3 ms·

> , but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects In every HN drug discussion

> , but it also feels like it's being pumped way too hard as curing basically everything with little discussion of the side effects In every HN drug discussion someone always pops up with some claim like this "curing basically everything" and then when askeded to justify it, they go quiet. Informative discussion this isn't, it resembles an anti-drugs agenda being pushed (which in my mind is just as stupid as a pro-drugs agenda). So, can you justify this? Perhaps you can point out 3 comments below which claims they cure everything.

LoganDark 3y ago
Usually this is hyperbole, I doubt that many people believe psychedelics are actually a cure-all. It's more like they just get hyped up a lot, because people who have been through the experience can tend to think very highly of it.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  If I went through the threads I bet I could find a number of such claims of excessive goodness, not backed up by anything. It just feels dishonest, and worse, it unbalances a serious discussion we need to have. Additionally, if those who have been through that experience and think so highly of it (as I have and do, not saying it is necessarily pleasant but it was very valuable), that would tend to be evidence that they might be a good thing. But do those same people to accept there might be a positive? :( Take a guess. We need to have the discussion, and people need to be able to change their minds. But it's just not happening.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    > that would tend to be evidence that they might be a good thing I had written a super long comment weighing the pros and cons of it but lost it because of a keyboard shortcut typo. In hindsight that's probably for the better... I've used LSD about four times and don't regret anything, except for maybe making one of my friends feel really bad by having a breakdown in voice chat... the trip was still worth it in my opinion, but it still hurts a bit that I worried someone so much over it. I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics. I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it, but only once they're actually ready to try it. I absolutely support legalizing them, and giving people the choice to try them. Maybe at a clinic, but importantly also at home. My home is my safe space and my computer is where all my friends are, I wouldn't have wanted to do it in a clinical setting. And I definitely wouldn't have wanted to have to get a prescription for it.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      I strongly incline towards legalisation but I want a proper discussion based on evidence with those who hold a different viewpoint that I can learn from and bounced my ideas off, not simply attempt to shut down the discussion as happens here by some people, by any means they can. > I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it That may well be true but- > I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics - you seem to have just opposed what you said, and it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me. Perhaps you meant something more nuanced.
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        > it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me I'm not Logan, but I can't really see how you came to that conclusion - I'll try to explain. We do think that people who choose not to take the risk of psychedelics are justified in their decision. Even for individuals where psychedelic use could be beneficial, we think it's better for them to wait until the risk is acceptable to them - which may or may not happen. In other words, we think the Venn diagram of "people who are justified in their decision not to take psychedelics right now" and "people who could benefit from psychedelic use" has some overlap, we just don't know how much. We also think that a lot of the people who already use psychedelics or intend to use them can benefit, just like we also recognize that plenty of other users may not benefit for one reason or another. I apologize on Logan's behalf if the original comment was unclear. -Emily (see HN profile for details)
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Our positions are subtly different it seems. I certainly know of some people who I'm sure psychedelics or other drugs would assist greatly, but to me the decision has to be that person's always. To say "I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics" unnerves me because it implies (or I read into it) that your opinion matters in their domain of being able to choose, as adults. To me, even to think that way seems dangerous because the next step is trying to impose it. I'm not saying that you are, it's just given my position that person's choices must be utterly their own[1], that's how it sounded to me. It would simply not cross my mind to think like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. [1] of course, bounded by the damage they can do to other people, that's a very different matter
giantg2 3y ago
I'm not sure how you can read my entire comment and think it resembles anti-drug talk (in the colloquial sense). I would most closely classify it as a warning about pharma in general - both the fads that pop up and the overmarketing that companies like to do (which also affects how people talk about it). I'm not talking about the discussion on HN specifically. I'm also talking about all the startups trying to market psychedelics for a bunch of different reasons. When the article is about how psychedelics are "popular" now, but only about 8% of the population has ever used them, then it feels similar - unsupported/biased optimism or positivity on psychedelics.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  Rereading it I agree, I misunderstood it. I guess this bit got me though "Even if we accept that psychedelics are medicinal, there's still the paradigm that you only take medication when you are sick, and it has to be the right medication too". Taken recreationally, why should you need to take them for any other reason then you enjoy them? With care and moderation of course. By the way I love this bit (commenting on the article, not what you said). "Why wasn’t there a global vogue for eating San Pedro cacti or tripping on morning glory seeds in the same era when global consumers embraced so many other novel drugs?" Try it and find out, just keep a bucket nearby.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Only 8% of people have used them in the last year. The portion of the population that have ever used psychedelics is necessarily greater than that, and given the fact that psychedelics aren't nearly as habit forming as other drugs, that number could be substantially higher. I can't find up-to-date lifetime use rate information for psychedelics, but as of 2013 ~10% of the population had used psychedelics in their lifetime, and that was when the last-year usage was less than 4%.

