14 ms·

Research into psychedelics, shut down for decades, is yielding results

• Pyret 12y ago
  “I didn’t want there to be an easy way out,” she recently told me. “I wanted him to fight.” Attitude that keeps everything stagnant and backwards.
  • MichaelGG 12y ago
    It's repulsive how people think "no pain no gain". I think that might be some of the resistance against sucralose. It's a free ride. Same for the attitude about addiction. It's viewed as intrinsically bad, instead of just evaluating it in context of benefits.
    • WiseWeasel 12y ago
      It's a very Catholic mentality, the notion that sin is atoned for with suffering. It would seem entirely foreign to a Buddhist, for example, who would see fortune as a result of accrued karma.
      • titanomachy 12y ago
        A Buddhist may also see fortune as irrelevant.
        • byEngineer 12y ago
          And then there is huge difference between Western so called Budhhist living in Southern California and buddhist peasant from a Chinese village.
      • tptacek 12y ago
        Catholics don't believe sin is atoned for with suffering. Sacrifice and repentance? Yes. Suffering? No.
        • MichaelGG 12y ago
          What about purgatory?
          • tptacek 12y ago
            Over 12 years of Catholic education I was taught that the whole concept of purgatory had been repudiated. But looking it up now, it seems to have been resuscitated, albeit as a sort of "waiting period" for souls that hadn't fully reconciled with God. In any case, at least in the modern Church, the concept of purgatory isn't an endorsement of the benefits of suffering.
            • DonHopkins 12y ago
              Have you ever considered the possibility that for over 12 years of Catholic education, you were being lied to, and that many of the things you devoutly believe without question are simply not true? Case in point: your false beliefs that fly in the face of all the evidence (much of it from their own doctrine, statements and actions) that the Catholic Church believes and preaches that sin is atoned for with suffering. Haven't you ever heard of that guy named "Jesus"? Isn't there a commandment that says you're not supposed to lie? Penn and Teller and Christopher Hitchens certainly make a strong case that the Catholic Church and Mother Teresa and Bill Donohue are obsessed with suffering and totally full of Bullshit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6voAW_Go5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6voAW_Go5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UR-0Kdff4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UR-0Kdff4M
              • 72deluxe 12y ago
                I am not Catholic, but to assert that he devoutly believes things without question is a big assertion. For myself, to believe something I question it first. We should extend the same courtesy to others - they surely question things first.
                • DonHopkins 12y ago
                  He just stated that he believes something that is simply and provably not true, and contradicts Official Catholic Doctrine. People who don't devoutly believe Catholic Church doctrine, make up their own feel-good "factoids" that contradict the Church's teaching, yet still claim to be Catholic are lying. And there's a commandment against that. (But what do they care, if they don't actually believe what they claim to believe?) You don't get to make up your own doctrine and still call yourself Catholic. Not believing doctrine and making up your own religious beliefs, and spreading misinformation about the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church, is NOT an option for real Catholics. The Pope said so himself, and he's the one whose JOB it is to make "big assertions". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritatis_Splendor#Moral_authority_of_the_Catholic_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritatis_Splendor#Moral_autho... >Moral authority of the Catholic Church >Ultimately, John Paul teaches, "to ask about the good, in fact, ultimately means to turn towards God, the fullness of goodness." Against the idea that the Church's teaching body has a mainly exhortatory role, the pope reiterates the Catholic doctrine that the magisterium of the Catholic Church has authority to definitively pronounce on moral questions. Even more, John Paul teaches that the Church is Christ's particular response to help answer everyone's question of what is right and wrong. The term "Cafeteria Catholic" describes people who think they can pick and choose what they want to believe and make up their own mythology. It's a pejorative that "real" Catholics use to describe people like tptacek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Catholicism >In a similar vein, Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987: >It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere." My point is that if he thinks he can make up his own doctrine and spread misinformation like "Catholics don't believe sin is atoned for with suffering", when they most certainly and provably do (and that's the whole point with their bizarre fetish about Christ being crucified on the cross and dying for our sins, and Mother Teresa's own words prove she is obsessed with people suffering for their sins, instead of preventing that suffering), he is committing a "grave error". Thats not just my opinion, it's the official doctrine, and I'm quoting Pope John Paul II. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." -Mother Teresa, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#1990s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#1990s It's not surprising he's wrong and doesn't even realize it, because: Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/ath... That's why many Cafeteria Catholics are happy to explain to you that Transubstantiation is only a metaphor and Catholics don't actually believe such crazy baloney that they're literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. But Transubstantiation is most certainly NOT a metaphor, and anyone Catholic who says so is committing a "grave error". So of course he's confused about Catholic doctrine after 12 years of Catholic school, after having been indoctrinated with inconsistent self contradictory lies about both the real world and the fictional Catholic mythology, as well as their historic waffling on purgatory and other doctrine. It's ALL about suffering and punishment: don't let tptacek fool you, even if he's fooled himself. "MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself — and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?" Christopher Hitchens, "Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.", Slate, 2003-10-20 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Quotes_about_Mother_Teresa https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Quotes_about_Mot...
