8 ms·

I'm the author of the OP. Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. I also wanted to flag that if anyone is interested in some of the historical so

I'm the author of the OP. Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. I also wanted to flag that if anyone is interested in some of the historical sources I cite here (such as the Jesuit talking about ayahuasca in the 18th century) I go into more detail in this journal article, which is open access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/failed-globalization-of-psychedelic-drugs-in-the-early-modern-world/6ADA9DE0F3FAC7E18591C7A96A53AA58 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/a...

ImAnAmateur 3y ago
I've got a question for you. Some people are very carefree with their use of psychoactive drugs. I'd say nearly everyone I've ever seen post online about trying mushrooms, LSD, etc. has done it for fun (or the experience) instead of spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons. What risks are they exposing themselves to? I'd hate to have a friend hurt themselves.
- colecut 3y ago
  I would imagine the same risks as someone doing it for spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    Right, I'm confused what they are trying to accomplish gatekeeping others intent.
    - ImAnAmateur 3y ago
      How is that gatekeeping? I'm trying to ask about what the risks are for people who take it at a party or a festival or at home for fun. >Psychedelics like psilocybin have a remarkably benign safety profile relative to other Schedule One drugs, not to mention very different social, cultural and historical roles. Lumping psychedelics together with powerful opioids like fentanyl misdirects resources, diminishes buy-in from the public and undercuts the legitimacy of federal drug laws. The author of the article does not specify what risks these drugs have. Simply that they are relatively less dangerous than synthetic opioids.
      - otherme123 3y ago
        There are some studies, and LSD is quite safe. Way safer than alcohol, for example. But being on a very tight Schedule I (like MDMA, also quite safe), worse even than morphine, good luck researching the risks. It's a catch 22: we don't know the risks, so we ban studies about the substance. We don't have studies about the risks, so we cannot unban it. When LSD was liberally consumed (1960's), there were almost no deaths related to it. And the very few reports are suspiciously "suicides" or "near suicides", which all of them seems to be accidents while tripping, like any drunk commit everyday (and not like LSD makes you suicidal by choice). More serious reports have found zero deaths directly linked with LSD toxicity: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408722/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408722/
        emptysongglass 3y ago
        MDMA is not quite safe. We have decades of research to prove otherwise now. r/DrugNerds have been putting out study after study pointing this out. The protocols required and safety measures for how often to dose are not what folks are going to be doing generally. It is neurotoxic. LSD on the other hand, yes quite safe (and even good) for your brain, unless you're prone to mental illness or currently suffering from mental illness.
        resolutebat 3y ago
        MDMA is also addictive, because it makes you feel good (it's not called "ecstasy" for nothing), and builds tolerance rapidly, so you need to keep increasing the dose. No, it's nowhere near as dangerous as meth/heroin/cocaine, but I have seen people spiral into pretty dangerous usage patterns, including switching to harder drugs when ecstasy isn't cutting it any more and they're stuck in a multi-day depressive withdrawal slump. For all practical purposes, none of this applies to LSD, since trips are much more intense and unpredictable. Although there is a small subset of psychonauts who adopt an extreme sports mindset and intentionally push the envelope by taking larger and larger doses.
        otherme123 3y ago
        Let me put it in another way: safety profile of MDMA is better than lots and lots of other clinically approved drugs. And much safer than substances like alcohol, that are not only neurotoxic but hepatotoxic, carcinogenic, highly addictive and with worse withdrawal. There was a time when MDMA was prescribed to thousands of people, and nobody had a problem. Of course some people will always abuse any substance, we currently have people killing themselves with food or sugar. But the best solution is not to classify it as Schedule I, which in practice is a full ban even for research.
  - nemosaltat 3y ago
    Since we’re speculating. I would imagine like just about all human experience, framing, priming and setting matter quite a lot.
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      Given that, it seems like fun and pleasure are probably safer than medicinal.
      - bozhark 3y ago
        Recreational will happen despite the restrictions. Why not tax it an apply the funds where socially needed?
    - colecut 3y ago
