8 ms·

I don't think people are fully reading this article looking at the top comment... >There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some leve

I don't think people are fully reading this article looking at the top comment... >There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some level, an expression of the brain’s potential. Hence, whatever one has experienced after ingesting a drug like LSD is likely to have been experienced, by someone, somewhere, without it. >I cannot account for why my adventures with psychedelics were uniformly pleasant until they weren’t—but when the doors to hell finally opened, they appear to have been left permanently ajar. It is quite obvious this guy is someone who has well experimented with psychedelics and is actually urging people to avoid them if their approach is based on falsifiable reasoning e.g. 'opening their eyes to true reality/life' or some unscientific bullshit like that. And WTF is all this commenting about how alcohol should be considered SO bad for a healthy society. Wine and beer in moderation is actually perfectly healthy. It is the lack of control for moderate consumption that creates a weakened human/society. However, this lack of self-control can appear in numerous other areas (food, internet, TV, work, etc.).

Nursie 13y ago
Alcohol has a greater potential for harm than a variety of other recreational substances, legal or otherwise. That's basically it AFAICT. It has significant addiction potential, people do abuse, and there are long term harms associated with that abuse.
- StandardFuture 13y ago
  >greater potential for harm than ... other substances Uh ... this style of description would need more parameters for a proper classification of alcohol's 'abilities' in relation to other substances. >significant addiction potential This is PURELY on an individual basis i.e. that potential is relative per person. >long term harms associated with ... abuse Yep, very true. It's also true of almost ANY type of abuse. EDIT: Although, I do realize that this is just another: "Come on, marijuana is not any worse than alcohol" style argument. And for that singular case I would say: yeah sure your case holds up alright.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >>This style of description would need more parameters for a proper classification of alcohol's 'abilities' in relation to other substances Yes, it does need that. Luckily researchers do these sorts of measurements. I recommend reading things like "Drugs without the hot air" mentioned a few times in this thread. I'm posting from my phone so not going to look up references right now. >> This is PURELY on an individual basis... Different substances have different addiction profiles. Some people don't get addicted to tobacco. Most users don't get addicted to cocaine. Many people do develop alcohol addiction, and the addiction profile turns out to be higher than for many (not all) illegal drugs. >> It's also true of almost ANY type of abuse. Sure, but the actual harms from alcohol can be pretty damn awful compared to other things. I love my beer. But just because it's socially acceptable and not a problem in small amounts, we shouldn't make it immune to honest evaluation. And honest evaluation puts it higher up the scale of harm than a variety of other recreational drugs, many of which are illegal.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> Although, I do realize that this is just another: "Come on, marijuana is not any worse than alcohol" style argument. And for that singular case I would say: yeah sure your case holds up alright. NO, It is absolutely not a "come on MJ is no worse that alcohol" argument. I'm not even making an argument here, I'm trying to tell you about the relative harms of alcohol, which you asked about. The addiction potential, short term and long term physical harm profiles for alcohol are much worse than for things like ecstasy, LSD and various others. I'm not trying to make an ideological point here. I'm not arguing for legalisation of everything, I'm not arguing at all. I'm just trying to answer your question, but you seem to want to cling to denial.
- mmariani 13y ago
  Not to mention the high correlation between violent crimes and alcohol. [0] http://ncadd.org/index.php/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-crime http://ncadd.org/index.php/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-c...
jaxytee 13y ago
I have personally experienced both spectrums with my psychedelic experiences. One positive experience involved me sitting on a hill near a road only to get lost in a the almost musical sound of cars whooshing by. Afterwards I returned to my apartment and experienced amazing closed eye visuals of some kind of fused technological/organic robots trees. The onset was seeing the walls of my apartment melt before my very eyes. One negative experience involved me pacing back and forth furiously in my apartment for hours while crying hysterically. If felt as if the weight of everything (good or bad) humanity has done and would do in the future was crushing me. I think tripping alone may have added to this experience.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
7Figures2Commas 13y ago
> Wine and beer in moderation is actually perfectly healthy. The idea that moderate consumption of alcohol is "perfectly healthy" is actually quite debatable. Taking red wine as a an example because of the popular belief that it has notable health benefits when consumed in moderation, a few points: 1. Many of the studies on the supposed health benefits of red wine are inconclusive. For instance, we still can't explain the French Paradox. 2. Last year, it came to light that a researcher who was behind some of the studies on the benefits of resveratrol falsified data. A decent amount of the hype around red wine in recent years was centered on resveratrol and it's important to note that even if there are benefits, the actual relationship between compounds like this and human health are in most cases not yet clearly established. 3. Red wine contains known carcinogens. 4. Even moderate consumption can add significant calories to one's diet. For example, if you're a male and drink two glasses (which is considered a moderate, "healthy" amount) three days a week, you're adding nearly 3,000 calories to your monthly caloric intake. Depending on when and how you drink your wine, you might also consume more food because of wine's impact on hormones associated with appetite. By the way, this is even worse in most cases for beer, where with some major brands, a single can or bottle a day can easily add 4,000+ calories over the course of a month. 5. Many of the potentially beneficial compounds in wine are available through other food sources that come with fewer drawbacks. In other words, you don't need to drink a glass or two of red wine every day to get your antioxidants. The bottom line: if you're going to enjoy a glass or two of wine (or beer) with a meal, you shouldn't justify it on the belief that it's "perfectly healthy".
- tptacek 13y ago
  3. Red wine contains known carcinogens. So do potatoes. I picked this one point out to rebut with a potato, but I think my potato wields equally devastating attacks against the rest of your points, too. Olive oil, oily fish, grapes, you name it: lots of things that currently do seem very healthy in moderation have a downside if abused. One thing my potato is very unlikely to do: cause a psychically shattering experience that severs the last link between a troubled mind and the reality it inhabits. Not so much with the warning label requirements, with our trusty potato.
  - 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

Alcohol has a greater potential for harm than a variety of other recreational substances, legal or otherwise. That's basically it AFAICT. It has significant addiction potential, people do abuse, and there are long term harms associated with that abuse.