LoganDark 3y ago

Usually this is hyperbole, I doubt that many people believe psychedelics are actually a cure-all. It's more like they just get hyped up a lot, because people who have been through the experience can tend to think very highly of it.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
If I went through the threads I bet I could find a number of such claims of excessive goodness, not backed up by anything. It just feels dishonest, and worse, it unbalances a serious discussion we need to have. Additionally, if those who have been through that experience and think so highly of it (as I have and do, not saying it is necessarily pleasant but it was very valuable), that would tend to be evidence that they might be a good thing. But do those same people to accept there might be a positive? :( Take a guess. We need to have the discussion, and people need to be able to change their minds. But it's just not happening.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > that would tend to be evidence that they might be a good thing I had written a super long comment weighing the pros and cons of it but lost it because of a keyboard shortcut typo. In hindsight that's probably for the better... I've used LSD about four times and don't regret anything, except for maybe making one of my friends feel really bad by having a breakdown in voice chat... the trip was still worth it in my opinion, but it still hurts a bit that I worried someone so much over it. I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics. I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it, but only once they're actually ready to try it. I absolutely support legalizing them, and giving people the choice to try them. Maybe at a clinic, but importantly also at home. My home is my safe space and my computer is where all my friends are, I wouldn't have wanted to do it in a clinical setting. And I definitely wouldn't have wanted to have to get a prescription for it.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    I strongly incline towards legalisation but I want a proper discussion based on evidence with those who hold a different viewpoint that I can learn from and bounced my ideas off, not simply attempt to shut down the discussion as happens here by some people, by any means they can. > I think there are still tons of people that could benefit from it That may well be true but- > I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics - you seem to have just opposed what you said, and it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me. Perhaps you meant something more nuanced.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      > it sounds as if you're willing to make other adults' decisions for them, which deeply bothers me I'm not Logan, but I can't really see how you came to that conclusion - I'll try to explain. We do think that people who choose not to take the risk of psychedelics are justified in their decision. Even for individuals where psychedelic use could be beneficial, we think it's better for them to wait until the risk is acceptable to them - which may or may not happen. In other words, we think the Venn diagram of "people who are justified in their decision not to take psychedelics right now" and "people who could benefit from psychedelic use" has some overlap, we just don't know how much. We also think that a lot of the people who already use psychedelics or intend to use them can benefit, just like we also recognize that plenty of other users may not benefit for one reason or another. I apologize on Logan's behalf if the original comment was unclear. -Emily (see HN profile for details)
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Our positions are subtly different it seems. I certainly know of some people who I'm sure psychedelics or other drugs would assist greatly, but to me the decision has to be that person's always. To say "I hold the opinion that most people are right not to take psychedelics" unnerves me because it implies (or I read into it) that your opinion matters in their domain of being able to choose, as adults. To me, even to think that way seems dangerous because the next step is trying to impose it. I'm not saying that you are, it's just given my position that person's choices must be utterly their own[1], that's how it sounded to me. It would simply not cross my mind to think like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. [1] of course, bounded by the damage they can do to other people, that's a very different matter

giantg2 3y ago

I'm not sure how you can read my entire comment and think it resembles anti-drug talk (in the colloquial sense). I would most closely classify it as a warning about pharma in general - both the fads that pop up and the overmarketing that companies like to do (which also affects how people talk about it). I'm not talking about the discussion on HN specifically. I'm also talking about all the startups trying to market psychedelics for a bunch of different reasons. When the article is about how psychedelics are "popular" now, but only about 8% of the population has ever used them, then it feels similar - unsupported/biased optimism or positivity on psychedelics.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
Rereading it I agree, I misunderstood it. I guess this bit got me though "Even if we accept that psychedelics are medicinal, there's still the paradigm that you only take medication when you are sick, and it has to be the right medication too". Taken recreationally, why should you need to take them for any other reason then you enjoy them? With care and moderation of course. By the way I love this bit (commenting on the article, not what you said). "Why wasn’t there a global vogue for eating San Pedro cacti or tripping on morning glory seeds in the same era when global consumers embraced so many other novel drugs?" Try it and find out, just keep a bucket nearby.
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Only 8% of people have used them in the last year. The portion of the population that have ever used psychedelics is necessarily greater than that, and given the fact that psychedelics aren't nearly as habit forming as other drugs, that number could be substantially higher. I can't find up-to-date lifetime use rate information for psychedelics, but as of 2013 ~10% of the population had used psychedelics in their lifetime, and that was when the last-year usage was less than 4%.