> The effects of psychedelics are fundamentally different from the narcotics most people associate with people being "on drugs". I don't mean to provide yet an

> The effects of psychedelics are fundamentally different from the narcotics most people associate with people being "on drugs". I don't mean to provide yet another example of "all Internet arguments are about semantics", but as someone who used to do various drugs, including shrooms and ecstasy, I think you have an uncommon definition of "being on drugs". I most certainly considered myself as being on drugs when I was tripping. And while yes, I think it's helpful to differentiate between drugs that can be strongly physically addicting (cocaine, alcohol, nicotine, opiods, etc.) vs. other drugs that tend not to be physically addicting, I find it amusing how psychedelics are now commonly thought as completely benign, as just "getting in touch with your feelings." To be clear, I pretty much agree, but I'm also not going to deny that I (and many others) could get, for lack of a more scientific term, "completely fucked up" on psychedelics. I actually thought this was a great article (but I admit it's rare for me to find a Matt Levine piece I don't like). It didn't really appear to be "taking sides" on the issue, just informing what's going on, and I enjoyed the style of writing.