StandardFuture 13y ago
>greater potential for harm than ... other substances Uh ... this style of description would need more parameters for a proper classification of alcohol's 'abilities' in relation to other substances. >significant addiction potential This is PURELY on an individual basis i.e. that potential is relative per person. >long term harms associated with ... abuse Yep, very true. It's also true of almost ANY type of abuse. EDIT: Although, I do realize that this is just another: "Come on, marijuana is not any worse than alcohol" style argument. And for that singular case I would say: yeah sure your case holds up alright.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >>This style of description would need more parameters for a proper classification of alcohol's 'abilities' in relation to other substances Yes, it does need that. Luckily researchers do these sorts of measurements. I recommend reading things like "Drugs without the hot air" mentioned a few times in this thread. I'm posting from my phone so not going to look up references right now. >> This is PURELY on an individual basis... Different substances have different addiction profiles. Some people don't get addicted to tobacco. Most users don't get addicted to cocaine. Many people do develop alcohol addiction, and the addiction profile turns out to be higher than for many (not all) illegal drugs. >> It's also true of almost ANY type of abuse. Sure, but the actual harms from alcohol can be pretty damn awful compared to other things. I love my beer. But just because it's socially acceptable and not a problem in small amounts, we shouldn't make it immune to honest evaluation. And honest evaluation puts it higher up the scale of harm than a variety of other recreational drugs, many of which are illegal.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Although, I do realize that this is just another: "Come on, marijuana is not any worse than alcohol" style argument. And for that singular case I would say: yeah sure your case holds up alright. NO, It is absolutely not a "come on MJ is no worse that alcohol" argument. I'm not even making an argument here, I'm trying to tell you about the relative harms of alcohol, which you asked about. The addiction potential, short term and long term physical harm profiles for alcohol are much worse than for things like ecstasy, LSD and various others. I'm not trying to make an ideological point here. I'm not arguing for legalisation of everything, I'm not arguing at all. I'm just trying to answer your question, but you seem to want to cling to denial.
mmariani 13y ago
Not to mention the high correlation between violent crimes and alcohol. [0] http://ncadd.org/index.php/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-crime http://ncadd.org/index.php/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-c...

jaxytee 13y ago

I have personally experienced both spectrums with my psychedelic experiences. One positive experience involved me sitting on a hill near a road only to get lost in a the almost musical sound of cars whooshing by. Afterwards I returned to my apartment and experienced amazing closed eye visuals of some kind of fused technological/organic robots trees. The onset was seeing the walls of my apartment melt before my very eyes. One negative experience involved me pacing back and forth furiously in my apartment for hours while crying hysterically. If felt as if the weight of everything (good or bad) humanity has done and would do in the future was crushing me. I think tripping alone may have added to this experience.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

7Figures2Commas 13y ago

> Wine and beer in moderation is actually perfectly healthy. The idea that moderate consumption of alcohol is "perfectly healthy" is actually quite debatable. Taking red wine as a an example because of the popular belief that it has notable health benefits when consumed in moderation, a few points: 1. Many of the studies on the supposed health benefits of red wine are inconclusive. For instance, we still can't explain the French Paradox. 2. Last year, it came to light that a researcher who was behind some of the studies on the benefits of resveratrol falsified data. A decent amount of the hype around red wine in recent years was centered on resveratrol and it's important to note that even if there are benefits, the actual relationship between compounds like this and human health are in most cases not yet clearly established. 3. Red wine contains known carcinogens. 4. Even moderate consumption can add significant calories to one's diet. For example, if you're a male and drink two glasses (which is considered a moderate, "healthy" amount) three days a week, you're adding nearly 3,000 calories to your monthly caloric intake. Depending on when and how you drink your wine, you might also consume more food because of wine's impact on hormones associated with appetite. By the way, this is even worse in most cases for beer, where with some major brands, a single can or bottle a day can easily add 4,000+ calories over the course of a month. 5. Many of the potentially beneficial compounds in wine are available through other food sources that come with fewer drawbacks. In other words, you don't need to drink a glass or two of red wine every day to get your antioxidants. The bottom line: if you're going to enjoy a glass or two of wine (or beer) with a meal, you shouldn't justify it on the belief that it's "perfectly healthy".

tptacek 13y ago
3. Red wine contains known carcinogens. So do potatoes. I picked this one point out to rebut with a potato, but I think my potato wields equally devastating attacks against the rest of your points, too. Olive oil, oily fish, grapes, you name it: lots of things that currently do seem very healthy in moderation have a downside if abused. One thing my potato is very unlikely to do: cause a psychically shattering experience that severs the last link between a troubled mind and the reality it inhabits. Not so much with the warning label requirements, with our trusty potato.
- 13y ago