4 ms·
> and limiting the use of psychedelics to a controlled therapeutic setting. Your other points I understand. This particular one I find controversial as one of
by InCityDreams 3y ago
> and limiting the use of psychedelics to a controlled therapeutic setting.
Your other points I understand. This particular one I find controversial as one of the unkowns is what is an ideal setting?
I've got friends that will drop a tab, and go for a beer - just as impossible for me as sitting in a 'controlled environment' [therapeutic setting] with a shrink, or a Man-retreat for ex-military types.
I'd like to just have easy access to a known quality, and strength of chemical, that I can happily take, wheresoever I prefer.
- fasterik 3y agoThere are well known risks of psychosis and schizophrenia associated with psychedelics. Just because your friend can drop a tab and go to the bar doesn't mean that it's a good idea for everyone to be doing so. I'm fairly libertarian on drugs, but I do think there is a big difference when it comes to psychedelics. The potential harms aren't only to the person doing it, but for people around them who might be victims of their psychotic break. It's safest if there is someone around to administer a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic if necessary.
- johndhi 3y ago>The potential harms aren't only to the person doing it, but for people around them who might be victims of their psychotic break Fyi research apparently shows that mentally unwell people are more likely to be physically harmful to others as compared with the average. Sounded weird to me but apparently there's some data.