9 ms·

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, i

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
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        > the decision has to be that person's always I went to great lengths to try to clarify that we are specifically saying there is only overlap because we don't want people to try psychedelics before they are ready. "ready" means when they choose that they want to try it. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote the second-last comment of ours, that was Logan, but I highly doubt he would want to choose for anyone, either. -Emily

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
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      > the decision has to be that person's always I went to great lengths to try to clarify that we are specifically saying there is only overlap because we don't want people to try psychedelics before they are ready. "ready" means when they choose that they want to try it. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote the second-last comment of ours, that was Logan, but I highly doubt he would want to choose for anyone, either. -Emily