      I agree that set and setting are huge factors in your psychedelics experience. I am 'speculating' but also do have a lot of experience in a variety of psychedelics. I'm not sure where "intent" falls on that spectrum. The vast majority of my experiences have been "for fun" or "for the experience" at music festivals, concerts, or at home.. I have also taken ayahuasca and changa with a shaman. I was doing it "for the experience", but how is that different from someone else who was in the same room as me doing it an attempt to treat depression or anxiety? How would the risks be different? Being an anxious or depressed person in general may increase risk factors of negative experience. This is still not related to intent.
      - bozhark 3y ago
        Anxious or depressed people benefit from the experience more so than someone of speculatively sound mind.
        colecut 3y ago
        I think by the nature of their position, they have more to potentially benefit. But it's totally possible for an anxious person to end up worse.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > What risks are they exposing themselves to? I'd hate to have a friend hurt themselves. Have your friend research Erowid, a place where people have posted all possible sorts of information about mind-altering substances and their risks.
  - ImAnAmateur 3y ago
    That is a good source. I've forgotten about that site for years. Thank you.
- coderintherye 3y ago
  Erowid is a great resource for these sorts of questions: https://erowid.org https://erowid.org In fact they have an answer specific to your question on mushrooms: https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 In short, there is very little risk but whether or not someone should choose to take something should still be an informed choice. As far as risk to life, there's been few or no reported deaths purely due to ingesting psilocybin. However, there are small risks around operating heavy machinery (e.g. driving) after as well as small risks around ensuring you are actually ingesting a safe psilocybe mushroom as opposed to a different toxic mushroom.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think there's a lot more nuance than even that. Many psychedelics can trigger or exacerbate undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life.
    - bozhark 3y ago
      Nah, they don’t cause undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life. Your “trip” is about 6-8 hours on a typical 3.5g dose.
      - kayodelycaon 3y ago
        That’s not what they said, psychedelics can trigger preexisting vulnerabilities to mental disorders. A psychotic break can do enormous damage.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I would recommend reading up on persistent disassociative personality disorders and persistent visual artifacts from psychedelics. Both are rare but well documented side effects of psychedelic usage. I personally know someone who has suffered visual distortions post trip for 20 years and counting at this point.
        3y ago
- bozhark 3y ago
  Caffeine is a psychoactive drug.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    How is that relevant?
  - pillefitz 3y ago
    And for those that can't metabolize it properly, it causes serious issues, from heart problems to chronic sleep deprivation to heavy mood swings and depression that can last months
- hoxtrader 3y ago
  The risks are that one is in a very vulnerable state mentally. The more popular psychedelics become the more bad actors will take advantage of this. A trip sitter is a great idea in theory but just rarely actually happens. The deepest thing I have learned on psychedelics though is that the very idea there are experiences that are "fun" and experiences that are "spiritual" is complete nonsense. The person sitting alone in a room on a spiritual quest of some sort looking down on the person dancing at a rave is an utter fool.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  You know how the end of every pharma ad lists hundreds of possible side effects? Human biology is too hard to predict and everyone is different. Some drugs are fine for 99% but there may be a 1% chance of permanent psychosis for some people - with no current way to predict why. I.e. depending on the drug, the risks can be super high but rare, like BASE jumping.
ttctciyf 3y ago
I'm curious why you're dissatisfied with the organically arrived at "folk taxonomic" category: psychedelics. Are you looking for a new classification in law?
- JadeNB 3y ago
  The article specifically refers not just to the cultural, but also to the legal and medical, thinking about psychedelics.
  - ttctciyf 3y ago
    From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they medicines? Are they religious sacraments? I'm asking why we can't just answer this question with "They are psychedelics".
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". The entire point of categorizing them is to answer questions around: - Should they be sold to take recreationally, like tobacco and alcohol? Should there be limits, like tobacco packaging and taxes, or rules similar to drunk driving? - Or should they only be prescribed by doctors for mental health reasons, and not allowed recreationally or in religious ceremonies? - Or should there be exceptions for certain religious ceremonies as well? Is this open to anyone (so Catholics can invent a ceremony) or only ones that have traditionally used it? Does it require licensing or authorization? By categorizing them, we come to answers on these questions. If they fit into existing categories, we don't have to write many new laws except to state the categories. Or if we decide they don't fit into existing categories, we come up with a new category with its own set of answers and new laws to write, but part of this whole process is determining if that's necessary or not. And even if it is, the name of the label may not be "psychadelics" because we realize there's another set of non-psychadelic compounds that make sense to be included as well (e.g. empathogens like MDMA).
