Magic Mushrooms Can Help Smokers Kick the Habit(npr.org)
npr.org
Magic Mushrooms Can Help Smokers Kick the Habit
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/766057380/how-magic-mushrooms-can-help-smokers-kick-the-habit
298 コメント
Same here, but as a side effect to two doses of magic truffles with a few month break between them (15gr and 25gr respectively at ~120kg. With the weight, remember fresh truffles are a lot heavier then dried shrooms). Granted, i have only been sober for half a year but i dont really have the urge to start again. I didnt think this was an option before. But just describing it as "stopped drinking" also cuts it short, I am happy again for the first time since what feels like childhood, I lost the death wish I was dragging around with me for close to a decade and i am actively working on self reflection and self improvements. I am self aware enough to cut stuff out that makes me unhappy and I actually like myself. If you told me that a year ago i would have laughed in your face, but it gave me a very subtle change of perspective that helped to break out of destructive patterns.
With all the upsides, it is however still necessary to warn of the dangers of taking mushrooms without knowing what to expect or taking care for set and setting. If you are thinking about taking psychedelics I can recommend the book "The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide: Safe, Therapeutic, and Sacred Journeys", though you should better be taking a guided trip with someone who has the experience and who you trust.
With all the upsides, it is however still necessary to warn of the dangers of taking mushrooms without knowing what to expect or taking care for set and setting. If you are thinking about taking psychedelics I can recommend the book "The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide: Safe, Therapeutic, and Sacred Journeys", though you should better be taking a guided trip with someone who has the experience and who you trust.
+1: similar experience and same book recommendation.
I've had one high-dose psychedelic session in each of the last three years and while the experiences themselves were sometimes difficult, the positive changes are hard to overstate. They seem mild at first, but the unshakable sense of self-worth, of purpose, and of belonging in the universe have become such strong foundations for all the positivity that I build above them that at this point I don't know how much of my beautiful life to attribute to my luck in getting into psychedelics in the first place.*
* ...in the right way, of course. The drugs themselves are a neutral technology like any other, and must be used in the right way in order to be helpful rather than harmful or merely novel.
I've had one high-dose psychedelic session in each of the last three years and while the experiences themselves were sometimes difficult, the positive changes are hard to overstate. They seem mild at first, but the unshakable sense of self-worth, of purpose, and of belonging in the universe have become such strong foundations for all the positivity that I build above them that at this point I don't know how much of my beautiful life to attribute to my luck in getting into psychedelics in the first place.*
* ...in the right way, of course. The drugs themselves are a neutral technology like any other, and must be used in the right way in order to be helpful rather than harmful or merely novel.
As someone who is interested in taking a guided trip to help with some personal problems of mine, how do you go about finding these people who perform guided therapy sessions w/ MDMA/LSD/DMT etc?
Unfortunately there is no straightforward way to do this, unless you're willing to travel abroad where Ayahuasca/Psilocybin Mushrooms/5-MeO are legal and do your trip there. My recommendation would be to read How to Change Your Mind and The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide, join your local psychedelic club (meetup.com maybe), and ask around. The better informed you are, the more easily you'll be able to trust your gut and know you've found someone you can trust. If in any doubt, back out. Stateside there don't seem to be very many nefarious actors, but substances are quite illegal.
If you can afford it, these 5-MeO retreats are probably a slam dunk, although 5-MeO is not for the faint of heart. Check out the psychedelic toad - hamilton's pharmacopeia for more on that.
All you really need, though, is a high-dose mushroom session with eyeshades and music, supervised by someone's that's done it before whom you trust. Their sense of attention and compassion are more important than extensive experience using them. They're just there to hold the space. Again, see James Fadiman's book for the how-to.
If you can afford it, these 5-MeO retreats are probably a slam dunk, although 5-MeO is not for the faint of heart. Check out the psychedelic toad - hamilton's pharmacopeia for more on that.
All you really need, though, is a high-dose mushroom session with eyeshades and music, supervised by someone's that's done it before whom you trust. Their sense of attention and compassion are more important than extensive experience using them. They're just there to hold the space. Again, see James Fadiman's book for the how-to.
wow great information! thanks for letting me know. Will definitely be looking into it
Search craigslist for a Shaman. /s
I'd prob try looking for a counselor/therapist that has tried psychedelics and has helped others. You can probably search for them by looking for healing centers or retreats, specifically in the PNW.