      • thret 12y ago
        Unless I'm completely misunderstanding Buddhism, they would also see suffering as a result of accrued sin. Karma works both ways.
        • sls 12y ago
          Yes, many people raised in Buddhist households would say that, but it's not an accurate representation of what the Buddha taught, based on the Pali texts which are the earliest written record. You can decide whether that means it's "Buddhism" or not.
          • thret 12y ago
            Are you able to give a more accurate representation, or point me to a source that would do so? I am genuinely curious, this is the first I've heard someone say differently (I know several Buddhists/Hindus although none could be considered devout).
            • shellshocked 12y ago
              Take a look ,or listen, into Ken McLeod's Pragmatic Buddism. His podcast The Unfettered Mind is quite a resource. He describes a culture that began with a base of perception and the experience of the now and due to the foolhardy nature of humans always trying to describe what is a unique and individual experience, if even describable at all, led to a disconnect and subsequent acadamization and institutionlization that seems to me to be what all religions suffer from. The "Story of Tea" is a tale told in some of his sessions that is quite relevant. The phenomenon seems also to be related to what legislative bodies suffer from as well though not entirely so.
            • stolio 12y ago
              So Western karma and Buddhist karma can be a bit different, as the West has adopted the term it's become the Western version of the idea. And Buddhist karma is a bit different from Hindu karma. I haven't found a fully consistent use of the word across Buddhism even. But one common theme is that you shouldn't be ascribing the suffering of others to their karma. Overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism Theravadan view: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html Soto Zen view: " We say, result is—will result immediately, not later punishment. To do something is already punishment. That you do something is already punishment. Not later." (edit: I may be taking this out of context....) http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/october-1968-9th-talk/ http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/october-1968-9th-ta... Secular view: http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/karma-and-its-fruits http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/karma-and-its-f...
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  • b_emery 12y ago
    I read that quote as his wife saying that she didn't want him to give up and die. She wanted him to fight the cancer rather than obtain a "profound acceptance" of it.
    • delluminatus 12y ago
      I think that's a false dilemma. In my mind, part of "fighting" cancer is trying to mitigate its impact on your everyday life, and acceptance probably plays a key role in that process. It's not like being angry and afraid makes you any better at fighting a disease. If anything "fighting" and "accepting" could be said to go hand-in-hand, especially with respect to illness.
      • saiya-jin 12y ago
        in fact, constant stress would make body even weaker. psychosomatism is a real thingie. not that happy people cannot die from cancer
  • rayiner 12y ago
    The psychedelics weren't offering him a pain-free cancer treatment. Their purpose was to get him prepared to die.
• avodonosov 12y ago
  Oh, drugs on HN, again.
  • AngrySkillzz 12y ago
    Problem? Drugs are interesting because the brain is interesting. As a community that probably collectively spends a lot of time thinking, an interest in the brain makes sense.
    • avodonosov 12y ago
      > Problem? Yes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940651
      • mycroft-holmes 12y ago
        Wouldn't this story be a reason to actively research these drugs?
        • avodonosov 12y ago
          I am all for research. But instead of putting into the title words "psychedelics" together with "exciting", I would prefer the article to be called for example "Psychedelics may help terminal cancer patients to die at peace".
          • dang 12y ago
            We took the word "exciting" out of the HN title, since doing so makes the title more neutral. I'm sorry about your friend and can easily understand your feeling. But could you please not turn these threads into off-topic arguments about the topic being on HN? This article is substantive and of interest to the community. Upvoting it doesn't imply endorsement, just curiosity.
            • avodonosov 12y ago
• snikeris 12y ago
  Includes an interesting account of Robert Jesse's (former Oracle VP, software engineer) efforts to resurrect this research: When the history of second-wave psychedelic research is written, Bob Jesse will be remembered as one of two scientific outsiders who worked for years, mostly behind the scenes, to get it off the ground.