jimbob45 3y ago
Do you have any data on the level of criminality of those on psychedelics versus a control group?
- taneq 3y ago
  I'd imagine technically it's 100% if you're in a district where possession is criminalized.
photochemsyn 3y ago
As far as the cover photo, I don't think ketamine (a replacement for PCP) and MDMA (an analogue of drugs like Adderall (amphetamine class)) qualify as psychedelics. It makes more sense to classify psychedelics as 5-HT2A partial agonists, meaning LSD, psilocybin, DMT and analogs like bufotenin, and mescaline, from a pharmacological perspective. See: (LSD, mescaline, psilocybin) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756147/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756147/ (DMT) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9768567/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9768567/ Ketamine and MDMA in contrast act through different pathways, the former being a dissociative anaesthetic acting via the NMDA receptor, and MDMA acting as much via dopamine receptors (though unlike other amphetamines, it also increases serotonin levels significantly). In popular use, these are so-called party drugs, and users often have no idea what they're taking (amphetamines and ketamine have been commonly sold as MDMA). I don't know why they've been lumped in with true psychedelics so frequently, but they're much more likely to be used recreationally as a replacement for alcohol, cocaine, etc. Secondly, I think naive users should be aware that the true psychedelics are indeed dangerous if not treated with caution and respect, in the same sense that a motorcycle is. Drive a motorcycle too fast, bad things happen. Ingesting a large amount of psychedelics is similar. There are at least two particular dangers: immediately, a psychedelic overdose leaves the user ambulatory, so they can end up falling off cliffs, walking into traffic, and otherwise oblivious to dangerous situations. Secondly, some people have traumatic responses to very large doses of psychedelics that can take months to recover from (dissociation from reality, paranoia, etc.). Still, I think these drugs can be immensely beneficial and people should be able to access them, much as people should be able to drive motorcycles. Perhaps one solution is that they should only be supplied in low dosage packaging (aka microdose amounts), such that people don't accidentally take large doses with the common unfortunate consequences. It's generally not a good idea to think of them as 'recreational' either, although many people are going to use them that way.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  Just because they act through different pathways doesn't mean they're not psychedelics. They're not Tryptamines, sure, but they are psychedelic even if they act differently from "classical hallucinogens" (to borrow a similarly strange term I've read in scientific literature). Salvia is also not a 5-HT2A agonist, does that mean it's not a psychedelic?
cies 3y ago
The categories law has for drugs suck, psychs dont need a new category, they simply need to be unscheduled. Like daffodils.
kodah 3y ago
Would it not be more efficient to challenge the evidence behind current scheduling, much less the standards used in scheduling? Trying to work around a system built by corrupt people is a bit like ignoring pests eating your garden and just making a new garden hoping they won't infest that too.
- NtochkaNzvanova 3y ago
  California and other states already showed with marijuana that if you have enough local popular support, you can legalize drugs and the feds will do nothing. This is especially true right now with Democrats in control of the DoJ. In fact, if you look at cities like San Francisco, all drugs are already de facto decriminalized. CA could legalize LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, ketamine, etc. tomorrow.
  - kodah 3y ago
    I live in Oregon, all drugs already are decriminalized. That doesn't solve a littany of problems and is progress, but albeit with short term thinking. Passing through states that consider what you can buy for $20 at a mom and pop shop a felony is bit more than just problematic. States passing laws relieves their citizens of pressure, but we still need to move drugs entirely to a states right or we need to correct the federal record. State laws also marginalize people who are bound to federal services eg: veterans using the VA. A veteran cannot get ketamine, psilocybin, MDMA, or LSD based treatments or they'll be confused as an addict and dropped from VA plans.
    - carlmr 3y ago
      >dropped from VA plans. This should be illegal, "thank you for your service, where you got PTSD from seeing your friends die, we will reward you with dropping you from your healthcare plan if you self-medicate".
trollied 3y ago
Have you ever tried psychedelics yourself?
asimpletune 3y ago
> Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. Do you know anything in the way of a connection between psychedelics and the Eleusinian Mysteries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries

