Mushrooms can be extremely introspective, I would imagine this could easily lead people to re-evalute their life choices in a more permanent manner than normal.
> this could easily lead people to re-evalute their life choices in a more permanent manner than normal
What if more people would realize that they're constantly being controlled by fear created by commercial and governmental interests? This loss of power probably contributes to the fact that such substances are mostly banned.
Or in a friend of mine, trigger latent schizophrenia, ruin his degree, lose his girlfriend, flatshare and end up living in the back of his car for 3 years.
YMMV.
I'd rather not flip the coin on drug use. That goes for a fair number of prescription drugs as well for reference.
The key mediating variable here was whether people had a mystical experience, so this doesn't look like it was necessarily related to the introspectiveness of the experience; that would happen at much lower doses, and it would happen to everyone regardless of whether or not they had a mystical experience.
I think it's hypocritical to defend keeping other drugs illegal while allowing alcohol and tobacco to thrive.
Either we go full puritan and forbid all drug use, or this talk of defending people from themselves is just protectionism for the tobacco and alcohol industries.
I know it's easier to say "it's obviously bad, so we must ban it"... but I wanted to share some thoughts too.
(I don't use drugs, I stopped smoking, I still drink alcohol)
Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work... For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.
But I don't think a ban on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I think drug prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far stretched, but please read on.
We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits.
People who decide to use drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the law. If you accept a high risk of death, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you.
The fact that a majority of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition only allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse.
Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict kills/hurts/steals from you, he risks jail anyway for that (not so much for using drugs!). Prohibition doesn't protect us.
Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. Research could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe a startup could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society would start teaching people about psychology and altered states of mind... Maybe drug traffics would plummet, leading to less violence. Maybe we could then treat all addictions, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is probably barring some from seeking help. And I believe I'm not creative/clever enough to imagine all those changes that would occur.
Lastly, it's widely accepted on HN that we must measure the effects of the actions we take. Reconsidering prohibition will allow such measurement and we'll build our future more wisely.
There will still be casualties, but think again about that cantaloupe... You can't ban cantaloupe to save me from myself.
I don't think that people using potentially dangerous drugs want the drug to kill them, or have a complete disrespect of the law. While alcohol isn't an illegal drug let there be no mistake that it is absolutely a drug in every sense of the word and there is high risk of abuse, dependence, and harm. A huge number of people die each year from the abuse of alcohol. AA exists for a reason and you can buy beer almost anywhere.
But let's not talk about drugs that pose a mortal risk for a moment. Instead, let's focus on the topic at hand which is psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, etc... These all carry different risk profiles individually but overall it is safe to say that risk of dependence or lethal overdose are several magnitudes less than that of alcohol, cocaine, nicotine, or opiates. Yes, there is always the chance of a bad trip and it is entirely possible that poor decisions are made on LSD or mushrooms (if you are making poor decisions while on DMT, it would only be in conversations you're having in your head as you aren't walking about on that drug). I also don't know anyone addicted to LSD.
And while I've heard of few people having life-changing positive breakthroughs while trash drunk on alcohol or buzzing from nicotine, I have met scores of people who have had such experiences on comparatively safe psychedelics.
As you say, prohibition has run its course especially for psychedelic drugs and must end. Are there 'bad' drugs out there? Absolutely! But there are many more positive ways to deal with them through education and resources.
> Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work... For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.
OT, but why do you drink if you feel this way? Alcohol is perhaps one of the least safe recreational drugs there is. Of course, with proper dosage management and supervision from a sober individual, the risk is minimal. But that applies to all drugs, doesn't it?
It is my opinion that prohibition remains in effect because too many powerful groups profit from it. Even small-time marijuana growers in California were against legalization because it would affect their livelihood.
Trade in illicit drugs is estimated at over $300 billion per year or about 1% of global trade. That's huge...and it doesn't even account for the other side of the coin which is the amount of tax dollars that the DEA, your local police and other groups can take control of to "fight" the war on drugs which they don't really want to end. Furthermore, I am convinced that governmental intelligence agencies who need secret money to run their "black ops" do indeed take profits from the sale of illicit drugs. Nobody can prove it of course (well, maybe Gary Webb could have, but he's dead now).
So, I think that arguing from the standpoint that laws are made to protect the public just doesn't work here.
It's incredible how any anti-drug sentiment touches a nerve of the pro-drugs crowd here. Multiple people were offended enough to go and downvote every one of allegory's comments. This is fucking ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself. You claim that "we need a debate" but you react to expressions of anti-drug sentiment, by putting up a straw man interpretation and downvoting without explaining yourself. What the fuck? Your downvote deserves a downvote.