  • Alex3917 12y ago
    For those who haven't seen them, his talks are highly worth watching and will completely change your ideas about religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-yinhpOgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-yinhpOgQ http://vimeo.com/10968562 http://vimeo.com/10968562
    • snikeris 12y ago
      In the same vein (and including at least one essay by him): http://csp.org/practices/entheogens/EFR.html http://csp.org/practices/entheogens/EFR.html
    • msane 12y ago
      > will completely change your ideas about religion Sort of presumptive.
      • Alex3917 12y ago
        Keep in mind that I can see how many views those videos have. I can also see what the best selling books on religion are on Amazon, how many copies of the books he references are sold each week, how many views the most popular YouTube videos on religion have, etc. So it's not difficult to say that even if he is drawing from the most famous works in the academic study of religion, which he is, most people here probably haven't been exposed to those ideas. And as for why most people here would be convinced, he has an engineering and science background, and his talks are largely aimed at engineers and scientists. FWIW he's not trying to get you to 'believe' in religion, whatever that means. Rather, his points are more along the lines of that scientists should learn more about the academic study of religion and the commonalities between religion and science, rather than allowing the discourse on religion to be set by extremists.
• avodonosov 12y ago
  I am sorry, this article takes 37 PageDowns on my screen. Exactly what results there are exciting?
  • snikeris 12y ago
    Most writing is structured such that you don't need to read the entire thing to get the gist of it.
    • avodonosov 12y ago
      Very often yes; but I can't say so about that article.
      • snikeris 12y ago
        "According to Ross, cancer patients receiving just a single dose of psilocybin experienced immediate and dramatic reductions in anxiety and depression, improvements that were sustained for at least six months." You might have made it that far in the time it took you to count page downs.
        • avodonosov 12y ago
          I saw this, but wasn't sure it is very exciting. Also, read the next sentence "The data are still being analyzed and have not yet been submitted to a journal for peer review, but the researchers expect to publish later this year". And a little bit later "But it’s important to remember that the sample sizes are small.” So, it's not even a conclusive result yet.
  • anonbanker 12y ago
    Replying as breadcrumbs to the militant anti-drug members of HN trolling the pro-drug threads. Seriously. Look at his posting history.
• benten10 12y ago
  While this is undoubtedly exciting, lets not forget what should be for us (specially people in the technology who have seen waves of the same 'fad' come over and go) this paragraph from the article: >The first wave of research into psychedelics was doomed by an excessive exuberance about their potential. For people working with these remarkable molecules, it was difficult not to conclude that they were suddenly in possession of news with the power to change the world—a psychedelic gospel[...]It didn’t take long for once respectable scientists such as Leary to grow impatient with the rigmarole of objective science. He came to see science as just another societal “game,” a conventional box it was time to blow up—along with all the others. Special emphasis on the last sentence.
  • nemo1618 12y ago
    Indeed, though I'm a little more optimistic this time around. I think Leary and the rest assumed LSD was more-or-less guaranteed to produce profound spiritual insights in anyone who took it. Therefore, the primary problem was distribution: once LSD was available to the general public, society was guaranteed to "wake up." Obviously, this was mistaken. Many people did take acid, have direct experiences of divine revelation, and go on to live happier, more fulfilled lives because of it. But many also took it primarily as a deliriant; they took it for fun, saw some neat visual hallucinations, maybe offended some people, maybe got wrapped up in a paranoid delusion. Or, even if they did "wake up," their excited babbling could appear very disturbing to observers, who often had no frame of reference for what the drug-user was going through. I'm sure it scared the hell out of a lot of them. Clearly, psychedelics aren't a panacea for society's problems. But what we're seeing now is a return to the more reserved approach of administrating these drugs in a controlled setting, and primarily for the purpose of psychotherapy. I think psychedelics have a bright future as long as we avoid trying to "change the world" and focus on just helping one person at a time. I don't fault Leary for his optimism, but ultimately I wonder if he did more harm than good.
    • clapas 12y ago
      Every person is different, and every trip is different. You must learn what helps you.
• state 12y ago
  "During each session, which would last the better part of a day, Mettes would lie on the couch wearing an eye mask and listening through headphones to a carefully curated playlist—Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Pat Metheny, Ravi Shankar." This strikes me as sort of funny. For someone completely unfamiliar with this stuff I would imagine encountering it to be pretty trippy on its own.
