I was in the MAPS MDMA for PTSD study(psymposia.com)
psymposia.com
I was in the MAPS MDMA for PTSD study
https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/maps-mdma-ptsd-study-freed-childhood-abuse/
158 comments
Yes. The main barrier to more psychedelic research is funding / $$ and time - far more than anything else.
In the US, access to research funding is a far larger issue than scheduling. The main benefit of rescheduling would likely be through its indirect benefits on access to funding.
Source: I’ve talked with multiple researchers who are studying psychedelics.
Also, I recommend reading or listening to the book Acid Test if anyone here would like to learn more.
In the US, access to research funding is a far larger issue than scheduling. The main benefit of rescheduling would likely be through its indirect benefits on access to funding.
Source: I’ve talked with multiple researchers who are studying psychedelics.
Also, I recommend reading or listening to the book Acid Test if anyone here would like to learn more.
What is an MDMA session?
When a patient sits with a therapist under the influence of MDMA, which typically consists of two doses (100-120mg initially, then 70mg a few hours later) spread over an 6-8 hour period. The patient is largely experiencing their own internal process, but at times the therapist is there to help guide and comfort. Before and after the session there is conventional psychotherapeutic follow-up.
Huh, I wonder to what extent this is dependent on the therapist understanding that you're on MDMA. I.e., would it be possible for a patient to take some MDMA (assuming you have experience with it) and then go to a therapist?
I've accidentally done as much myself with close friends instead of therapists: I started partying with Molly during a period in my life where I was already starting to recognize and work through some issues from my entire childhood: the wee hours of the morning after having an amazing night dancing is a pretty ideal setting to open up mental blocks and be honest with yourself and others. (It also made me almost instantly closer to those people, whom I consider some of the most important people in my life at this point).
I've accidentally done as much myself with close friends instead of therapists: I started partying with Molly during a period in my life where I was already starting to recognize and work through some issues from my entire childhood: the wee hours of the morning after having an amazing night dancing is a pretty ideal setting to open up mental blocks and be honest with yourself and others. (It also made me almost instantly closer to those people, whom I consider some of the most important people in my life at this point).
Some people climb mountains without professional guides.
Beginners usually need a trainer and a guide to at least get started and to not end up in a life risking situation.
In medical science those professionals are often called doctors and nurses.
Beginners usually need a trainer and a guide to at least get started and to not end up in a life risking situation.
In medical science those professionals are often called doctors and nurses.
Worth adding that a bad psychedelic experience can be quite damaging, and just like you shouldn't climb mountains without experience or a guide, you also shouldn't explore psychedelics without experience or a guide.
I wasn't talking about beginners doing it, but there's enough confusion in the replies to my comment that the fault is probably mine for not being clear enough.
What I was wondering is more along the lines of: is the therapy appreciably different to complement the MDMA, or is it simply the increased openness etc that makes normal modes of therapy more effective?
I didn't intend to suggest that people _should_ take MDMA before therapy, but it was just a thought experiment to get at the above question. I only wondered about it because, as I said, I've incidentally done as much while talking with friends.
What I was wondering is more along the lines of: is the therapy appreciably different to complement the MDMA, or is it simply the increased openness etc that makes normal modes of therapy more effective?
I didn't intend to suggest that people _should_ take MDMA before therapy, but it was just a thought experiment to get at the above question. I only wondered about it because, as I said, I've incidentally done as much while talking with friends.
Agree MDMA has incredible potential for therapy. However I think your therapist should be comfortable/trained with it - just showing up isn’t ideal.
To be clear, I wasn't talking about myself (I'm not in therapy), just idly wondering. I'm pretty comfortable with psychedelics personally, but have less experience with MDMA specifically and my impression is that it's a lot easier to manage than eg LSD.
There are plenty of psychoactive drugs that people don't think twice about managing themselves (weed, caffeine, alcohol), and I was just curious whether MDMA would fall into that category squarely enough (it's certainly easier to manage than alcohol is, for example).
There are plenty of psychoactive drugs that people don't think twice about managing themselves (weed, caffeine, alcohol), and I was just curious whether MDMA would fall into that category squarely enough (it's certainly easier to manage than alcohol is, for example).
The dosages used in the FDA Phase 3 research are 80mg or 120mg initial dose followed by either 40mg or 60mg 1.5-2 hrs later, respectively.
Are they doing 6months and 1year follow ups? Short term relief is not that interesting to me
Yes.
See this from earlier research results http://www.mdmaptsd.org/research-category.html
> A long-term follow-up of patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy revealed that overall benefits were maintained an average of 3.8 years later.
See this from earlier research results http://www.mdmaptsd.org/research-category.html
> A long-term follow-up of patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy revealed that overall benefits were maintained an average of 3.8 years later.
Is it possible to do this, today, anywhere in the world (without getting into a study, which seems hard, especially in another country)? I am looking for help for somebody close to me.
It would be interesting to determine the efficacy of actual MDMA (commonly available in the 90s) vs what is referred to as 'Molly' today...
The issue is that they may or may not be actual MDMA - and the unscrupulous label general amphetamines as either molly or MDMA and people unfamiliar dont know it....
The clinical studies should, presumably, be also, setting a standard for the purity, dosage, quality etc around the tested substance...
So to go "off grid" as it were, to test this has risks..
That being said - the efficacy of any therapy session, even when the introspection and emotional response is deliberately induced, could still result in benefits.
The problem with any drugs, beit alcohol, weed, whatever - is that environment (situational and historically) play a large part in the response.
The mental state can be associative to a great degree, and as such - if one has had a tool such as MDMA in the past - but in a really poor environment, the response could be poor.
Read up on it - but never trust anything off the street to be what they claim...
The issue is that they may or may not be actual MDMA - and the unscrupulous label general amphetamines as either molly or MDMA and people unfamiliar dont know it....
The clinical studies should, presumably, be also, setting a standard for the purity, dosage, quality etc around the tested substance...
So to go "off grid" as it were, to test this has risks..
That being said - the efficacy of any therapy session, even when the introspection and emotional response is deliberately induced, could still result in benefits.
The problem with any drugs, beit alcohol, weed, whatever - is that environment (situational and historically) play a large part in the response.
The mental state can be associative to a great degree, and as such - if one has had a tool such as MDMA in the past - but in a really poor environment, the response could be poor.
Read up on it - but never trust anything off the street to be what they claim...
Thanks samstave, yes, I am definitely looking for pointers towards something "on grid" in particular.
That being said, I am pretty sure I can find the drug, I know some people that I can trust. Preferably it would be administered by the therapist, though.
Thanks, too, for the caution. I have already found someone in my native country who is a psychologist who also does AI stuff with Tensorflow, so I trust them already. ;)
That being said, I am pretty sure I can find the drug, I know some people that I can trust. Preferably it would be administered by the therapist, though.
