3 ms·

> My problem with the current push for this type of therapy is the requirment that it be done by professionals charging hundreds or thousands of dollars. […] I

> My problem with the current push for this type of therapy is the requirment that it be done by professionals charging hundreds or thousands of dollars. […] I remain resistant to this insertion of the state into what should be my right to use my own mind the way I see fit. It's kind of sad to see that the anti-state libertarian propaganda is working so well: the problem at stake here is not “too much state”, it's that you don't have universal healthcare to pay for these professional bills and keep the rate these guys charge at a decent level. Nobody should be forced to do their own research and risk their health just because therapists are unaffordable.

throwaway59609 3y ago
I live in a state with universal healthcare through mandatory insurance that's 30% of my income. Guess what? The state doesn't recognize this kind of therapy, and the insurance pays out only for whatever the state recognizes (and there is no free market of healthcare insurance), so I have to pay everything out of my pocket. And it costs the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's alright, that's new experimental therapy and it will improve, you might say. Well, they don't even pay anything for my ADHD treatment because the state says adults can't have it, it's children's disease. That's what I get for 30% of my income - nothing. The antistate libertarian "propaganda" is working so well because it's not propaganda but the only way to get treatment. At least they let me pay for the drugs myself, I'd probably kill myself if I couldn't get them just because the state said so.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  First of all, you're moving the goalpost since the conversation was about the cost of professionals, not the availability of treatment. > The antistate libertarian "propaganda" is working so well because it's not propaganda but the only way to get treatment. At least they let me pay for the drugs myself, I'd probably kill myself if I couldn't get them just because the state said so. It only works for the very small fraction that can pay “he equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars” worth of treatment, which means that for pretty much everyone it's literally as if state said that they cannot get them! In the richest country in the world, some people can't even afford drugs that are decades old, call that a way to get treatment.
  - throwaway59609 3y ago
    Yes, indeed. So what's your suggestion? Nobody should get it? Same with the ADHD treatment too? That's also unavailable to many due to the prices - I pay $100/month for the drugs I desperately need, that's 10% or more of income for at least 30% of the local population where I live. I'm not moving any goalpost. The issue is that the state won't pay for the treatment, which includes the professionals who perform it.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > Yes, indeed. So what's your suggestion? Nobody should get it? Same with the ADHD treatment too? No, quite the opposite: everyone should get it, and to get there the affluent should use their money to help this cause, not sidestep the problem for themselves and be fine with the status quo not moving for the commoners.
      - throwaway59609 3y ago
        The affluent are a very, very minor group here. The state policy is not in any way controlled by them. It's the "commoners" and the populist socialist parties they vote for (that have way over 30% of the parliament and lead the government) who want to and do preserve the status quo even though it's actually bad for them. They label the affluent ones, who indeed would like exactly what you're suggesting, as dangerous liberals that will destroy the traditional values of this country. ADHD is a classic example, it's actually being discussed in the media right now - the drugs and therapy are labeled as one of the dangerous liberal ideas, the mainstream suggestion is stricter parenting, which of course includes beating the children - that's a traditional value here as well ("we survived it, they will survive it too", right?). My suggestion to Americans - don't let the "commoners" use the state to capture your healthcare like it happened here. Countries like ours need you to develop new treatments. System like ours will never produce anything and will never move forward without your example. If you adopt this kind of system, the world is fucked.