  • notmarkus 12y ago
    I imagined this as, "There's no music here. These are just notes." 45 minutes later -- "Oh."
  • andrey-p 12y ago
    Some time ago I listened to a radio documentary on Steve Reich. One bit I remember quite well was a description of the door to the room where musicians were practising for Music For 18 Musicians. Apparently it had a sign warning people to stay away from that room if they had a history of mental illness.
• bunkydoo 12y ago
  As someone who has done their fair share of psychedelics - I would feel like a coward consuming these substances if I had a terminal illness. If I knew damn straight that I was gonna die, I wouldn't want to numb it up with a substance. I'd want every minute of pain, suffering, and emotional baggage to be taken on with a sober mind. But that is my personal choice. I would say it's probably a very positive thing on the other hand for people like Patrick who never consumed these substances. DMT might be the best one for someone who is dying, as it is hypothesized that pineal gland floods an endogenous version of this chemical into your bloodstream upon death. Consuming it prior to death could potentially work as a "practice run" to help cope with the real thing as sad as it sounds.
  • benten10 12y ago
    I see where you're coming from, but then, I also don't think it's a fair judgment on yourself. Who gets to decide 'the amount of pain, baggage to be taken on'? Would you be okay with getting torture-level pain, instead of say, lesser pain? From the article: >Aldous Huxley concluded from his psychedelic experience that the conscious mind is less a window on reality than a furious editor of it. What does it matter if your editorial is less strict about filtering reality in? Again, as the article asks: >Psychedelics open the valve wide, removing the filter that hides much of reality, as well as dimensions of our own minds, from ordinary consciousness. Is that really that much of cowardice?
  • snikeris 12y ago
    I think you've got the wrong idea. It's not about numbing the individual from the suffering they are experiencing; it's about gaining a new perspective and transcending the part of you that perceives your impending death as a cause for suffering.
  • wyager 12y ago
    The whole "DMT release upon death" thing has very little supporting evidence. https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_article2.shtml https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_article2.shtml
    • 12y ago
• FranOntanaya 12y ago
  "The data are still being analyzed and have not yet been submitted to a journal for peer review" Maybe the NewYorker could have waited for that to happen.
• superobserver 12y ago
  Fascinating research. I just hope the same mistakes aren't repeated and a really rigorous and robust effort is made to find what sorts of applications these substances can be used for. I'm reminded of LSD microdosing by scientists to improve innovation that had been done before, but I am unaware of to what degree it really bore any viable fruit.
  • kahoon 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelics_in_problem-solving_experiment#Results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelics_in_problem-solving... Solutions obtained in the experiment include:[3][5][6] - a new approach to the design of a vibratory microtome - a commercial building design, accepted by the client - space probe experiments devised to measure solar properties - design of a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device - engineering improvement to a magnetic tape recorder - a chair design, modeled and accepted by the manufacturer - a letterhead design, approved by the customer - a mathematical theorem regarding NOR gate circuits - completion of a furniture-line design - a new conceptual model of a photon, which was found useful - design of a private dwelling, approved by the client - insights regarding how to use interferometry in medical diagnosis application sensing heat distribution in the human body
  • a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    Allegedly one of the forces working against LSD research is the popular narrative about how SSRIs work: the idea that higher serotonin is good. The primary mechanism of LSD appears to be serotonin agonism. In a hand-wavy way you can argue that elevated serotonin numbs a mammal and dulls perception of the world, and that reducing it makes thought and senses more vivid. An LSD trip is arguably the experience of removing the filters. The idea that SSRIs even boost serotonin levels is probably wrong. The mechanisms of action are more complicated than that. But the serotonin narrative is well established and in use by a multi-billion dollar industry.
    • task_queue 12y ago
      Agonism isn't antagonism. Though, some of the first and newer antidepressants are antagonists or mixed agonist/antagonist. Some forgo significant SERT binding altogether. Their simple narrative wouldn't have been torn apart by LSD research anymore than the industries other offerings.
• clapas 12y ago
  TL;DR I grow magic mushrooms myself and can asure there is a mystic experience on eating them. I do not eat them often, but it helps me everytime with a new perspective.
• shanra88 12y ago
  Mention of "ego-less" state etc sound just like the teachings of hindu masters like Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta Maharaj...