Thanks, too, for the caution. I have already found someone in my native country who is a psychologist who also does AI stuff with Tensorflow, so I trust them already. ;)
Be aware:
"87% of “Molly” analyzed by the DEA between 2009 and 2013 contained 0% MDMA, instead mostly containing “bath salts” like methylone.3"
https://rollsafe.org/whats-in-molly/
"87% of “Molly” analyzed by the DEA between 2009 and 2013 contained 0% MDMA, instead mostly containing “bath salts” like methylone.3"
https://rollsafe.org/whats-in-molly/
Thanks anythingnonidin - again, I am not planning to get my friend pills off the street and pull this cowboy style. I am looking for guided counselling. That being said, I have a friend who I trust, who knows his things (well, when it comes to these things, at least).
> who knows his things (well, when it comes to these things, at least).
I’d venture to guess that half the people buying MDMA-less molly would say the same thing.
If your friend isn’t sitting in the lab while it’s being made or not doing mass spec on it the product, it’s all someone’s word.
I’d venture to guess that half the people buying MDMA-less molly would say the same thing.
If your friend isn’t sitting in the lab while it’s being made or not doing mass spec on it the product, it’s all someone’s word.
Get and use a chemical assay kit of some kind. Trust but verify.
There are a number of testing kits out there:
http://testkitplus.com/product/mdma-test-kit
http://testkitplus.com/product/mdma-test-kit
Get a test kit and understand how it works. That's the only way to have a good idea what the compound is.
https://dancesafe.org/
https://dancesafe.org/
Just anecdotally, I worked out a lot of deep seated personal issues with people at rave after parties. Really you just need anyone you trust to listen to you.
Only if you know a willing therapist.
And that therapist has access to 100% _pure_ (and unfortunately illegal) MDMA.
This is one of the great tragedies of the war on drugs: UN member states are bound to the convention under law, so until this unjust (and unscientific) barrier is torn down it will always be dangerous and difficult to acquire for therapeutic purposes. But things, thankfully, are changing for the better.
This is one of the great tragedies of the war on drugs: UN member states are bound to the convention under law, so until this unjust (and unscientific) barrier is torn down it will always be dangerous and difficult to acquire for therapeutic purposes. But things, thankfully, are changing for the better.
It's the powers that be (money; pharmaceutical industry) who want these substances to remain criminalized, because these substances can be way more powerful and much cheaper than anti-depressants & Co. - and without destructive side-effects. So what MDMA, LSD, psilocybin and others can do is make people much healthier and the industry a tiny bit less rich, which is only in "the people's" interest.
> and without destructive side-effects
You can mess up your serotonin levels for an extended period of time through MDMA abuse.
I guess that might be a direct effect rather than a side effect, but that doesn't seem to be your point.
You can mess up your serotonin levels for an extended period of time through MDMA abuse.
I guess that might be a direct effect rather than a side effect, but that doesn't seem to be your point.
>> You can mess up your serotonin levels for an extended period of time through MDMA abuse.
You can do that with SSRIs too. You can also kill yourself with opioids. The problem is that MDMA isn't even available by prescription. The first I heard of it was on a TV special covering its use in therapy sessions - that was in the 1980s prior to the whole ecstasy fad. Why is this useful substance totally illegal, while much more harmful and addictive things are legal, available, and causing problems?
You can do that with SSRIs too. You can also kill yourself with opioids. The problem is that MDMA isn't even available by prescription. The first I heard of it was on a TV special covering its use in therapy sessions - that was in the 1980s prior to the whole ecstasy fad. Why is this useful substance totally illegal, while much more harmful and addictive things are legal, available, and causing problems?
Abuse also causes be neurological damage from oxidative stress, in the raver scene sufferers of these effects are referred to as e-tards.
But abuse of anything can be harmful, that's kind of a defining qualification of the whole concept of abuse, isn't it?
But abuse of anything can be harmful, that's kind of a defining qualification of the whole concept of abuse, isn't it?
Thanks bdamm. Yes, in particular, I am looking for pointers to that, I suppose. Perhaps, somewhere there is one and we could travel there.
I don't have any references for you but this interview with a psychiatrist who would use MDMA with his patients (and LSD) when he deemed it beneficial is interesting.
Thanks pizza - you seem to lack the "forgot to post link"-extension ;)
No, really, I am interested. Please share. Thanks.
No, really, I am interested. Please share. Thanks.
Here you go: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppxx97/meet-the-only-doct...
Switzerland rocks in many ways.
Switzerland rocks in many ways.
If you decide to attempt the process in a place where you can't be guaranteed 100% pure MDMA, I suggest you look into Marquis reagents.
I know someone who recovered from an extremely traumatic experience through accidental self medication whilst out partying.
It's sad but it happens. Set and setting is most important -- and needless to say, knowing what you're taking is even more so.
Why two doses? Having no experience with this, 6-8 hours sounds like a long therapy session.
it simply extends the time
You are able to "work".
It's such an enjoyable and useful process that most everyone chooses to take the booster dose.
It also is a nice safety check, if the person happens to freak out or really doesn't want to continue, they can pass and come back down. But as I Said, in practice no one passes.
It's also not boring or tedious as most therapies can be, it's a lovely place you want to explore.
It's such an enjoyable and useful process that most everyone chooses to take the booster dose.
It also is a nice safety check, if the person happens to freak out or really doesn't want to continue, they can pass and come back down. But as I Said, in practice no one passes.
It's also not boring or tedious as most therapies can be, it's a lovely place you want to explore.
At those doses, the first few hours would be fairly mild with just a feeling of closeness, openness and comfort. The second dose would push you closer to the ‘oh my god love is everywhere why didn’t I see this before’ feeling.
Are you sure about the doses? Doesn't sound overly therapeutic to me tbh
For people who are curious, here is a dosage chart: https://erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_dose.shtml
It's a pretty normal dose.
It's a pretty normal dose.
Sometimes the second dose is lower, but this is the typical ballpark which is supported by research.
A short web page I put together with some more info: https://rollsafe.org/mdma-therapy/
Hi, your link looks interesting so thanks for putting that together but I just wanted to say it seems you've set the CSS property word-wrap: break-word on all elements of your site, which makes it kind of hard to read the text as words are constantly being chopped off.
Thanks for the comment. Can you share a screenshot on imgur.com by any chance? I can't reproduce the issue so would like to know what you're seeing so I can fix it.
Resize to around 480px width and you'll see the problem.
Ok should be fixed, I think.
Nice and responsive now! Thanks again for the resource.
Got it, thanks. Will fix.
Amazing book to answer that question:
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chief-Revealed-Myron-Stolaroff...
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chief-Revealed-Myron-Stolaroff...
A guided therapy session with a licensed practitioner which involves the patient taking a small dose of MDMA
Not typically a particularly small dose. Sometimes a fairly large dose, in the 150mg range.
Controlled, therapeutic dosing of MDMA.
For decades, there has been a near complete effective block on medical research for certain classes of drugs. Timothy Leary and that kind of 60’s stuff chilled legitimate science. Only recently have small changes started to happen, to the point the government, the flipping FDA, has started to think Ectasy (MDMA) might be a viable treatment for some of our most horrible mental illnesses.
