6 ms·

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.
          • emptysongglass 3y ago
            You're continuing to make bad claims. I'm taking the time to debunk them because the safety of people reading these comments is important to me. MDMA is far more neurotoxic than alcohol. The oxidative stress put on the brain is potent. When you add elevated body temperature, which most folks on MDMA are likely to find themselves experiencing (dancing, hot club, lots of people), the damage climbs precipitously. In primates, damage to the brain has been detected after even single use. If people want to take drugs, that's their prerogative but after “playing” with drugs when I was younger, the only recreational drugs I can recommend are certain psychedelics if people care about their health, physical or mental. You can replace alcohol and ecstasy in many settings with a very low dose of psychedelics and get similar social opening effects with none of the damage of either.
• 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]