ImAnAmateur 3y ago

I've got a question for you. Some people are very carefree with their use of psychoactive drugs. I'd say nearly everyone I've ever seen post online about trying mushrooms, LSD, etc. has done it for fun (or the experience) instead of spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons. What risks are they exposing themselves to? I'd hate to have a friend hurt themselves.

colecut 3y ago
I would imagine the same risks as someone doing it for spiritual, psychological, or medicinal reasons
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  Right, I'm confused what they are trying to accomplish gatekeeping others intent.
  - ImAnAmateur 3y ago
    How is that gatekeeping? I'm trying to ask about what the risks are for people who take it at a party or a festival or at home for fun. >Psychedelics like psilocybin have a remarkably benign safety profile relative to other Schedule One drugs, not to mention very different social, cultural and historical roles. Lumping psychedelics together with powerful opioids like fentanyl misdirects resources, diminishes buy-in from the public and undercuts the legitimacy of federal drug laws. The author of the article does not specify what risks these drugs have. Simply that they are relatively less dangerous than synthetic opioids.
    - otherme123 3y ago
      There are some studies, and LSD is quite safe. Way safer than alcohol, for example. But being on a very tight Schedule I (like MDMA, also quite safe), worse even than morphine, good luck researching the risks. It's a catch 22: we don't know the risks, so we ban studies about the substance. We don't have studies about the risks, so we cannot unban it. When LSD was liberally consumed (1960's), there were almost no deaths related to it. And the very few reports are suspiciously "suicides" or "near suicides", which all of them seems to be accidents while tripping, like any drunk commit everyday (and not like LSD makes you suicidal by choice). More serious reports have found zero deaths directly linked with LSD toxicity: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408722/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408722/
      - emptysongglass 3y ago
        MDMA is not quite safe. We have decades of research to prove otherwise now. r/DrugNerds have been putting out study after study pointing this out. The protocols required and safety measures for how often to dose are not what folks are going to be doing generally. It is neurotoxic. LSD on the other hand, yes quite safe (and even good) for your brain, unless you're prone to mental illness or currently suffering from mental illness.
        resolutebat 3y ago
        MDMA is also addictive, because it makes you feel good (it's not called "ecstasy" for nothing), and builds tolerance rapidly, so you need to keep increasing the dose. No, it's nowhere near as dangerous as meth/heroin/cocaine, but I have seen people spiral into pretty dangerous usage patterns, including switching to harder drugs when ecstasy isn't cutting it any more and they're stuck in a multi-day depressive withdrawal slump. For all practical purposes, none of this applies to LSD, since trips are much more intense and unpredictable. Although there is a small subset of psychonauts who adopt an extreme sports mindset and intentionally push the envelope by taking larger and larger doses.
        otherme123 3y ago
        Let me put it in another way: safety profile of MDMA is better than lots and lots of other clinically approved drugs. And much safer than substances like alcohol, that are not only neurotoxic but hepatotoxic, carcinogenic, highly addictive and with worse withdrawal. There was a time when MDMA was prescribed to thousands of people, and nobody had a problem. Of course some people will always abuse any substance, we currently have people killing themselves with food or sugar. But the best solution is not to classify it as Schedule I, which in practice is a full ban even for research.
- nemosaltat 3y ago
  Since we’re speculating. I would imagine like just about all human experience, framing, priming and setting matter quite a lot.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Given that, it seems like fun and pleasure are probably safer than medicinal.
    - bozhark 3y ago
      Recreational will happen despite the restrictions. Why not tax it an apply the funds where socially needed?
  - colecut 3y ago
    I agree that set and setting are huge factors in your psychedelics experience. I am 'speculating' but also do have a lot of experience in a variety of psychedelics. I'm not sure where "intent" falls on that spectrum. The vast majority of my experiences have been "for fun" or "for the experience" at music festivals, concerts, or at home.. I have also taken ayahuasca and changa with a shaman. I was doing it "for the experience", but how is that different from someone else who was in the same room as me doing it an attempt to treat depression or anxiety? How would the risks be different? Being an anxious or depressed person in general may increase risk factors of negative experience. This is still not related to intent.
    - bozhark 3y ago
      Anxious or depressed people benefit from the experience more so than someone of speculatively sound mind.
      - colecut 3y ago
        I think by the nature of their position, they have more to potentially benefit. But it's totally possible for an anxious person to end up worse.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mschuster91 3y ago
> What risks are they exposing themselves to? I'd hate to have a friend hurt themselves. Have your friend research Erowid, a place where people have posted all possible sorts of information about mind-altering substances and their risks.
- ImAnAmateur 3y ago
  That is a good source. I've forgotten about that site for years. Thank you.
coderintherye 3y ago
Erowid is a great resource for these sorts of questions: https://erowid.org https://erowid.org In fact they have an answer specific to your question on mushrooms: https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 In short, there is very little risk but whether or not someone should choose to take something should still be an informed choice. As far as risk to life, there's been few or no reported deaths purely due to ingesting psilocybin. However, there are small risks around operating heavy machinery (e.g. driving) after as well as small risks around ensuring you are actually ingesting a safe psilocybe mushroom as opposed to a different toxic mushroom.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think there's a lot more nuance than even that. Many psychedelics can trigger or exacerbate undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life.
  - bozhark 3y ago
    Nah, they don’t cause undesirable mental conditions that persist for the rest of your life. Your “trip” is about 6-8 hours on a typical 3.5g dose.
    - kayodelycaon 3y ago
      That’s not what they said, psychedelics can trigger preexisting vulnerabilities to mental disorders. A psychotic break can do enormous damage.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I would recommend reading up on persistent disassociative personality disorders and persistent visual artifacts from psychedelics. Both are rare but well documented side effects of psychedelic usage. I personally know someone who has suffered visual distortions post trip for 20 years and counting at this point.
      - 3y ago
bozhark 3y ago
Caffeine is a psychoactive drug.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  How is that relevant?
- pillefitz 3y ago
  And for those that can't metabolize it properly, it causes serious issues, from heart problems to chronic sleep deprivation to heavy mood swings and depression that can last months
hoxtrader 3y ago
The risks are that one is in a very vulnerable state mentally. The more popular psychedelics become the more bad actors will take advantage of this. A trip sitter is a great idea in theory but just rarely actually happens. The deepest thing I have learned on psychedelics though is that the very idea there are experiences that are "fun" and experiences that are "spiritual" is complete nonsense. The person sitting alone in a room on a spiritual quest of some sort looking down on the person dancing at a rave is an utter fool.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
You know how the end of every pharma ad lists hundreds of possible side effects? Human biology is too hard to predict and everyone is different. Some drugs are fine for 99% but there may be a 1% chance of permanent psychosis for some people - with no current way to predict why. I.e. depending on the drug, the risks can be super high but rare, like BASE jumping.