So many people wonder when science will let us do things. When will we land on the moon, when will we cure cancer (most cancer anyway, a handful have been effectively cured), when will all of mankind benefit from the next great insights? We ask this yet in a lot of ways, we won’t even open our minds enough to give it our best shot.
How much can x, mushrooms, ketamine et al really change devastated lives for the better under the right conditions? We may never know.
I fully respect the opinion of people who say these drugs shouldn’t ever be used, or that disagree with me on any issue in general. But I will never respect someone who doesn’t want to know the answers and the data.
It happens with drugs, gun control, so many political issues, people actually do not want, and even work against collection of, objective data. Of course of any given data set can be biased or flawed, and that has nothing to do with getting the best data you can, iterating, and improving it.
If we are opposed to something, it’s ostensibly for a reason right? Why would we ever not want to strengthen our argument, or discard it, based on better understanding of our “reason”?
So many people wonder when science will let us do things. When will we land on the moon, when will we cure cancer (most cancer anyway, a handful have been effectively cured), when will all of mankind benefit from the next great insights? We ask this yet in a lot of ways, we won’t even open our minds enough to give it our best shot.
How much can x, mushrooms, ketamine et al really change devastated lives for the better under the right conditions? We may never know.
I fully respect the opinion of people who say these drugs shouldn’t ever be used, or that disagree with me on any issue in general. But I will never respect someone who doesn’t want to know the answers and the data.
It happens with drugs, gun control, so many political issues, people actually do not want, and even work against collection of, objective data. Of course of any given data set can be biased or flawed, and that has nothing to do with getting the best data you can, iterating, and improving it.
If we are opposed to something, it’s ostensibly for a reason right? Why would we ever not want to strengthen our argument, or discard it, based on better understanding of our “reason”?
> For decades, there has been a near complete effective block on medical research for certain classes of drugs.
In the US. One wonders why such a study wasn't carried out in a less puritan country.
In the US. One wonders why such a study wasn't carried out in a less puritan country.
It's because the real reason that testing these drugs is illegal isn't USA puritan values/laws. It's because they aren't patented.
The synthetic opioids that drug companies are dumping on the population these days are many times more dangerous, but they make a profit for big companies, so they are legal.
Powerful drug companies influence research worldwide. They want no competition from drugs that would be generic from day one.
edit: missing words
The synthetic opioids that drug companies are dumping on the population these days are many times more dangerous, but they make a profit for big companies, so they are legal.
Powerful drug companies influence research worldwide. They want no competition from drugs that would be generic from day one.
edit: missing words
This is a big issue. Clinical studies to get a chemical approved for therapeutical use are very expensive, and since most of the chemicals were first explored a long time ago, they can't be patented anymore, so no pharmaceutical company would fund the studies since they won't be able to be the sole provider of that drug (at a premium cost), and public funding for clinical studies is quite low.
There is nothing stopping them from making a patentable analogue. Happens a lot right now.
Well, except for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
Meh... that already isn't a barrier. Analogues of heroin (fentanyl, etc) are legitimate Rx drugs today.
I guess that leaves academia?
No, it does not. "Academia" generally means studies funded by public grants (which, as I said above, very rarely would cover drug approval studies) and in some cases academia might implement studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies, but they're not really an independent source of funding for research, at least not in expensive/labor intensive fields like medicine.
In fields where solid research can't be done by a single part-time person (e.g. a teaching professor), research happens only to the extent and in the direction where there's available funding. Even putting a couple grad students on a project for a year (i.e., a very small project) requires external funding, much less the extensive studies needed to prove that a particular chemical is safe for human use and has a therapeutic effect.
In fields where solid research can't be done by a single part-time person (e.g. a teaching professor), research happens only to the extent and in the direction where there's available funding. Even putting a couple grad students on a project for a year (i.e., a very small project) requires external funding, much less the extensive studies needed to prove that a particular chemical is safe for human use and has a therapeutic effect.
It’s true in general that economics, with patents being part of that, is the dominant influence on r&d resources.
However the effective research ban is by far the bigger limiting factor in this case, because it rules out most options before even getting started.
For example, it’s not unusual for unpatentable substances to be studied, in the hope that understanding the fundamental mechanism could allow a (sometimes) improved alternative to be developed that could be profitable.
There is also at least some research not controlled by big pharma that could have conceivably targeted these areas 40 years ago.
However the effective research ban is by far the bigger limiting factor in this case, because it rules out most options before even getting started.
For example, it’s not unusual for unpatentable substances to be studied, in the hope that understanding the fundamental mechanism could allow a (sometimes) improved alternative to be developed that could be profitable.
There is also at least some research not controlled by big pharma that could have conceivably targeted these areas 40 years ago.
I have trouble believing the patent argument. If folks can patent certain strains of crop seeds, why would they not be able to patent a GMO mushroom or a process for GMO yeast to produce such things?
Would they not be able to profit from the stability of lab-produced drugs? Would the generic market not want to produce these? After all, some of the drug manufacturers produce both brand-name and generic drugs [1].
Regardless of patent, I'm pretty sure some players would happily get into the prescription market. On top of this, I'm going to guess since it seems some of these drugs out-perform the available prescription drugs and is cheaper in the long run, insurance companies and governments alike (since some places have universal care and even the US is invested in some forms of healthcare) stand to profit from having this sort of thing be the first line of treatment when possible.
[1] http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/featurethe...
Would they not be able to profit from the stability of lab-produced drugs? Would the generic market not want to produce these? After all, some of the drug manufacturers produce both brand-name and generic drugs [1].
Regardless of patent, I'm pretty sure some players would happily get into the prescription market. On top of this, I'm going to guess since it seems some of these drugs out-perform the available prescription drugs and is cheaper in the long run, insurance companies and governments alike (since some places have universal care and even the US is invested in some forms of healthcare) stand to profit from having this sort of thing be the first line of treatment when possible.
[1] http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/featurethe...
As I understand it, the problem with drugs that aren't patentable is there is no way for those who pay for clinical testing to re-coup their investment. Phase I-IV clinical testing usually goes well over 100 million USD [1] so drug companies need to recoup that money, if the drug isn't protected under patent, once approved, any manufacturer can produce it. Sure they could patent GMO organism that produces it, but the process to produce it chemically is already well understood, Shulgin has published recipes to produce virtually every psychedelic chemically pure in Pikal and Tikal.
[1]https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/examination-clinical-trial-costs...
[1]https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/examination-clinical-trial-costs...
Wait, you think drug companies are conspiring to stop MDMA trials?
Having worked for a few drug companies I can assure you most don't even know what MDMA is.
Having worked for a few drug companies I can assure you most don't even know what MDMA is.
Some of it has to do with the history of psychedelics. At least in the US, the 1960's were rife with "psychedelics cure everything!" and they were pretty broadly used in the psychiatrist community.