My original comment is pointing out the title is stupid and uninformative.
[+] [-] darkFunction|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dan_bk|11 years ago|reply
What if more people would realize that they're constantly being controlled by fear created by commercial and governmental interests? This loss of power probably contributes to the fact that such substances are mostly banned.
[+] [-] allegory|11 years ago|reply
YMMV.
I'd rather not flip the coin on drug use. That goes for a fair number of prescription drugs as well for reference.
[+] [-] Alex3917|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thefreeman|11 years ago|reply
- take some smokers
- give them therapy for 5 weeks
- dose them up on psilocybin
- hope they stop smoking.
I am guessing there was more to the study then that.
Also the results of the study are never even listed, except for saying that it "worked in most cases".
Honestly, I am all for studying the affects of these drugs but this article is pretty garbage.
[+] [-] chaosdesigner|11 years ago|reply
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/06/026988111454...
[+] [-] JetSpiegel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weddpros|11 years ago|reply
Cantaloupe can kill me (allergy), so I choose not to eat it. Darwin at work... For similar reasons, I'm not pro-drugs.
But I don't think a ban on cantaloupe is needed, the same way I think drug prohibition is not an appropriate response to drug abuse. I know it seems far stretched, but please read on.
We base our choice on perceived risk vs benefits. People who decide to use drugs that could kill them probably don't care about the law. If you accept a high risk of death, jail shouldn't look like a major risk for you.
The fact that a majority of people have tried drugs prove that prohibition only allows punishment, but it doesn't prevent drug abuse.
Reconsidering prohibition doesn't equal being lawless: if a drug addict kills/hurts/steals from you, he risks jail anyway for that (not so much for using drugs!). Prohibition doesn't protect us.
Reconsidering prohibition might open the society for more evolution. Research could lead to real health benefits under medical supervision. Maybe a startup could find ways to explore the effects of some drug safely. Maybe the society would start teaching people about psychology and altered states of mind... Maybe drug traffics would plummet, leading to less violence. Maybe we could then treat all addictions, without a legal vs illegal barrier which is probably barring some from seeking help. And I believe I'm not creative/clever enough to imagine all those changes that would occur.
Lastly, it's widely accepted on HN that we must measure the effects of the actions we take. Reconsidering prohibition will allow such measurement and we'll build our future more wisely.
There will still be casualties, but think again about that cantaloupe... You can't ban cantaloupe to save me from myself.
[+] [-] tibbon|11 years ago|reply
But let's not talk about drugs that pose a mortal risk for a moment. Instead, let's focus on the topic at hand which is psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, etc... These all carry different risk profiles individually but overall it is safe to say that risk of dependence or lethal overdose are several magnitudes less than that of alcohol, cocaine, nicotine, or opiates. Yes, there is always the chance of a bad trip and it is entirely possible that poor decisions are made on LSD or mushrooms (if you are making poor decisions while on DMT, it would only be in conversations you're having in your head as you aren't walking about on that drug). I also don't know anyone addicted to LSD.
And while I've heard of few people having life-changing positive breakthroughs while trash drunk on alcohol or buzzing from nicotine, I have met scores of people who have had such experiences on comparatively safe psychedelics.
As you say, prohibition has run its course especially for psychedelic drugs and must end. Are there 'bad' drugs out there? Absolutely! But there are many more positive ways to deal with them through education and resources.
[+] [-] shawnz|11 years ago|reply
OT, but why do you drink if you feel this way? Alcohol is perhaps one of the least safe recreational drugs there is. Of course, with proper dosage management and supervision from a sober individual, the risk is minimal. But that applies to all drugs, doesn't it?
[+] [-] WorldWideWayne|11 years ago|reply
Trade in illicit drugs is estimated at over $300 billion per year or about 1% of global trade. That's huge...and it doesn't even account for the other side of the coin which is the amount of tax dollars that the DEA, your local police and other groups can take control of to "fight" the war on drugs which they don't really want to end. Furthermore, I am convinced that governmental intelligence agencies who need secret money to run their "black ops" do indeed take profits from the sale of illicit drugs. Nobody can prove it of course (well, maybe Gary Webb could have, but he's dead now).
So, I think that arguing from the standpoint that laws are made to protect the public just doesn't work here.
[+] [-] infinity0|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] infinity0|11 years ago|reply
My original comment is pointing out the title is stupid and uninformative.
[+] [-] chobo|11 years ago|reply