  • avodonosov 12y ago
    Yes, I noticed that too. From previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940650 Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death
• cubano 12y ago
  I took a ton of acid (blotter) in the late 70's and early 80's as a teen, and then again in the late 90's (window pane and liquid eyedrops), and I just have to say, I, personally, have mixed feelings about this sort of thing being heralded as some sort of metaphysical panacea. As I mentioned in a previous post, I became addicted to opiates in the mid 2000's and lived as a zombified-but-somehow-functional heroin addict for about 4 years. There is no doubt, in my personal case, that acid and mushrooms (that I often hand-picked in cow pastures after rainstorms here in central Florida) gateway-ed me into harder, destructive "escapes", and for that reason, I cannot fully endorse this sort of thing. I've had amazing trips where I literally felt as one with the group of friends I was chilling with and created deep, transcendent bonds, and I've had a select few shit ones where I felt totally alienated from every living soul (but not nature, interestingly) on earth. They did expand my consciousness, but looking back, I see now that it introduced into my psyche a fairly deep distrust of authority and convention which, under sober scrutiny, perhaps did little to help me always successfully nagivate my life. Treating the very sick and/or terminally ill with psychedelics makes great sense to me; anything to ease those pains, but my own experience makes me want to throw at least a dart of caution into the mix when it comes to making a blanket statement about the benefits of LSD and such.
  • joshuahhh 12y ago
    I'm surprised (and disheartened) to hear that psychedelics served as your gateway into harmful drug use. Can you tell a bit more about the role psychedelics played?
    • michaelochurch 12y ago
      Different respondent (I'm not him). I can't answer to his personal experience, and it's never happened to me, but I've seen this happen to people. When I lived in Williamsburg, probably 3/4 of the people I saw on a daily basis were regular recreational drug users. It's a nihilistic, icky culture and the negative energy is intense. People are flaky and half-there. This isn't the fault of the drugs, I don't think. They'd be just as icky and nihilistic if running on booze, cocaine, and casual sex alone. LSD and pot and shrooms merely fail to improve those people. The danger is that, in the process of getting access to a drug like LSD, you're likely to associate with that sort of people more. Also, while I don't consider psychedelics "evil" at all, they do make a person more suggestible. If you're surrounded by a rotten culture and bombed-out people, you're going to suck in a lot of negative energy. The recreational drug use lifestyle is, for most people, pretty awful. Again, I think that the chemicals themselves (if we're talking about psilocybin and LSD) are probably a minor factor. But to get in access, you have to deal with despicable people (such as dealers) and make a bunch of shitty friends who are in access, and there's definitely a lot of the crappy, cliquey behavior associated with American high schools. Oh, and since you're dealing with an scumbag black market, you're not always getting the chemicals that you think you are. And even if you're only interested in exploratory, "spiritual" drug use, you're still surrounded by crass, hedonistic, bombed-out people who also use cocaine (which is an asshole/empty-hedonist drug if there ever was one) and opiates (which can wreck your health and turn you into a lethargic zombie). Most of these people also have undiagnosed mental illnesses (not minor yuppie shit, but severe, unmedicated bipolar and schizophrenia that they are actively making worse) that they are too lazy to take care of [0]. [0] Please don't think I'm a Republican for calling these people "lazy". I'm talking about upper-middle- and upper-class hipsters living on parental funds who've had everything handed to them. This is, I'd argue, a case where the illegality of these drugs makes them a lot worse in their totality (and that's one reason why I'm really glad to see these compounds being studied for potential beneficial effects, even if I'll probably never again use them). Because LSD is illegal and stigmatized, you have to deal with the dregs of humanity to get it. Now, while LSD and psilocybin may not be long-term harmful under ideal conditions (the jury is still out about that, but evidence suggest that they can do a great deal of good) they are pretty awful when used in the wrong setting... and they are almost never available in the right setting. People who run marathons and write novels and program open-source libraries rarely use LSD, not because they're "above it" (I also know some absolutely wonderful people who've used LSD) but because they're just generally not in access. Furthermore, these drugs seem to scale poorly. The more often you use them, the less benefit they seem to deliver. I think that it's probably healthy for a normal person to have a psychedelic experience on occasion. It can set a person on a different course, and we all need that on occasion. Dropping acid every weekend is probably not a good idea. When drugs become one's life, or one's lens through which everything good or bad is viewed (note: someone who relates all intense experiences to drugs probably should fucking stop using them)... it gets very unhealthy. At this point, the person has frank psychological problems, has probably lost jobs and friends and relationships, and is exactly the sort of person who will be drawn into the use of drugs that are physically harmful (like coke and heroin). I hope this helps to explain the pattern. Of course, there's a lot tied into it, and a lot of it's cultural. But some people undergo a subtle shift from self-improvement and learning to "experience chasing", and the chasing turns into escapism, and LSD and psilocybin are rather poor drugs for escape (they intensify life, rather than drowning it out) while alcohol, heroin, and cocaine are good for that. I know many who were irresponsible "psychonauts" in their 20s and turned into boozing alcoholics in their 40s. All that said, this is just one slice of experience and observation (and a negative one). There are plenty of people I know who use these drugs on occasion and haven't gone wrong or boiled their brains. It's not for me, but I think it's necessarily bad. Legalizing and de-stigmatizing psychedelics would do a great deal of good, in my opinion, for everyone by removing them from toxic cultures.