What happened was that a lot of the promise of them didn't pan out. Then the laws changed and it made it much harder to do research.
So in essence, it's not just one reason why psychedelic research pretty much disappeared. Unmet expectations, lack of funding and stringent laws all contributed to it.
What happened was that a lot of the promise of them didn't pan out. Then the laws changed and it made it much harder to do research.
So in essence, it's not just one reason why psychedelic research pretty much disappeared. Unmet expectations, lack of funding and stringent laws all contributed to it.
It pretty much is one reason. Neural networks also fell out of favor in the AI winter, for similar reasons, but people could still experiment (and did) so we now have an NN renaissance.
People could still experiment with schedule 1 drugs. Sure it's a lot of paperwork, but it can be done, in fact this MAPS study proves it!
As a world power and leader of most democratic nations(at the time), sentiments and legislation started in America generally spread to most other nations under its influence.
This is quickly changing.
China doesn't seem too keen on drugs either.
Too true, they’ve been trying to crack down on Ketamine, never mind that it’s medically critical as a field anesthetic!
iirc the united nations ratified american drug laws in the 60s/70s
On one hand, I understand that psychedelics should be more studied than they currently are. On the other hand, I understand why they were originally banned. In a country that valued a monoculture and having a single way of life, psychedelics spurred a complete revolution with regards to social and cultural norms. It was seen as destabilizing, and a threat to the American way of life.
Nowadays, our country is very different. There is a widespread sense that there is no right or wrong way to live your life, and anyone who goes against multiculturalist viewpoints is labeled as ignorant or a racist. I think in this environment, the introspective, antiauthoritarian thought processes that psychedelic use brings about wouldn't have nearly the kind of social impact that they had in the 70's.
Nowadays, our country is very different. There is a widespread sense that there is no right or wrong way to live your life, and anyone who goes against multiculturalist viewpoints is labeled as ignorant or a racist. I think in this environment, the introspective, antiauthoritarian thought processes that psychedelic use brings about wouldn't have nearly the kind of social impact that they had in the 70's.
> There is a widespread sense that there is no right or wrong way to live your life, and anyone who goes against multiculturalist viewpoints is labeled as ignorant or a racist.
Incredibly reductionist. There is no such thing as "no right or wrong way" everyone either chooses a way or falls into a default way of living. Everyone ought to get more introspective and conscious about their philosophies and assumptions.
We have built a saturated information dystopia, taking time away from it to focus on the self is even more important and impactful.
Incredibly reductionist. There is no such thing as "no right or wrong way" everyone either chooses a way or falls into a default way of living. Everyone ought to get more introspective and conscious about their philosophies and assumptions.
We have built a saturated information dystopia, taking time away from it to focus on the self is even more important and impactful.
"We have built a saturated information dystopia, taking time away from it to focus on the self is even more important and impactful."
This quote will stick with me for years to come. Cheers.
This quote will stick with me for years to come. Cheers.
Keep in mind that banning these drugs for personal consumption wasn’t nearly the intellectual crime that banning the research has been.
Substances have been banned in cultures for thousands of years. In the US - long before psychedelics came under scrutiny - opium, cocaine, and other drugs had been made illegal, but not before the 60s was actual basic research by scientists and physicians also banned.
Substances have been banned in cultures for thousands of years. In the US - long before psychedelics came under scrutiny - opium, cocaine, and other drugs had been made illegal, but not before the 60s was actual basic research by scientists and physicians also banned.
"opium, cocaine, and other drugs had been made illegal"
FYI, opium and cocaine were banned for overtly racist reasons:
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-myth-negro-cocaine-fie...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/15/long-o...
So I am not sure those are the best examples to prove the point that banning drug research is a greater crime than banning recreational drugs.
FYI, opium and cocaine were banned for overtly racist reasons:
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-myth-negro-cocaine-fie...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/15/long-o...
So I am not sure those are the best examples to prove the point that banning drug research is a greater crime than banning recreational drugs.
Was the threat to the traditional American way of life really the reason they were made illegal? It seems more likely that it was due to the unknown and possibly dangerous nature of the drugs. As a society we have always outlawed drugs that can drastically alter perception (aside from alcohol).
"As a society we have always outlawed drugs that can drastically alter perception"
Actually, in America nationwide drug laws began in the 20th century, and it had nothing to do with health or unknown effects. Opium was outlawed as part of a general effort to "protect America" from Chinese immigrants. Heroin was outlawed because a German company held a patent on it. Cocaine was outlawed because, according to the people in Congress at the time, it drove black men crazy and made it impossible to kill them with standard police-issue sidearms (also, according to an article from the New York Times just before cocaine was banned, Jews were selling it). Marijuana prohibition was principally driven by racism and as a form of regulatory capture by industries that competed with hemp.
LSD was discovered decades before it was outlawed and the effects were well understood before it was banned. LSD happens to be one of the safest recreational drugs; in fact, the biggest danger is the poorly regulated supply chain i.e. most "LSD" on the market today is not actually LSD (as with most drugs, the ban poses a greater health risk than the drug itself). The government conducted its own extremely unethical LSD study to determine if it could be used as a mind control drug (it cannot) and knew the safety profile long before the ban. LSD was banned because of concerns that it was contributing to the moral corruption of American youth (i.e. think of all those white teenagers out partying with hippies); in other words, it was viewed as a threat to the prevailing social order (probably not a coincidence that this coincided with the civil rights movement, which was a direct challenge to that social order).
Actually, in America nationwide drug laws began in the 20th century, and it had nothing to do with health or unknown effects. Opium was outlawed as part of a general effort to "protect America" from Chinese immigrants. Heroin was outlawed because a German company held a patent on it. Cocaine was outlawed because, according to the people in Congress at the time, it drove black men crazy and made it impossible to kill them with standard police-issue sidearms (also, according to an article from the New York Times just before cocaine was banned, Jews were selling it). Marijuana prohibition was principally driven by racism and as a form of regulatory capture by industries that competed with hemp.
LSD was discovered decades before it was outlawed and the effects were well understood before it was banned. LSD happens to be one of the safest recreational drugs; in fact, the biggest danger is the poorly regulated supply chain i.e. most "LSD" on the market today is not actually LSD (as with most drugs, the ban poses a greater health risk than the drug itself). The government conducted its own extremely unethical LSD study to determine if it could be used as a mind control drug (it cannot) and knew the safety profile long before the ban. LSD was banned because of concerns that it was contributing to the moral corruption of American youth (i.e. think of all those white teenagers out partying with hippies); in other words, it was viewed as a threat to the prevailing social order (probably not a coincidence that this coincided with the civil rights movement, which was a direct challenge to that social order).
"LSD happens to be one of the safest recreational drugs"
Purely anecdotal, but have you ever met someone that has taken large doses of LSD over the course of a few years? They are almost always permanently changed
Purely anecdotal, but have you ever met someone that has taken large doses of LSD over the course of a few years? They are almost always permanently changed
I don't think there's a firm consensus on the reasoning, but it's generally acknowledged that the Sch. 1 classification of the psychedelics was motivated to 1) quell their threat of cultural and political destabilization and 2) to keep hippies and blacks in check. The 60s were similar to Occupy Wall Street: there's major (valid) fear on the part of the establishment when a radically different movement picks up steam. Psychedelics were (rightly) considered a partial fuel to the new movement.
