7 ms·

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 bra

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
        It's my opinion, based on facts I witnessed, not vendetta. And I don't want somebody else to share the same fate. You say it doesn't imply endorsement, but I think threads like this lower the barrier and increase probability of drug consumption. Multiplied by large audience, this gives some new drugs users. Mentioning an object plants seeds in people minds. Mention oranges, you will have increased oranges consumption, mention Facebook React - more React users, mention coca-cola - increased cola consumption. Also, humans are very social. Seeing group enthusiasm in the subject, individuals can lean to it. There are many experiments about this, one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments.
        gress 12y ago
        I know people who have been essentially cured of otherwise intractable PTSD through the use of psychedelics. Would you prefer them to have suffered for the rest of their lives? All medicine carries risk, and it is through research that we learn how to apply it safely. Suppressing research is what leads to uninformed use, and increased danger.
        rosser 12y ago
        It's my opinion, based on facts I witnessed... And I've known hundreds of people who have taken one of the most powerful psychedelics on the planet between 3-5 and hundreds of times each. Of them, there's been exactly one case of an adverse reaction that I've seen, on the part of a woman who had a pre-existing, but occult mental health issue. My anecdata can beat up your anecdata. Of course, none of that means it doesn't happen, but it happens radically less often than you seem to want people to believe.
        Igglyboo 12y ago
        I personally know many people who have taken psychedelics with 0 adverse reactions. Personal anecdotes are worthless.
        dang 12y ago
        > not vendetta Ok, I've edited that word out of my comment. You may be right that there is a problem with social proof deluding people into thinking psychedelics are more harmless than they are. But that can't be the only factor here. If it were, we'd have to bury all stories about serious psychedelics research. That isn't going to happen. Therefore, please stop re-litigating the presence of these stories on Hacker News. You're creating a gigantic off-topic diversion. If you want to comment on the topic, that's fine, but please make an effort to ensure that your comments aren't flamebait.
        andyl 12y ago
        I know hundreds of high-functioning drug users, and know that sometimes illegal drugs can be beneficial. But also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs - the #1 cause of death amongst my peers. More than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also many more that are alive but seriously damaged. Drug addiction creates second-hand victims, the parents/children/siblings/family. Unbelievably painful. The town I grew up in was torn apart by drugs and gangs. Watch 'The Wire' - art imitating life. The costs of drugs are truly staggering. Seems I'm the lone person who agrees with @avodonosov. The mods have told us that anti-drug views are not welcome on HN. At this point many of you are reaching for the downvote button. :-) Sorry but - yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside!
    - forloop 12y ago
      It's the subtitle. And 'exciting' was used to describe the results, not psychedelics.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- anonbanker 12y ago
  And like clockwork, the anti's come out with the same anecdotal FUD. This one linking to a previous thread out of laziness. Your contribution as an anti-drug crusader has been noted in this thread. You can move on now.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Raphmedia 12y ago
  In your story, there are a lot of red flags that would indicate depression. It is very sad that your friend died, but I do not see how it is relevant to this article at all. I am certain that your friend also drank beer, played video games and watched television. None of those factors are directly linked to his suicide. The existence of those drugs aren't related either. Struggling with addiction is very hard, but do not confuse it with the substances themselves. In a medical or scientific settings, doses and addiction are managed. That being said, my sympathy for your friend.
- itistoday2 12y ago
  Is it OK if I bring a part of that thread into this one? You said: > It is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote drugs (LSD or whatever). And off-topic for Hacker News. There are people who unstable, who have internal emotional conflicts, etc. For them drug use may be a catastrophe. I would agree with the latter, and only half of the former. Yes, you are absolutely right that for some people in some circumstances drugs like psychedelics can lead to real harm. But that is true of virtually all drugs. Let's dive deeper into the first sentence: > It is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote drugs (LSD or whatever). If you meant that literally, then you also believe that it is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote aspirin and caffeine. Do you believe that? If not, you are not being consistent, and what you really meant to have said is that it is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote some drugs. Well, which ones and why? Think about this in a larger context, and maybe actually consider reading the article. I read your post and the article both, and I think there's a lot in the article that, if you read it with a clear mind, you will find yourself agreeing with.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  Given all the studies showing that psychedelic users have better mental health than the general public, aren't you at all worried that the stigma around psychedelics causes more people to have the same sorts of issues as your friend?