• dwaltrip 12y ago
  With the proper approach and care, these substances can be incredibly powerful and beneficial. I can't wait until the research eventually forces the hand of those who mistakenly believe otherwise. Psylocybin and perhaps LSD should be legal on some level in our lifetime hopefully.
  • kbart 12y ago
    "I can't wait until the research eventually forces the hand of those who mistakenly believe otherwise." I wouldn't be so optimistic, we still can't even "prove" to some that vaccination is beneficial. Even if research found a valid application for hallucinogens, I doubt they will be legal or widely available in anytime soon except, maybe, as carefully dosed therapy drug in extreme cases (pretty much like opiates).
    • lsdaccounthn 12y ago
      The vaccination situation proves that there are idiots in the world, if you take those people as example of "can't prove X" then we might as well stop all scientific research right now. There's also people who believe the world is only a few thousand years old. To get societal (and legal) change, you don't need to convince 100% of the crazies. Convincing most of the sane people is enough. (I'm not saying only crazies are against psychedelics, just that the vaccination comparison isn't useful.)
• joncooper 12y ago
  If you're interested in this, check out MAPS: http://www.maps.org/ http://www.maps.org/ They are doing a great deal to push this research forward and have been for decades.
  • DonHopkins 12y ago
    John Gilmore, founder of the EFF, is on the board of directors, as is David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and grandson of Dr. Bronner himself. Dilute! Dilute! Dilute!
• lorddoig 12y ago
  With other recent news in mind, I wonder what effect compounds like these might have on religious extremists. I wonder whether - assuming some kind of method of administration is figured out (a love bomb?) - they might stop burning people alive in cages after a decent trip.
  • michaelochurch 12y ago
    Unfortunately, it would probably make them worse. While mysticism and political extremism are loosely correlated and probably zero-to-negatively correlated once one controls for a general "religiosity" variable, at least some of these assholes in extremist movements are clearly not strangers to altered consciousness... and they're still extremist assholes. Intention (set and setting) plays a major role. These drugs aren't "evil" and don't seem to corrupt good people, but when bad people use these drugs, they become more bad. (Source: lots of personal observation. I lived in Williamsburg for a few years.) I've seen plenty of people turn for the worse after using MDMA, LSD, psilocybin. All that said, I don't think it's just the drugs; it's also the environment, and probably the combination of the environment and the drugs in truth. Being around unhealthy people, often with bad intentions, makes for poor health. A skilled therapist may be able to use the suggestibility of a willing person in a psychedelic state to purge him of harmful ideas... but that starts getting into a territory that some people find uncomfortable (sounds like "brainwashing"). I'm not saying that these drugs shouldn't be studied. There's no good reason for us to be 40 years behind in our understanding of these compounds and their effects on the mind. I think that they can clearly do a lot of good; but they aren't panaceas and, while I wish they could cure us of "the problem of evil", I'm not quite that optimistic.