I also agree that the U.S. is much less of a monoculture now and people generally agree that others should be able to live, think, and believe whatever and however they want.
I also agree that the U.S. is much less of a monoculture now and people generally agree that others should be able to live, think, and believe whatever and however they want.
>there's major (valid) fear on the part of the establishment when a radically different movement picks up steam
What do you mean by "valid" here? Do you mean they are afraid for society, or themselves?
What do you mean by "valid" here? Do you mean they are afraid for society, or themselves?
As in, there was a legitimate possibility in the 60s or with OWS that the movement would pick up enough momentum to really shake things up, power-structure-wise.
Don't forget that the civil rights movement actually was shaking things up in the 60s. I suspect that influenced political decisions by magnifying perceived threats to the prevailing social order.
I agree, but we must remove all government social programs as well to make that dream come true. You can't have one group experimenting at the expense of another.
>It seems more likely that it was due to the unknown and possibly dangerous nature of the drugs.
The benign physical effects of plants like cannabis were well established by the government's own studies. The science was purposefully ignored because it did not align with the political goals of the Nixon administration.
The benign physical effects of plants like cannabis were well established by the government's own studies. The science was purposefully ignored because it did not align with the political goals of the Nixon administration.
Safety played absolutely no role in these decisions. If that we’re the case, only personal consumption or distribution would be banned, not basic research itself including research that didn’t even administer the drugs to humans.
There's also an article from someone high up (sorry I'm not being more specific) in the government/presidency of the 60s who said the main reason for the drug laws was so they could lock up lots of African Americans
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...
Both marijuana and heroin were illegal long before Nixon was president.
Well it was known as a powerful mind-altering substance in the 50's when it was released as a medication, yet was kept on the market because it was seen as a breakthrough with alcoholism, PTSD, and other mental health issues. It wasn't actually made illegal until the 70's when its use became widespread in the growing counterculture. That makes me believe that the counterculture had a large part of it being banned.
The sad thing is that the repressed authoritarians who want to control everyone and prohibit drug use would likely benefit greatly from some recreational psychotropic experiences under the right conditions. And society would be better off as well for their experience.
Or maybe they're wound too tightly, I could be wildly optimistic.
Or maybe they're wound too tightly, I could be wildly optimistic.
You're confusing the public-facing values authoritarians claim to have vs what they actually believe.
They use things like religion, scapegoats, and wars (on drugs, terrorism, communism, etc) to whip up support. But it's just a tool. Absolute power for themselves is all they believe in. Many of them are drug users, I'm sure.
They use things like religion, scapegoats, and wars (on drugs, terrorism, communism, etc) to whip up support. But it's just a tool. Absolute power for themselves is all they believe in. Many of them are drug users, I'm sure.
>Many of them are drug users, I'm sure.
I should have specified a psychedelic or empathogenic drug I guess. You're probably right that they're knee-deep in depressants and stimulants.
I should have specified a psychedelic or empathogenic drug I guess. You're probably right that they're knee-deep in depressants and stimulants.
>and even work against collection of, objective data
The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all. Statistics can be twisted by even just the definitions of words used. For example, a CDC study on rape considered forced penetration, but not being forced to penetrate, as rape. This data was then used in a report that, among other conclusions, concluded that women almost never rape men. All the cases of women forcing a man to have sex were defined as not being rape, twisting the results of the study.
When you see someone against data collection, are they against using good objective data, or do they have reason to believe the data won't be objective and manipulated to push one side or the other?
All this being said, I think drugs like MDMA should be legal for recreational use, much less therapeutic use.
The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all. Statistics can be twisted by even just the definitions of words used. For example, a CDC study on rape considered forced penetration, but not being forced to penetrate, as rape. This data was then used in a report that, among other conclusions, concluded that women almost never rape men. All the cases of women forcing a man to have sex were defined as not being rape, twisting the results of the study.
When you see someone against data collection, are they against using good objective data, or do they have reason to believe the data won't be objective and manipulated to push one side or the other?
All this being said, I think drugs like MDMA should be legal for recreational use, much less therapeutic use.
>The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all
I don’t think that has anything to do with it. If it were the case the demands would be for better data, not no data.
And yes, some in Congress advocate against collecting data full stop on certain issues.
I would agree it’s always been true thst data will sometimes be flawed and biased, and always will be.
The question is what do you do about it? Stop science, or improve standards in good faith?
I don’t think that has anything to do with it. If it were the case the demands would be for better data, not no data.
And yes, some in Congress advocate against collecting data full stop on certain issues.
I would agree it’s always been true thst data will sometimes be flawed and biased, and always will be.
The question is what do you do about it? Stop science, or improve standards in good faith?
It depends upon what the options are. If you can demand and get good data, then people will ask for good data. If they don't think it is possible to get good data, then they may demand no data because no data is better than bad data.
For an extreme example, consider a country where homosexuality is punished by long prison sentences (or worse). Would you trust any data that such a government produced? If they produced data showing something negative about homosexuality, would you even spend the time to look at their methodologies? Or would it be dismissed as inherently biased as the source would be seen as being incapable of being trusted? For me it would be the latter.
For an extreme example, consider a country where homosexuality is punished by long prison sentences (or worse). Would you trust any data that such a government produced? If they produced data showing something negative about homosexuality, would you even spend the time to look at their methodologies? Or would it be dismissed as inherently biased as the source would be seen as being incapable of being trusted? For me it would be the latter.
>"So many people wonder when science will let us do things. When will we land on the moon, when will we cure cancer (most cancer anyway, a handful have been effectively cured), when will all of mankind benefit from the next great insights? We ask this yet in a lot of ways, we won’t even open our minds enough to give it our best shot."
I'm of the firm opinion that we'll always be slow to do those Big Things while we are dragged-down by the welfare/nanny state. So many lives and generations are subsidized into oblivion for a net societal loss.
I'm of the firm opinion that we'll always be slow to do those Big Things while we are dragged-down by the welfare/nanny state. So many lives and generations are subsidized into oblivion for a net societal loss.
From a comment elsewhere by "Brian" on moving past psychological trauma:
http://www.hughhowey.com/our-silos-leak/
"Cognitive behavioral therapists don’t even bother trying to figure out the why — because when most people get their so-called “epiphany” explaining why they’re feeling so badly, the knowledge doesn’t give them any clue as to how to feel better and be happy. All they know is, X and Y and Z happened to me many moons ago, and that’s why I feel like crap now. But what do I actually do about it?