ttctciyf 3y ago

I'm curious why you're dissatisfied with the organically arrived at "folk taxonomic" category: psychedelics. Are you looking for a new classification in law?

JadeNB 3y ago
The article specifically refers not just to the cultural, but also to the legal and medical, thinking about psychedelics.
- ttctciyf 3y ago
  From the article: > this new landscape demands more than just new laws. It also requires a new category for psychedelics. Are they recreational drugs? Are they medicines? Are they religious sacraments? I'm asking why we can't just answer this question with "They are psychedelics".
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Because legally, that's as meaningful as saying "they are quooquaquams". The entire point of categorizing them is to answer questions around: - Should they be sold to take recreationally, like tobacco and alcohol? Should there be limits, like tobacco packaging and taxes, or rules similar to drunk driving? - Or should they only be prescribed by doctors for mental health reasons, and not allowed recreationally or in religious ceremonies? - Or should there be exceptions for certain religious ceremonies as well? Is this open to anyone (so Catholics can invent a ceremony) or only ones that have traditionally used it? Does it require licensing or authorization? By categorizing them, we come to answers on these questions. If they fit into existing categories, we don't have to write many new laws except to state the categories. Or if we decide they don't fit into existing categories, we come up with a new category with its own set of answers and new laws to write, but part of this whole process is determining if that's necessary or not. And even if it is, the name of the label may not be "psychadelics" because we realize there's another set of non-psychadelic compounds that make sense to be included as well (e.g. empathogens like MDMA).

