3 ms·

Your ideas about LSD being more dangerous than alcohol are not backed up by decent evidence. Alcohol use kills both acutely and chronically. Alcohol is addicti

by Nursie 2y ago

Your ideas about LSD being more dangerous than alcohol are not backed up by decent evidence. Alcohol use kills both acutely and chronically. Alcohol is addictive. Long term use cause mental health issues. LSD does not have the same health impacts and its lack of addiction potential gives it a significantly lower harm profile. Do yourself a favour and read some material published by domain experts (may I recommend “Drugs Without the Hot Air” by David Nutt).

Retric 2y ago
I absolutely agree that on a per user basis Alcohol is more risky especially if you’re considering bystanders due to addiction and ease of access. However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. Because people like me can choose to do some, all, or none of those things and it’s worth considering the risks on a per event basis. Very few deaths are associated with LSD, but harm isn’t so binary. You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade, but daily LSD use at that level is another story.
- Nursie 2y ago
  > However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. This is not a useful metric at all, and is incredibly naive. Each of those activities carries with it the relative risks of addiction and long term harms. Your metric can lead to absurd conclusion that cigarettes are perfectly fine because nobody ever got cancer from having just one. The danger in tobacco is that people don't stop at just one. > You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade Some people can, but a significant minority of the people that try that will run into trouble and find their habit escalating. Even people like you who seem to think they are above addiction. And those who don't suffer addiction from that pattern will have increased their risk of cancer and various other diseases. > but daily LSD use Is so rare as to effectively constitute a complete fallacy of argument. That's the point, virtually nobody wants to use LSD on a daily basis, even amongst people who like and use LSD. Its risk profile is significantly lower than alcohol or tobacco as a result of that. Seriously, go read up on this stuff, it's fascinating as well as enlightening.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > Even people like you who seem to think they are above addiction. Personal experience but Alcohol, Tobacco, opioids etc and never felt the pull. I tried smoking for a little under a year but didn’t really care for it. Used to drink fairly regularly but just kind of got bored with it to the point a found out beer eventually goes bad in your fridge. > Is rare Ok that may be personal bias in terms of use. I remember one guy saying enough LSD could replace sleep and things didn’t go well for him or a lot of other people. So yes, I knew quite a few people that used it daily, but though none were able to function long term like that. Dad and various friends were connected to Timothy Leary and that’s about as much as I am comfortable sharing.
    - Nursie 2y ago
      > Personal experience but .. Sure, and that's your personal experience. If we were going by my personal experience we would get a different picture - that tobacco was highly addictive (though easy enough to quit in the end) but there was no issue at all with cocaine. Yet when we look at the harm profile of cocaine, we can see it's comparatively pretty bad and pulls people into spirals of addiction and self-destruction. You can't really say "LSD is worse than booze" as a sweeping statement that you consider applies to everyone, and then use as justification your personal lack of issues with alcohol. > I knew quite a few people that used it daily No offence, but this is why the plural of anecdote is not data. Your sample bias here is extreme - people who were idealogically inclined to take acid daily as an almost pseudo-religious sacrament are not a representative sample.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > No offence, but this is why the plural of anecdote is not data. Your sample bias here is extreme - people who were idealogically inclined to take acid daily as an almost pseudo-religious sacrament are not a representative sample. Case studies are a major source of data in science. People exposed to extreme radiation doses from accidents play a significant role in our understanding of the consequences of said exposure and ways to treat it. If the people I knew were able to handle that kind of LSD use then I would have a different opinion because LSD would be safer. Is 1% the use 1% as dangerous? Now that’s where you need controlled studies because the effect size diminishes, but feed 50 rats 1 gram of substance Y and they all die and that’s strong evidence on it’s own no need for statistical analysis.

by Nursie 2y ago

Retric 2y ago

I absolutely agree that on a per user basis Alcohol is more risky especially if you’re considering bystanders due to addiction and ease of access. However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. Because people like me can choose to do some, all, or none of those things and it’s worth considering the risks on a per event basis. Very few deaths are associated with LSD, but harm isn’t so binary. You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade, but daily LSD use at that level is another story.

Nursie 2y ago
> However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. This is not a useful metric at all, and is incredibly naive. Each of those activities carries with it the relative risks of addiction and long term harms. Your metric can lead to absurd conclusion that cigarettes are perfectly fine because nobody ever got cancer from having just one. The danger in tobacco is that people don't stop at just one. > You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade Some people can, but a significant minority of the people that try that will run into trouble and find their habit escalating. Even people like you who seem to think they are above addiction. And those who don't suffer addiction from that pattern will have increased their risk of cancer and various other diseases. > but daily LSD use Is so rare as to effectively constitute a complete fallacy of argument. That's the point, virtually nobody wants to use LSD on a daily basis, even amongst people who like and use LSD. Its risk profile is significantly lower than alcohol or tobacco as a result of that. Seriously, go read up on this stuff, it's fascinating as well as enlightening.
- Retric 2y ago
  > Even people like you who seem to think they are above addiction. Personal experience but Alcohol, Tobacco, opioids etc and never felt the pull. I tried smoking for a little under a year but didn’t really care for it. Used to drink fairly regularly but just kind of got bored with it to the point a found out beer eventually goes bad in your fridge. > Is rare Ok that may be personal bias in terms of use. I remember one guy saying enough LSD could replace sleep and things didn’t go well for him or a lot of other people. So yes, I knew quite a few people that used it daily, but though none were able to function long term like that. Dad and various friends were connected to Timothy Leary and that’s about as much as I am comfortable sharing.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    > Personal experience but .. Sure, and that's your personal experience. If we were going by my personal experience we would get a different picture - that tobacco was highly addictive (though easy enough to quit in the end) but there was no issue at all with cocaine. Yet when we look at the harm profile of cocaine, we can see it's comparatively pretty bad and pulls people into spirals of addiction and self-destruction. You can't really say "LSD is worse than booze" as a sweeping statement that you consider applies to everyone, and then use as justification your personal lack of issues with alcohol. > I knew quite a few people that used it daily No offence, but this is why the plural of anecdote is not data. Your sample bias here is extreme - people who were idealogically inclined to take acid daily as an almost pseudo-religious sacrament are not a representative sample.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > No offence, but this is why the plural of anecdote is not data. Your sample bias here is extreme - people who were idealogically inclined to take acid daily as an almost pseudo-religious sacrament are not a representative sample. Case studies are a major source of data in science. People exposed to extreme radiation doses from accidents play a significant role in our understanding of the consequences of said exposure and ways to treat it. If the people I knew were able to handle that kind of LSD use then I would have a different opinion because LSD would be safer. Is 1% the use 1% as dangerous? Now that’s where you need controlled studies because the effect size diminishes, but feed 50 rats 1 gram of substance Y and they all die and that’s strong evidence on it’s own no need for statistical analysis.