  - joshuahutt 3y ago
    The GP mentioned cost, but I read it as a philosophical objection to the state forcing its insertion into the activity: > My problem with the current push for this type of therapy is the requirment that it be done by professionals charging hundreds or thousands of dollars. […] I remain resistant to this insertion of the state into what should be my right to use my own mind the way I see fit. I read this as, "I should not be required to use these in a set and setting sanctioned by The State, especially when that set and setting costs thousands of dollars that my needs don't require." You were the one that moved the goalposts, claiming that the lack of universal healthcare is "the problem at stake here." And then when the person helpfully rebutted that point—no, it's not costs, but the fact that universal healthcare isn't a panacea, citing their individual experience—you complain that _they_ are moving the goalposts. At the end of the day, psychedelics sit at the intersection of personal responsibility, medicine, and social order. We can argue whether and how they should be allowed, whether they have medicinal value, and what the impact on society is, at large. But those discussions are orthogonal to the questions about the optimal configuration of medical care and health systems. If you want to wave the banner of universal healthcare, feel free. You might even get some of us to agree with you. But don't come into a political discussion about personal sovereignty and tell people "you don't actually need sovereignty, you just need more state." That's just insulting.
drugstherapy 3y ago
Not OP, but personally I have no problem with people going to licensed therapists to do psychedelic assisted therapy if that's what they feel comfortable with. What I would take issue with is if that becomes the only way to access something like LSD legally. I've only ever taken psychedelics on my own, and while I've done regular talk therapy, I don't think I'd want that experience with a therapist. Taking 100-150ug of LSD at my house while listening to music, meditating, and practicing yoga should be available legally to me if I choose it. It's completely transformed my life for the better.
- joshuahutt 3y ago
  The argument you're replying to is "if healthcare is a right, then you don't need to go other routes." Sort of like, "if you have nothing to hide, why value privacy?" It overlooks the fact that, while these substances are useful in therapeutic contexts, that's not the _only_ value they have. And, even if they were not strictly useful in other contexts, that wouldn't preclude a right to use them "recreationally". So, I totally agree with you. I wish people could separate out complex issues like this into their 3-5 most significant constituent parts. For example: personal sovereignty/freedoms, public health implications, medicinal value, social harm/risk, cultural impact. There are a lot of reasons to be either in favor or opposed to psychedelics, and then on top of that to support strict or permissive controls. To conflate those all into one issue is reductive and it stifles discussion and progress. Sorry for the rant. Just wanted to get these thoughts out.
- cf1241290841 3y ago
  I would go one step further, being a heavily anxious person i dont think i would have had a good time with such a supervised experience. Especially given the giant influence a sitter with his framing can have on your trip. Especially looking at the horrific track record these institutions have with dealing with psychedelics. Saying they know better/best/as the only ones is stretching the suspension of disbelief quite a bit. I am happy to fill out some sort of drug drivers license about knowing the risks and how to deal with them. But there is simply no way in hell i am letting such quacks into my trip. edit: Since there is always the risk of someone taking this the wrong way, let me promise you that on the spectrum of "be all you can be" i am on the better half with a bunch of legal ways to go quite a lot lower at my disposal. Ways that arent closable through legislation. I would suggest focusing on some self improvement instead :)