jimbob45 3y ago

Do you have any data on the level of criminality of those on psychedelics versus a control group?

taneq 3y ago
I'd imagine technically it's 100% if you're in a district where possession is criminalized.

photochemsyn 3y ago

As far as the cover photo, I don't think ketamine (a replacement for PCP) and MDMA (an analogue of drugs like Adderall (amphetamine class)) qualify as psychedelics. It makes more sense to classify psychedelics as 5-HT2A partial agonists, meaning LSD, psilocybin, DMT and analogs like bufotenin, and mescaline, from a pharmacological perspective. See: (LSD, mescaline, psilocybin) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756147/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756147/ (DMT) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9768567/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9768567/ Ketamine and MDMA in contrast act through different pathways, the former being a dissociative anaesthetic acting via the NMDA receptor, and MDMA acting as much via dopamine receptors (though unlike other amphetamines, it also increases serotonin levels significantly). In popular use, these are so-called party drugs, and users often have no idea what they're taking (amphetamines and ketamine have been commonly sold as MDMA). I don't know why they've been lumped in with true psychedelics so frequently, but they're much more likely to be used recreationally as a replacement for alcohol, cocaine, etc. Secondly, I think naive users should be aware that the true psychedelics are indeed dangerous if not treated with caution and respect, in the same sense that a motorcycle is. Drive a motorcycle too fast, bad things happen. Ingesting a large amount of psychedelics is similar. There are at least two particular dangers: immediately, a psychedelic overdose leaves the user ambulatory, so they can end up falling off cliffs, walking into traffic, and otherwise oblivious to dangerous situations. Secondly, some people have traumatic responses to very large doses of psychedelics that can take months to recover from (dissociation from reality, paranoia, etc.). Still, I think these drugs can be immensely beneficial and people should be able to access them, much as people should be able to drive motorcycles. Perhaps one solution is that they should only be supplied in low dosage packaging (aka microdose amounts), such that people don't accidentally take large doses with the common unfortunate consequences. It's generally not a good idea to think of them as 'recreational' either, although many people are going to use them that way.

pcthrowaway 3y ago
Just because they act through different pathways doesn't mean they're not psychedelics. They're not Tryptamines, sure, but they are psychedelic even if they act differently from "classical hallucinogens" (to borrow a similarly strange term I've read in scientific literature). Salvia is also not a 5-HT2A agonist, does that mean it's not a psychedelic?

cies 3y ago

The categories law has for drugs suck, psychs dont need a new category, they simply need to be unscheduled. Like daffodils.

kodah 3y ago

Would it not be more efficient to challenge the evidence behind current scheduling, much less the standards used in scheduling? Trying to work around a system built by corrupt people is a bit like ignoring pests eating your garden and just making a new garden hoping they won't infest that too.

NtochkaNzvanova 3y ago
California and other states already showed with marijuana that if you have enough local popular support, you can legalize drugs and the feds will do nothing. This is especially true right now with Democrats in control of the DoJ. In fact, if you look at cities like San Francisco, all drugs are already de facto decriminalized. CA could legalize LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, ketamine, etc. tomorrow.
- kodah 3y ago
  I live in Oregon, all drugs already are decriminalized. That doesn't solve a littany of problems and is progress, but albeit with short term thinking. Passing through states that consider what you can buy for $20 at a mom and pop shop a felony is bit more than just problematic. States passing laws relieves their citizens of pressure, but we still need to move drugs entirely to a states right or we need to correct the federal record. State laws also marginalize people who are bound to federal services eg: veterans using the VA. A veteran cannot get ketamine, psilocybin, MDMA, or LSD based treatments or they'll be confused as an addict and dropped from VA plans.
  - carlmr 3y ago
    >dropped from VA plans. This should be illegal, "thank you for your service, where you got PTSD from seeing your friends die, we will reward you with dropping you from your healthcare plan if you self-medicate".

trollied 3y ago

Have you ever tried psychedelics yourself?

asimpletune 3y ago

> Happy to talk more about the history of psychedelics. Do you know anything in the way of a connection between psychedelics and the Eleusinian Mysteries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries