3 ms·
I wouldn't say most, maybe a little under half, and usually these are pretty minor effects that don't bother the person very much, and for the most part seem wi
by advael 2y ago
I wouldn't say most, maybe a little under half, and usually these are pretty minor effects that don't bother the person very much, and for the most part seem within normal subjective variance, just perhaps jarring because of the change. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some extreme cases, but it's kind of alarmist to view it as ultra scary compared to even the effects on your adenosine cascade from persistent caffeine use. I haven't personally had any of these despite having tried a number of psychadelics, and I get the mindset that anything that could be permanent sounds like a pretty serious risk, but as harms go this is quite negligible in practice.
- ogogmad 2y agoDo we have numbers? I'd like to take precautions, given the risk of ruining someone's vision or mental health permanently - instead of simply trusting someone's assurances.
- advael 2y agoYes! I think people should understand the risks of anything they try, and it's imperative to do good research, combat misinformation, and do anything we can to allow people to know enough to make informed decisions. If by "precautions" you mean "restricting people's bodily autonomy and sending cops after people who don't comply", as is currently widespread policy, this is very clearly not very effective and either of the widespread direct harms caused by implementing these policies - not the least of which are the chilling effect they've had on basic research as well as a proliferation of erroneous psychopharmacological pseudoscience - and the obvious erosion of the fundamental right to self-determination and bodily autonomy would to me seem more than adequate to outweigh such a benefit even if it weren't a total fiction. Carceral prohibition is bad policy on principle and in practice