4 ms·

i generally consider myself an enemy of psychedelic advocates, because I think they want to make it effectively socially mandatory to do these drugs, which is r

i generally consider myself an enemy of psychedelic advocates, because I think they want to make it effectively socially mandatory to do these drugs, which is really bad. ("sure, it's your choice what you put in your body, but a really enlightened person wouldn't be so frightened and closed-minded that they don't want to see what psychedelics can show them...") of course ketamine for depression has this giant downside risk of adverse effects and psychosis, and we should talk about it more, not just sell it as a safe miracle drug. however... safe, neutral, bland, boring well-tolerated SSRIs, also have a massive downside risk, in that they can trigger a manic episode, which in severe cases also involves psychosis. so i find myself in the position of being glad there are different depression treatments for different people, including psychedelics and dissociatives, and hopefully we can find a way to make sure people get sorted to the treatments where they are least exposed to the tail risk side effects.

golergka 2y ago
> i generally consider myself an enemy of psychedelic advocates, because I think they want to make it effectively socially mandatory to do these drugs, which is really bad. > ("sure, it's your choice what you put in your body, but a really enlightened person wouldn't be so frightened and closed-minded that they don't want to see what psychedelics can show them...") I'm sorry WHAT? I've been to many open airs and other events where MOST of the people around have been under the effect of psychedelic and in other drug-friendly places, and I have never hear manipulative shit like that ever. On the contrary, if I heard people talk about this drugs it was always "it worked for me but might be a bad experience for you", "be safe, don't take it if you're not sure" and "you can always have a great time here completely sober".
- throw18376 2y ago
  i think that "we all want to get high on drugs" situations, like festivals, are actually a lot better. it's about personal choice. when i talk about psychedelic advocates, i mean the people who think that widespread use of psychedelic drugs would massively improve mental health, make people more productive and happier, etc.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Confusing a minority of fringe members with the reasonable group of "psychedelic advocates" as a whole just delegitimizes the whole movement. There will always be some who take reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. As a point of comparison: "social drinking advocates" vs. those who like to get blackout drunk every night. The idea that everyone should be pressured into taking psychedelics is an absurd extreme. Psychedelics can be a powerful catalyst to growing as a person, but they're not a magic potion that makes you grow emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually. They're likely going to bring your unprocessed ideas and personal issues to the forefront which can be very productive if you want to face them. But those who carry around demons that they've repressed and absolutely don't want to face would probably have a terrible time on psychedelics.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      yes agree, and also underlying medical conditions, brain chemistry, long lists of who knows what..
BjoernKW 2y ago
SSRIs are by no means safe or well-tolerated. They have all sorts of severe, life-altering, mostly permanent side effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i... There are countless heartbreaking stories of people who were prescribed these drugs not knowing what they were subscribing to. In many cases, the effects of those drugs are worse than the symptoms they are supposed to alleviate. With "I Don't Wanna Be Me" there's even a song by Type O Negative (from Peter Steele's own experience with Prozac) about the devastating effects SSRIs can have on a person's life. These drugs are handed out like candy while the physicians prescribing them often point-blank deny any side effects or even attribute those to the illness they are meant to treat. Psychedelics, on the other hand, have actually been proven to be effective for many syndromes SSRIs are commonly used for and by comparison are very safe when used with proper preparation, medical surveillance, and in the right setting. The only reason psychedelics are still widely shunned is a Puritan attitude to human well-being: You're not supposed to feel better than the common neutral base level. Any drugs achieving that (alongside with other, more specific and intended medical effects) are maligned and ostracized.
- mandarax8 2y ago
  You're saying this as if psychedelics cannot 'have all sorts of severe, life-altering, mostly permanent side effects'.
  - BjoernKW 2y ago
    Yes, they certainly can. However, the prevalence of side effects with psychedelics is in the single-digit range, whereas with SSRIs you're almost certain to be experiencing some sort of - often severe - side effects for the rest of your life.
- throw18376 2y ago
  this is more or less exactly what i was trying to say. for most people SSRIs are safe, they experience manageable side effects and little health risk. psychedelics and dissociatives seem like they must be really drastic and risky. but actually SSRIs are pretty risky too, there are all these terrible low-probability outcomes. so it's good we have all options, but ideally we'd have a better way of judging who is safest with which treatment.

golergka 2y ago

> i generally consider myself an enemy of psychedelic advocates, because I think they want to make it effectively socially mandatory to do these drugs, which is really bad. > ("sure, it's your choice what you put in your body, but a really enlightened person wouldn't be so frightened and closed-minded that they don't want to see what psychedelics can show them...") I'm sorry WHAT? I've been to many open airs and other events where MOST of the people around have been under the effect of psychedelic and in other drug-friendly places, and I have never hear manipulative shit like that ever. On the contrary, if I heard people talk about this drugs it was always "it worked for me but might be a bad experience for you", "be safe, don't take it if you're not sure" and "you can always have a great time here completely sober".

throw18376 2y ago
i think that "we all want to get high on drugs" situations, like festivals, are actually a lot better. it's about personal choice. when i talk about psychedelic advocates, i mean the people who think that widespread use of psychedelic drugs would massively improve mental health, make people more productive and happier, etc.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Confusing a minority of fringe members with the reasonable group of "psychedelic advocates" as a whole just delegitimizes the whole movement. There will always be some who take reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. As a point of comparison: "social drinking advocates" vs. those who like to get blackout drunk every night. The idea that everyone should be pressured into taking psychedelics is an absurd extreme. Psychedelics can be a powerful catalyst to growing as a person, but they're not a magic potion that makes you grow emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually. They're likely going to bring your unprocessed ideas and personal issues to the forefront which can be very productive if you want to face them. But those who carry around demons that they've repressed and absolutely don't want to face would probably have a terrible time on psychedelics.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    yes agree, and also underlying medical conditions, brain chemistry, long lists of who knows what..

BjoernKW 2y ago

SSRIs are by no means safe or well-tolerated. They have all sorts of severe, life-altering, mostly permanent side effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i... There are countless heartbreaking stories of people who were prescribed these drugs not knowing what they were subscribing to. In many cases, the effects of those drugs are worse than the symptoms they are supposed to alleviate. With "I Don't Wanna Be Me" there's even a song by Type O Negative (from Peter Steele's own experience with Prozac) about the devastating effects SSRIs can have on a person's life. These drugs are handed out like candy while the physicians prescribing them often point-blank deny any side effects or even attribute those to the illness they are meant to treat. Psychedelics, on the other hand, have actually been proven to be effective for many syndromes SSRIs are commonly used for and by comparison are very safe when used with proper preparation, medical surveillance, and in the right setting. The only reason psychedelics are still widely shunned is a Puritan attitude to human well-being: You're not supposed to feel better than the common neutral base level. Any drugs achieving that (alongside with other, more specific and intended medical effects) are maligned and ostracized.

mandarax8 2y ago
You're saying this as if psychedelics cannot 'have all sorts of severe, life-altering, mostly permanent side effects'.
- BjoernKW 2y ago
  Yes, they certainly can. However, the prevalence of side effects with psychedelics is in the single-digit range, whereas with SSRIs you're almost certain to be experiencing some sort of - often severe - side effects for the rest of your life.
throw18376 2y ago
this is more or less exactly what i was trying to say. for most people SSRIs are safe, they experience manageable side effects and little health risk. psychedelics and dissociatives seem like they must be really drastic and risky. but actually SSRIs are pretty risky too, there are all these terrible low-probability outcomes. so it's good we have all options, but ideally we'd have a better way of judging who is safest with which treatment.