Bandler and Grinder figured it out forty plus years ago during the infancy of NLP too: focus on what you want, focus on what makes you happy, model people who are successful and happy and voila …. you’ll move in that direction too. Like you said above, Hugh, thinking about something that bothers you over and over is just another way of reexperiencing the pain and torment. Unless you’re coming at the memory from a fresh perspective, it’s like rubbing salt in the wound."
So, if a drug like MDMA helps someone see a memory from a fresh perspective, maybe it could help? But otherwise, the general advice above seems useful.
So, if a drug like MDMA helps someone see a memory from a fresh perspective, maybe it could help? But otherwise, the general advice above seems useful.
It's a shame that it took so long before we started to truly study the positive uses/effects of drugs like MDMA and Psilocybin. I wonder how long it will take society to really drop the "DARE/DRUGS ARE BAD" mentality and start having more rational discussions about this stuff.
Probably around the same time the alcohol, pharma, and private prison industries stop throwing money at lobbyists if I had to guess.
Revolutions happen when people cease to give a fuck. Stop being afraid for those who govern you and stop blaming the powers who govern. Constructive alternatives exist.
There is brain-interfacing equipment at my desk worth 1000 USD tops. I buy MDMA, shrooms and similair substances for a couple of EUR per Gram and don't fear the possible consequences. What I desire though, is people who responsibly join me on my venture for science and humanity since I lack the knowledge and intellect to do a significant contribution on my own.
The good news is that there is many like me working with people unlike me and the sharing of information is still mostly free. The tides are in our favour, but only for as long as people invest in it.
There is brain-interfacing equipment at my desk worth 1000 USD tops. I buy MDMA, shrooms and similair substances for a couple of EUR per Gram and don't fear the possible consequences. What I desire though, is people who responsibly join me on my venture for science and humanity since I lack the knowledge and intellect to do a significant contribution on my own.
The good news is that there is many like me working with people unlike me and the sharing of information is still mostly free. The tides are in our favour, but only for as long as people invest in it.
[deleted]
Can you expand a little more the brain interfacing device part?
Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulat..., which has a pretty extensive DIY scene.
Trump convinced a lot of principled and religious people to vote for him. The time you pine for will come some time after that is no longer possible.
IIRC, DARE had a slight opposite effect in communities where it was pushed hardest.
In the studies I've seen, DARE had no measurable effect on either attitudes toward or use of drugs, and a slight effect of promotibg a positive view of law enforcement.
So, functionally, it's pro-police PR sold to parents and voters as an anti-drug program.
So, functionally, it's pro-police PR sold to parents and voters as an anti-drug program.
[deleted]
If anyone is interested in learning more about this stuff, the annual Horizons conference is this weekend in NYC:
http://www.horizonsnyc.org
And there will most likely be a MAPS event on Saturday night as well. I'm not going this year, but in previous years they've always been good.
http://www.horizonsnyc.org
And there will most likely be a MAPS event on Saturday night as well. I'm not going this year, but in previous years they've always been good.
Yes: MAPS is hosting a benefit dinner for psychedelic research on Saturday (tomorrow) night http://www.maps.org/nyc2017
Is there a way to do this in the US or other countries in half ways safe manner? I would be very interested but the people I know who trip regularly don't seem responsible enough for my taste.
In the US find a dealer or the dark web, you can buy test kits to test for pure MDMA (Molly), to ensure it’s not mixed with things. Ecstasy can otherwise be mixed with opiates or uppers like speed.
I know a lot of pretty responsible users of MDMA (most use during festivals). It’s also best to not do it more than once a month as it’ll significantly decrease the effects.
It’s also important to be mindful that in days following the high may come a low where you feel more depressed than usual. This is due to the low seratonin levels your brain will have after you increased them to levels you’ve likely never reached before.
I also wouldn’t consider MDMA a “trip” per se. At doses like 80-120mg you will be fully mentally able, you’ll just have rose colored glasses on (a fondness for everyone and everything).
Otherwise some other tips are to chew gum as most people have an oral fixation on MDMA and you don’t want to grind your teeth. I hear taking Magnesium before helps as well though I haven’t personally researched that.
I know a lot of pretty responsible users of MDMA (most use during festivals). It’s also best to not do it more than once a month as it’ll significantly decrease the effects.
It’s also important to be mindful that in days following the high may come a low where you feel more depressed than usual. This is due to the low seratonin levels your brain will have after you increased them to levels you’ve likely never reached before.
I also wouldn’t consider MDMA a “trip” per se. At doses like 80-120mg you will be fully mentally able, you’ll just have rose colored glasses on (a fondness for everyone and everything).
Otherwise some other tips are to chew gum as most people have an oral fixation on MDMA and you don’t want to grind your teeth. I hear taking Magnesium before helps as well though I haven’t personally researched that.
The following is anecdotal evidence:
Magnesium helps w/ lockjaw/teeth grinding.
I sometimes take a tums as well to help w/ the minor upset stomach.
Magnesium helps w/ lockjaw/teeth grinding.
I sometimes take a tums as well to help w/ the minor upset stomach.
I don't know about MDMA in particular but over the last years I have seen two times the effect of trips gone wrong. Interestingly both involved women ripping off their clothes (seriously!) and running around screaming at the top of their lungs for hours. One especially was alone in the middle of the LA National Forest hours away from civilization next to pretty big cliffs. I just happened to hike by and could hear her for miles. I never do drugs so I just want to make sure I have someone close who knows what he/she is doing and can handle the situation if I respond weirdly.
Personally I wouldn't call taking MDMA tripping.
Also, those don't really seem like the effects that I have observed others experience which are:
- Hypersensitivity to others' emotions
- Euphoria
- Relaxation and reduced anxiety
- Sense of inner peace
Also, those don't really seem like the effects that I have observed others experience which are:
- Hypersensitivity to others' emotions
- Euphoria
- Relaxation and reduced anxiety
- Sense of inner peace
I have not read the article. I have never taken MDMA.
But, during my divorce, I was on boatloads of prescription drugs for a medical crisis. I basically used that as an excuse to do things I would not have done stone cold sober and to learn how to get my needs met and put down my childhood baggage. It was more effective than the therapy I did years earlier.
Based on that, the general idea seems sound to me and is not necessarily specific to MDMA.
But, during my divorce, I was on boatloads of prescription drugs for a medical crisis. I basically used that as an excuse to do things I would not have done stone cold sober and to learn how to get my needs met and put down my childhood baggage. It was more effective than the therapy I did years earlier.
Based on that, the general idea seems sound to me and is not necessarily specific to MDMA.
If you're going to consume MDMA anyway, you should definitely read this page first: https://rollsafe.org/how-to-take-mdma/
As I get older, so much of what I grew up being totally excited with but which was considered fringe and counterculture is now being recognized as truly revolutionary.
I remember as a medical student on placement asking a palliative care physician about whether they had considered the use of MDMA in end of life care to provide dying people and their families with a potential method of spending some really incredible time together. She scoffed at the idea and continued prescribing the same old crap. 10 years later psychiatrists are saying the currently MDMA, ketamine and the psychedelics are providing the most exciting breakthroughs in modern psychiatric drugs in decades.