• lsdaccounthn 12y ago
  Using a throwaway as while I'll talk openly to some friends/family, I don't want my handle and lsd to show up together on Google. This is a story, an anecdote, and while my view on LSD is positive as a result, definitely shouldn't be read as an endorsement of my actions. I'm the perfect example of somebody who shouldn't go near psychedelics. I've suffered depression most of my life, and was recently diagnosed as bipolar, though I've only had two real manic episodes. But.. I'm also someone who does stupid things, possibly because of not just despite those things. I've abused coke, benzodiazepines, mdma, alcohol and weed. But never to an extent people around me might notice a problem. A little while ago, I fell in love with my best friend. It was really fucking hard to deal with (after a few months of hoping it would go away I told her, talked it through and we set about trying to get rid of the awkwardness of staying friends), harder than any other life/love problems I've had. For 6 months I was depressed, had no appetite.. I was forcing myself to eat one meal a day because despite never getting hungry I knew I needed to. Friends told me the appetite was related to my feelings, but I stubbornly dismissed that as pop science - meanwhile I was kind of happy about the appetite, as I was losing inches from my waist. Then I took LSD for the first time. It was nothing like I'd expected it to be (in my imagination it would be like entering a new world, not just altering the way your mind works in the current world), but it was lovely. A few hours into that trip, I started thinking about my friend. I realised that while I still felt the same way about her.. it didn't hurt any more. It was like this clarity just appeared over the situation that there's nothing I can do about it, so I shouldn't let it hurt me. While under the influence I realised it would probably be back to normal when I woke up the next day, but then it wasn't. I woke up feeling the same way I had while tripping, went into the office, and by lunchtime I was feeling hungry for literally the first time in half a year. Now I'm in a slightly different place. I'm no longer abusing <something> on a daily basis (the last thing to go was daily weed smoking). I've no interest in benzos or MDMA. I still love coke, but hardly ever do it (twice in the last 18 months, both times someone else's suggestion, both times I didn't want more the next day). And psychedelics... I haven't done them much lately, but have an order on-route from dark net markets of LSD and DMT, largely motivated by wanting some more internal soul searching. I was hugely grateful to the LSD for that effect it had on me. I've used it quite a few times since then, though it's never made such an impact since. But lately I've been starting to feel down about her again. I don't know if it can help me again. Long story short... I'm not saying any of my actions were/are sensible or the results deserved. Nor that LSD would help everyone who was in my situation. But as a single anecdote (and hopefully interesting story), it opened my eyes to believing in the sort of trials being described by this article. My pre-existing mental conditions mean I'm probably unlikely to get approved for anything like this, even when it reaches wider access, but if I could, I'd jump at the chance to go through psychedelic therapy with expert scientists guiding me rather than doing it on my own. (Incidentally: who knows, maybe my next tab will turn me into a schizophrenic: but in the ~15 trips I've had on acid, I'm yet to have a single "bad trip". Same goes for the few times I've tried DMT.)
• eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  I'm sure the drugs can have therapeutic uses. I'm also just as sure that they don't reveal any kind of metaphysical Higher Reality, and we should stop addressing them as if they did. They merely alter your brain functioning in certain ways.
• skidoo 12y ago
  I learned more about the world from DMT than in all my years of school.
  • lsdaccounthn 12y ago
    Tell a story? :)
    • skidoo 12y ago
      My last biggie voyage also involved an anointing with Abramelin oil, and I was trying to focus on a copy of the Hermit card from a Tarot deck. By this time I was very deep into using DMT as a meditation tool, and on this occasion I was really pushing my luck. I sat on the back deck of a cousin's cabin, fairly removed from the modern world, and a massive electrical storm was slowly gathering through the evening. For most folks I've spoken with DMT trips last 10 to 15 minutes, but for me they last hours. I'm still unsure as to whether this was due to a stronger variety of crystal we were growing, or because I was giving myself to it that much more. Suffice to say, on that night the world around me became pulsating molecules, everything connected like neon blueprints going 3-D and contorting and revolving around themselves, extending into and beyond everything. The raindrops were merely pulses, the colors like waves flowing softly around me. It grew to be a violent storm, but the passivity I felt, especially from the benevolence of the bright Felix-the-Cat-like elves whose eyes would at times appear in the arrangements of atoms about me...I knew that no matter what happened around me, I had a strong center, strong enough to enable my survival of virtually anything. I was the only stillness in the universe. It sounds silly, I'm sure, but I have known fear by no means and in no circumstances since that night, almost two years ago. Religion strengthens the soul for some. DMT reinforced my spine, and my faith in myself.
      • lsdaccounthn 12y ago
        Doesn't sound silly to me. If you like DMT and it lasts longer for you, have you tried acid too? Can be much milder than DMT, but much longer trips. Personally when I smoke DMT (well, changa) it lasts 5-15min so I enjoy it as an experience, but doesn't let me really do any interesting thinking like LSD does. That said, I've only tried DMT a few times (haven't "broken through" yet), but do have a couple of grams waiting for me when I can get somewhere to pick it up...