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
      It's my opinion, based on facts I witnessed, not vendetta. And I don't want somebody else to share the same fate. You say it doesn't imply endorsement, but I think threads like this lower the barrier and increase probability of drug consumption. Multiplied by large audience, this gives some new drugs users. Mentioning an object plants seeds in people minds. Mention oranges, you will have increased oranges consumption, mention Facebook React - more React users, mention coca-cola - increased cola consumption. Also, humans are very social. Seeing group enthusiasm in the subject, individuals can lean to it. There are many experiments about this, one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments.
      - gress 12y ago
        I know people who have been essentially cured of otherwise intractable PTSD through the use of psychedelics. Would you prefer them to have suffered for the rest of their lives? All medicine carries risk, and it is through research that we learn how to apply it safely. Suppressing research is what leads to uninformed use, and increased danger.
      - rosser 12y ago
        It's my opinion, based on facts I witnessed... And I've known hundreds of people who have taken one of the most powerful psychedelics on the planet between 3-5 and hundreds of times each. Of them, there's been exactly one case of an adverse reaction that I've seen, on the part of a woman who had a pre-existing, but occult mental health issue. My anecdata can beat up your anecdata. Of course, none of that means it doesn't happen, but it happens radically less often than you seem to want people to believe.
      - Igglyboo 12y ago
        I personally know many people who have taken psychedelics with 0 adverse reactions. Personal anecdotes are worthless.
      - dang 12y ago
        > not vendetta Ok, I've edited that word out of my comment. You may be right that there is a problem with social proof deluding people into thinking psychedelics are more harmless than they are. But that can't be the only factor here. If it were, we'd have to bury all stories about serious psychedelics research. That isn't going to happen. Therefore, please stop re-litigating the presence of these stories on Hacker News. You're creating a gigantic off-topic diversion. If you want to comment on the topic, that's fine, but please make an effort to ensure that your comments aren't flamebait.
      - andyl 12y ago
        I know hundreds of high-functioning drug users, and know that sometimes illegal drugs can be beneficial. But also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs - the #1 cause of death amongst my peers. More than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also many more that are alive but seriously damaged. Drug addiction creates second-hand victims, the parents/children/siblings/family. Unbelievably painful. The town I grew up in was torn apart by drugs and gangs. Watch 'The Wire' - art imitating life. The costs of drugs are truly staggering. Seems I'm the lone person who agrees with @avodonosov. The mods have told us that anti-drug views are not welcome on HN. At this point many of you are reaching for the downvote button. :-) Sorry but - yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside!
  - forloop 12y ago
    It's the subtitle. And 'exciting' was used to describe the results, not psychedelics.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
anonbanker 12y ago
And like clockwork, the anti's come out with the same anecdotal FUD. This one linking to a previous thread out of laziness. Your contribution as an anti-drug crusader has been noted in this thread. You can move on now.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Raphmedia 12y ago
In your story, there are a lot of red flags that would indicate depression. It is very sad that your friend died, but I do not see how it is relevant to this article at all. I am certain that your friend also drank beer, played video games and watched television. None of those factors are directly linked to his suicide. The existence of those drugs aren't related either. Struggling with addiction is very hard, but do not confuse it with the substances themselves. In a medical or scientific settings, doses and addiction are managed. That being said, my sympathy for your friend.
itistoday2 12y ago
Is it OK if I bring a part of that thread into this one? You said: > It is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote drugs (LSD or whatever). And off-topic for Hacker News. There are people who unstable, who have internal emotional conflicts, etc. For them drug use may be a catastrophe. I would agree with the latter, and only half of the former. Yes, you are absolutely right that for some people in some circumstances drugs like psychedelics can lead to real harm. But that is true of virtually all drugs. Let's dive deeper into the first sentence: > It is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote drugs (LSD or whatever). If you meant that literally, then you also believe that it is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote aspirin and caffeine. Do you believe that? If not, you are not being consistent, and what you really meant to have said is that it is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote some drugs. Well, which ones and why? Think about this in a larger context, and maybe actually consider reading the article. I read your post and the article both, and I think there's a lot in the article that, if you read it with a clear mind, you will find yourself agreeing with.
Alex3917 12y ago
Given all the studies showing that psychedelic users have better mental health than the general public, aren't you at all worried that the stigma around psychedelics causes more people to have the same sorts of issues as your friend?