I remember as a medical student on placement asking a palliative care physician about whether they had considered the use of MDMA in end of life care to provide dying people and their families with a potential method of spending some really incredible time together. She scoffed at the idea and continued prescribing the same old crap. 10 years later psychiatrists are saying the currently MDMA, ketamine and the psychedelics are providing the most exciting breakthroughs in modern psychiatric drugs in decades.
If anyone on Hacker News would like a crash course on the history and potential of psychedelic substances - I cannot recommend the book Acid Test by Tom Shroder more highly.
Or, for a shorter view, the article Trip Treatment by Michael Pollan: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment
Or, for a shorter view, the article Trip Treatment by Michael Pollan: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment
[deleted]
Check out the book TRUST, SURRENDER, RECEIVE by Anne Other.
It features the history, politics, science and first hand accounts of 40 people who used MDMA for healing PTSD and trauma in an underground practice.
Very powerful book.
Http://bit.ly/mdmabook
It features the history, politics, science and first hand accounts of 40 people who used MDMA for healing PTSD and trauma in an underground practice.
Very powerful book.
Http://bit.ly/mdmabook
Anything that alters since of time in the brain is not really a good idea.
Did you mean "sense" of time?
Lots and lots of seemingly benign things have a serious effect on a person's sense of time. Some examples:
* Sleep
* Travel
* Cannabis
* Caffeine
* Turkey and red wine
* Video games or other intense visual engagement
* Scuba diving
* Intense cardio workouts
Lots and lots of seemingly benign things have a serious effect on a person's sense of time. Some examples:
* Sleep
* Travel
* Cannabis
* Caffeine
* Turkey and red wine
* Video games or other intense visual engagement
* Scuba diving
* Intense cardio workouts
We should not compare natural human behavior to a mind altering chemical substance.
... until you stop taking the drug.
Not according to the study. Psychoactive drugs don't just change how you're feeling for a period of time - they also change how your brain is wired. That's what addiction is: drugs altering the brain into one that more wants to take that drug.
Now, MDMA isn't particularly prone to causing addiction. It is prone to causing lasting changes in how people relate to themselves and others, and a combination of personal anecdotes and studies suggest it's for the better.
Now, MDMA isn't particularly prone to causing addiction. It is prone to causing lasting changes in how people relate to themselves and others, and a combination of personal anecdotes and studies suggest it's for the better.
See this from earlier research results http://www.mdmaptsd.org/research-category.html
> A long-term follow-up of patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy revealed that overall benefits were maintained an average of 3.8 years later.
(This is after 2 total sessions)
See here for more http://www.mdmaptsd.org/infographic.html
> A long-term follow-up of patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy revealed that overall benefits were maintained an average of 3.8 years later.
(This is after 2 total sessions)
See here for more http://www.mdmaptsd.org/infographic.html
What is your basis for saying this?
I feel like there has to be a good amount of people in the world who take psychedelics on a regular basis. At least more so than your average person. I'd imagine they are still broken, shattered, and lost individuals. Maybe some people have accessed some secret knowledge on their trips. But for the vast majority, I doubt that's the case.
I am not saying that there is no benefit, especially for an extreme case like this. That relief these people get, a chance to exist without the confusion and pain, and just feel like love.
But the high you get is a distraction from the pain you are feeling. It's not the taking of MDMA or Psilocybin that fixes the issues. It's the integration. It's the "lessons" you learn from your experience.
But are you learning, or are you just finally looking at what you didn't want to all these years? Do you need to take psychedelics to look?
I think we should keep researching, because we should see what is at the end of this tunnel.
I am not saying that there is no benefit, especially for an extreme case like this. That relief these people get, a chance to exist without the confusion and pain, and just feel like love.
But the high you get is a distraction from the pain you are feeling. It's not the taking of MDMA or Psilocybin that fixes the issues. It's the integration. It's the "lessons" you learn from your experience.
But are you learning, or are you just finally looking at what you didn't want to all these years? Do you need to take psychedelics to look?
I think we should keep researching, because we should see what is at the end of this tunnel.
Well, as far as I understand it, MDMA gives you the ability to examine the trauma without fear or anxiety; taking it doesn't drop secret knowledge in your lap, even randomly.
I'd liken it to having a hazmat suit to perform a cleanup. You don't get anything by putting on the hazmat suit. You get something by not having to stay in the room with a toxic chemical spill anymore that you couldn't get close enough to clean up without the suit.
It's a vehicle, not a destination. Yeah, if you get in and rev the accelerator without putting the car in gear, you're not going anywhere. The benefits should largely come in conjunction with therapy.
I'd liken it to having a hazmat suit to perform a cleanup. You don't get anything by putting on the hazmat suit. You get something by not having to stay in the room with a toxic chemical spill anymore that you couldn't get close enough to clean up without the suit.
It's a vehicle, not a destination. Yeah, if you get in and rev the accelerator without putting the car in gear, you're not going anywhere. The benefits should largely come in conjunction with therapy.
You sound like you haven't tried either MDMA or mushrooms from reading your post. I can't speak for everyone but the stuff you think is 'all bullshit' seems to be pretty common experience even among people who don't know Terrence McKenna or George Harrison from lil Jeffy Sessions.
And psychedelic use has been deeply ingrained in various human cultures all over the world for thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of years. Taking psychedelics as part of a religious ceremony or ritual to rid oneself of suffering is part of indigenous traditions in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia/Oceania.
I'd say the historical traditions and these new studies should convince even you that there is no fad involved in human psychotropic use.
And psychedelic use has been deeply ingrained in various human cultures all over the world for thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of years. Taking psychedelics as part of a religious ceremony or ritual to rid oneself of suffering is part of indigenous traditions in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia/Oceania.
I'd say the historical traditions and these new studies should convince even you that there is no fad involved in human psychotropic use.
>Taking psychedelics as part of a religious ceremony or ritual to rid oneself of suffering is part of indigenous traditions in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia/Oceania.
Could you link me to some research about this? I have heard this talked about, but I haven't found anything reliable.
Could you link me to some research about this? I have heard this talked about, but I haven't found anything reliable.
I think this article has some good examples of cultures and traditions you can google for further info:
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survi...
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survi...
This may be of interest
https://books.google.com/books?id=Jj8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA101#v=on...
I've experienced a trauma-induced anxiety disorder and mdma experiences. You seem to reach a certain level of insight but then suddenly turn strangely dismissive.
> the high you get is a distraction from the pain you are feeling
Sort of. The feeling is of an assurance, a joyful security that releases you to be able to confront the pain without (as much) fear. There's also a shift in perspective that let's you know that a different way of feeling is possible. That's surprisingly powerful.
> are you just finally looking at what you didn't want to all these years?
Yes, exactly this.
> Do you need to take psychedelics to look?
Perhaps not, but anecdotal evidence and a growing amount of research suggests it helps tremendously, especially in cases where it is very hard for people to look at themselves whilst sober.