throwaway59609 3y ago

I live in a state with universal healthcare through mandatory insurance that's 30% of my income. Guess what? The state doesn't recognize this kind of therapy, and the insurance pays out only for whatever the state recognizes (and there is no free market of healthcare insurance), so I have to pay everything out of my pocket. And it costs the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's alright, that's new experimental therapy and it will improve, you might say. Well, they don't even pay anything for my ADHD treatment because the state says adults can't have it, it's children's disease. That's what I get for 30% of my income - nothing. The antistate libertarian "propaganda" is working so well because it's not propaganda but the only way to get treatment. At least they let me pay for the drugs myself, I'd probably kill myself if I couldn't get them just because the state said so.

littlestymaar 3y ago
First of all, you're moving the goalpost since the conversation was about the cost of professionals, not the availability of treatment. > The antistate libertarian "propaganda" is working so well because it's not propaganda but the only way to get treatment. At least they let me pay for the drugs myself, I'd probably kill myself if I couldn't get them just because the state said so. It only works for the very small fraction that can pay “he equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars” worth of treatment, which means that for pretty much everyone it's literally as if state said that they cannot get them! In the richest country in the world, some people can't even afford drugs that are decades old, call that a way to get treatment.
- throwaway59609 3y ago
  Yes, indeed. So what's your suggestion? Nobody should get it? Same with the ADHD treatment too? That's also unavailable to many due to the prices - I pay $100/month for the drugs I desperately need, that's 10% or more of income for at least 30% of the local population where I live. I'm not moving any goalpost. The issue is that the state won't pay for the treatment, which includes the professionals who perform it.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > Yes, indeed. So what's your suggestion? Nobody should get it? Same with the ADHD treatment too? No, quite the opposite: everyone should get it, and to get there the affluent should use their money to help this cause, not sidestep the problem for themselves and be fine with the status quo not moving for the commoners.
    - throwaway59609 3y ago
      The affluent are a very, very minor group here. The state policy is not in any way controlled by them. It's the "commoners" and the populist socialist parties they vote for (that have way over 30% of the parliament and lead the government) who want to and do preserve the status quo even though it's actually bad for them. They label the affluent ones, who indeed would like exactly what you're suggesting, as dangerous liberals that will destroy the traditional values of this country. ADHD is a classic example, it's actually being discussed in the media right now - the drugs and therapy are labeled as one of the dangerous liberal ideas, the mainstream suggestion is stricter parenting, which of course includes beating the children - that's a traditional value here as well ("we survived it, they will survive it too", right?). My suggestion to Americans - don't let the "commoners" use the state to capture your healthcare like it happened here. Countries like ours need you to develop new treatments. System like ours will never produce anything and will never move forward without your example. If you adopt this kind of system, the world is fucked.
- joshuahutt 3y ago
  The GP mentioned cost, but I read it as a philosophical objection to the state forcing its insertion into the activity: > My problem with the current push for this type of therapy is the requirment that it be done by professionals charging hundreds or thousands of dollars. […] I remain resistant to this insertion of the state into what should be my right to use my own mind the way I see fit. I read this as, "I should not be required to use these in a set and setting sanctioned by The State, especially when that set and setting costs thousands of dollars that my needs don't require." You were the one that moved the goalposts, claiming that the lack of universal healthcare is "the problem at stake here." And then when the person helpfully rebutted that point—no, it's not costs, but the fact that universal healthcare isn't a panacea, citing their individual experience—you complain that _they_ are moving the goalposts. At the end of the day, psychedelics sit at the intersection of personal responsibility, medicine, and social order. We can argue whether and how they should be allowed, whether they have medicinal value, and what the impact on society is, at large. But those discussions are orthogonal to the questions about the optimal configuration of medical care and health systems. If you want to wave the banner of universal healthcare, feel free. You might even get some of us to agree with you. But don't come into a political discussion about personal sovereignty and tell people "you don't actually need sovereignty, you just need more state." That's just insulting.

drugstherapy 3y ago

Not OP, but personally I have no problem with people going to licensed therapists to do psychedelic assisted therapy if that's what they feel comfortable with. What I would take issue with is if that becomes the only way to access something like LSD legally. I've only ever taken psychedelics on my own, and while I've done regular talk therapy, I don't think I'd want that experience with a therapist. Taking 100-150ug of LSD at my house while listening to music, meditating, and practicing yoga should be available legally to me if I choose it. It's completely transformed my life for the better.

joshuahutt 3y ago
The argument you're replying to is "if healthcare is a right, then you don't need to go other routes." Sort of like, "if you have nothing to hide, why value privacy?" It overlooks the fact that, while these substances are useful in therapeutic contexts, that's not the _only_ value they have. And, even if they were not strictly useful in other contexts, that wouldn't preclude a right to use them "recreationally". So, I totally agree with you. I wish people could separate out complex issues like this into their 3-5 most significant constituent parts. For example: personal sovereignty/freedoms, public health implications, medicinal value, social harm/risk, cultural impact. There are a lot of reasons to be either in favor or opposed to psychedelics, and then on top of that to support strict or permissive controls. To conflate those all into one issue is reductive and it stifles discussion and progress. Sorry for the rant. Just wanted to get these thoughts out.
cf1241290841 3y ago
I would go one step further, being a heavily anxious person i dont think i would have had a good time with such a supervised experience. Especially given the giant influence a sitter with his framing can have on your trip. Especially looking at the horrific track record these institutions have with dealing with psychedelics. Saying they know better/best/as the only ones is stretching the suspension of disbelief quite a bit. I am happy to fill out some sort of drug drivers license about knowing the risks and how to deal with them. But there is simply no way in hell i am letting such quacks into my trip. edit: Since there is always the risk of someone taking this the wrong way, let me promise you that on the spectrum of "be all you can be" i am on the better half with a bunch of legal ways to go quite a lot lower at my disposal. Ways that arent closable through legislation. I would suggest focusing on some self improvement instead :)