addicting than smoking.

derbOac 3y ago

So, I had a similar reaction. I'm about as libertarian as you can get with drug regulation, but found it odd that the article seemed to ignore the public health risk management arguments for drug regulation. Still, we allow plenty of dangerous things to go unregulated, or far less regulated than drug use. Alcohol use is a glaring example, but you could go through a litany of things that US society legally allows that are very risky: guns, motorcycles, chainsaws, BASE jumping, various chemical cleaners and solvents, all kinds of sexual behavior, and so forth and so on. Yes there are some that develop serious drug problems from use per se, but most do not, and those that do often (although not always) tend to be polyusers in the sense that if you look at their problems, it's often difficult to attribute it to a specific substance. So empirically there's a stretch to go from any use, to use of a specific substance, to such irreparable harm that it should be made illegal. There's also many other mechanisms society has for regulating drug use, like revocation of rights due to incompetence in decision making (legally speaking), and so forth. This isn't even getting into our hubris in uncertainty about potential benefits of substances, as manifested by changes in public discourse around psychedelics over the last century. Seen from this perspective, the article might have a point about drugs being treated differently, as if by absence of discussion, the author is implicitly asserting that risk management is not actually the issue. But I still think the article would have been more effective by making that argument explicitly. Then again maybe the author just thought public health risk management was a different, additional issue.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

>It seems there are plenty of unsuccessful "consciousness-tinkerers" out there: do you have some sort of stats in relation to successful ones?

yboris 3y ago

My favorite book on the subject: Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Douglas Husak The author argues that all drugs should be decriminalized. The TL;DR argument: going to jail is the worst thing the state does to a person so it needs to have an explanation of why. No rationalization can be given for the case of putting a person (user or "in possession of a drug") to jail. https://www.versobooks.com/products/1795-legalize-this https://www.versobooks.com/products/1795-legalize-this This doesn't argue that doing drugs is a good idea, but we certainly, as a society, should not put people to jail (or even give fines for that matter).

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I’m absolutely in favor of legalizing all recreational drugs, and selling them the same way we do liquor or tobacco to adults. I also think that advertising any of them (including alcohol and tobacco) should be banned. Allow, but don’t encourage.

lazide 3y ago

For the same reason you’ll see articles talking about bar hopping, or glamorizing womanizing (less common now), or the latest celebrity shitshow, or travel to exotic locations. People like escapism and excitement and feeling good in the moment. People like to think they’re special and they’d never suffer the negative consequences. And, truthfully - most of them do escape the negative consequences. Either by reading and not doing, or by doing and not being the problem cases, or by being lucky. How many/what proportion varies by the activity of course. And so People click on it. And hence articles get read. And journalists write more articles, and the Overton window shifts. Eventually, societal backlash occurs, or it becomes normal, or it gets boring and folks find something else novel to chase.

headcanon 3y ago

The main societal issue is that we've conflated a public health issue with a criminal one, and created a system of perverse incentives and propaganda that ensures that it remains a criminal one. When a drug user is labeled a "criminal" by the state, the role of the state changes from "helping them recover and rehabilitate" to "punish and contain", which helps nobody. Yes we have rehab programs, yes we have non-prison methods for non-violent offenders, but getting the "better" end of the legal system requires the privilege of a good lawyer and knowledge of how to navigate a system that is effectively predatory without one. You have not said they should be criminalized, but too often the idea "Drugs can be harmful" is followed by "Drug use should be criminalized". Another point is that not all drugs are the same. Fentanyl is a very different drug than, say, psychedelics, and should be treated as such. A lot of that is also part of the culture of criminalization, where we treat all "illegal" drugs as the same thing, consumed by the same dehumanized "criminals" for the same hedonistic purposes. Which is totally different than "momma's little helper" that some billionaire convinced her doctor to prescribe her. By the same token, Adderall is a different drug than MDMA, but somehow one of them I'll definitely go to jail for possessing, the other I can get a doctor to prescribe to me.