> I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that psychedelics was just a fad.
I don't see how this follows from anything you've said.
> the high you get is a distraction from the pain you are feeling
Sort of. The feeling is of an assurance, a joyful security that releases you to be able to confront the pain without (as much) fear. There's also a shift in perspective that let's you know that a different way of feeling is possible. That's surprisingly powerful.
> are you just finally looking at what you didn't want to all these years?
Yes, exactly this.
> Do you need to take psychedelics to look?
Perhaps not, but anecdotal evidence and a growing amount of research suggests it helps tremendously, especially in cases where it is very hard for people to look at themselves whilst sober.
> I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that psychedelics was just a fad.
I don't see how this follows from anything you've said.
Read some of the research on psychedelic medicine, and come back to your post. People's lives have been changed by this, long term. Adults with autism, PTSD, substance abuse, end-of-life cancer patients with terrible anxiety.
It doesn't matter what the culture behind these substances is. They work for the people that need them. The results should speak for themselves.
It doesn't matter what the culture behind these substances is. They work for the people that need them. The results should speak for themselves.
I'll read the papers on MAPs and get back to you.
Wow, you don't have any experience with these drugs, do you?
What if I did? Would that have validated my comments and prevented the downvoting?
It might be because there are people who have experienced otherwise and you seem to be speaking in generalizations instead of experience. This is anecdotal, but taking MDMA once, recreationally and not in a theraputic sessions, helped me with social anxiety.
The best analogy I can give is like you're playing a NES game, and it's glitching all over parts of the screen. You're still able to play, but there's interference that you just eventually learn to ignore, even though it is wearing on your experience. MDMA is like hitting the reset button and the glitches are gone. You realize there's a beauty that you've been missing this entire time, because you grew to view life through this filter.
Again, this isn't true of everyone's experience but studies are starting to show it's able to help certain people that can use it.
The best analogy I can give is like you're playing a NES game, and it's glitching all over parts of the screen. You're still able to play, but there's interference that you just eventually learn to ignore, even though it is wearing on your experience. MDMA is like hitting the reset button and the glitches are gone. You realize there's a beauty that you've been missing this entire time, because you grew to view life through this filter.
Again, this isn't true of everyone's experience but studies are starting to show it's able to help certain people that can use it.
This is not my original thought, but what if that "beauty" is manufactured? What if it's not genuine beauty, but an illusion created by your mind to validate the experience of taking the MDMA? I guess the research would prove whether that's the case.
I realize that's a pretty extreme statement to make. But from what I understand, we hardly realize how the mind works. I am not saying don't dismiss the research. I just wonder if we are trying to sell psychedelics as a magic pill, when maybe just awareness is all you need.
What about people who have bad trips on these drugs? Do we dismiss them as people who aren't just suppose to take psychedelics?
I realize that's a pretty extreme statement to make. But from what I understand, we hardly realize how the mind works. I am not saying don't dismiss the research. I just wonder if we are trying to sell psychedelics as a magic pill, when maybe just awareness is all you need.
What about people who have bad trips on these drugs? Do we dismiss them as people who aren't just suppose to take psychedelics?
I rate of people who have bad trips is very low with MDMA. You're right that it's a thing with LSD or Psilocybin. The tripping community has these ideas of "set and settings" that you should strongly adhere to. Make sure you'll be in a chill environment. Eat lightly beforehand. Don't trip if you're not already in a relatively stable spot. I think the idea is that with a therapist (or a seasoned trip-sitter?) they can help guide you out of any bad trips, bad trips being anxiety spirals or something.
Often the most important thing to reassure people who are having a bad trip is that this too will end, and they will feel normal again soon. The fear that the trip will be the new normal is a big fear.
Sometimes people are having bad trips because they are performing the introspection they've long avoided--- they're facing trauma. And in that respect, I think that having a bad trip is actually a _good thing_. Sure, you aren't avoiding what's in your subconscious, you're facing it head on. You might have a bad time in the moment, but it helps the healing process overall.
---
The idea that trips are just a beautiful illusion is... kind of flawed. Our brains are weird, and our thoughts can re-wire how our brains work. If someone is living is the cognitive distortion that they are unloved, but a trip of MDMA reminds them that there is love and unity in the world, then it doesn't really matter whether it's an illusion. Going through life with the belief that everyone is capable and deserve of love and unity and respect _fundamentally makes your life better_, especially if you compare it to the opposite distortion, where you are paranoid and wondering how people are out to take advantage or humiliate you.
I think that MDMA is more about breaking down cognitive distortions with a temporary "well what if PLUR??" thought experiment than it is about just creating an illusion.
Often the most important thing to reassure people who are having a bad trip is that this too will end, and they will feel normal again soon. The fear that the trip will be the new normal is a big fear.
Sometimes people are having bad trips because they are performing the introspection they've long avoided--- they're facing trauma. And in that respect, I think that having a bad trip is actually a _good thing_. Sure, you aren't avoiding what's in your subconscious, you're facing it head on. You might have a bad time in the moment, but it helps the healing process overall.
---
The idea that trips are just a beautiful illusion is... kind of flawed. Our brains are weird, and our thoughts can re-wire how our brains work. If someone is living is the cognitive distortion that they are unloved, but a trip of MDMA reminds them that there is love and unity in the world, then it doesn't really matter whether it's an illusion. Going through life with the belief that everyone is capable and deserve of love and unity and respect _fundamentally makes your life better_, especially if you compare it to the opposite distortion, where you are paranoid and wondering how people are out to take advantage or humiliate you.
I think that MDMA is more about breaking down cognitive distortions with a temporary "well what if PLUR??" thought experiment than it is about just creating an illusion.
I can't speak for everyone, but psychedelics really help one internalize that beauty is perceived. Everything we experience is through a perception filter.
Psychedelics are an effective means of clearing the filter of all the constraints a person accumulates in the course of life. Culture, society, education, religion, it all serves to build the filters up.
If one finds beauty in the world under the influence of psychedelics, in my experience it tends to persist long after the drugs have left the system.
Psychedelics are an effective means of clearing the filter of all the constraints a person accumulates in the course of life. Culture, society, education, religion, it all serves to build the filters up.
If one finds beauty in the world under the influence of psychedelics, in my experience it tends to persist long after the drugs have left the system.
Beauty in this context is interpersonal relationships that I had been missing out on because of the filter that social anxiety was creating. Sorry if I wasn't more clear with the analogy.
What if the ugliness that people who experienced trauma see isn’t real either? Everything you experience is an illusion created by your mind, sober or not.
You just come across as someone who has never experienced MDMA, LSD, or Psilocybin.
No downvotes from me, I can't speak to that.
No downvotes from me, I can't speak to that.
MAPS is just entering into their Stage III research process after being granted a "breakthrough therapy" by the FDA (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-designates-mdma-as-breakthr...) and need all the funds they can muster. The tech community can really step up here. If you have it in you, donate what you can: https://store.maps.org/np/clients/maps/donation.jsp?campaign...