I'd prob try looking for a counselor/therapist that has tried psychedelics and has helped others. You can probably search for them by looking for healing centers or retreats, specifically in the PNW.
You might also check out Kentucky Ayahuasca from Vice Media.
That sounds like a really positive change in your life. I hope you continue to feel good.
Thanks, i wish you also all the best to reach 1k soon as well. I know I sound a bit manic, but its not an artificial mood change thats the reason for my personal development but the perspective that i can influence how i feel. That i am not trapped in what ever behavior and thought pattern I am currently in. Its like i tried to solve 3d problems in 2d and now know that there is an additional axis i am actually making progress. Even if all the positive development would vanish due to outside circumstances tomorrow, I now know that I can work on my self and how to do that.
I've got a habit I'm trying to break as well and I pondered using drugs. But I don't do drugs otherwise. How do you go about finding DMT?
You make it yourself and its a quite easy process. Look up dmt tek
I'd rather the OP respond tbh.
I’m afraid there was no secret. I went to a drug dealer I knew and asked him to source some for me. It wasn’t expensive, but I needed to wait a few weeks.
I’ve heard that you can also grow mushrooms at home. Look up PF Tek.
Get some mushrooms, everything else is going to be more risky and a lot more like a hard drug use situation experientially.
You can grind up mushrooms and steep them like a tea, or just eat them as-is. It's nothing like using drugs, more like consuming a food that has an odd effect then just goes away once it's passed through.
Also, start small, it's useful for acclimating to the whole experience. And you might find what you're looking for without even taking a full psychedelic dose. Microdosing shrooms is still quite active, much like drinking a cup of coffee is.
You can grind up mushrooms and steep them like a tea, or just eat them as-is. It's nothing like using drugs, more like consuming a food that has an odd effect then just goes away once it's passed through.
Also, start small, it's useful for acclimating to the whole experience. And you might find what you're looking for without even taking a full psychedelic dose. Microdosing shrooms is still quite active, much like drinking a cup of coffee is.
DMT occurs naturally in a variety of plants in high-enough concentrations for economical extraction.
Traditionally you would do an acid/base organic extraction. But for most purposes, you can STB (straight to base) with a bit of lye (i.e. canning supply) and an organic solvent like naphtha.
Obtaining powered plant material is easy, usually available on eBay or else independent sites.
Traditionally you would do an acid/base organic extraction. But for most purposes, you can STB (straight to base) with a bit of lye (i.e. canning supply) and an organic solvent like naphtha.
Obtaining powered plant material is easy, usually available on eBay or else independent sites.
With a minor footnote that naphtha smells like you're cooking meth and can blow up.
You can buy pre-cursors (or known as analogs) like 4-AcO-DMT online from Lysergi. They are sold as a 'research chemical', however they metabolize into psilocin so it is indistinguishable to psilocybin. Obviously you should take every pre-caution before ingesting any substance by doing your own research, and looking into the authenticity of the supplier.
pedantic semantic quibble: precursors are molecules that are used to produce a target molecule. Analogs are molecules which are a functional substitute for a target molecule.
5-Aco-DMT is an analog to psilocin, and is believed to be a prodrug (converted into target by your body), but I think precursor is a misnomer in this case.
5-Aco-DMT is an analog to psilocin, and is believed to be a prodrug (converted into target by your body), but I think precursor is a misnomer in this case.
Yeah that's why I added analog in brackets haha. But I believe you're correct
[deleted]
FWIW, I can tell you that not everyone finds them to be indistinguishable.
Can you share more about how you did this? Was it a one time thing? How did you figure out the dosage?
were you having break through experiences, or using a lower dose?
I think I broke through. But I haven’t done DMT before or since, so I can’t be sure. I definitely went somewhere far away in my perception, I felt like I had travelled a long distance. I was alone and I didn’t note the time though, so it’s possible it only lasted a few second.
there is no thinking you break through. you either see a portal open and jump through it into another universe, or you don’t.
Why are they called "magic" mushrooms? Because they remind you that life is, in a sense that we rarely recognize, truly magical. We can adopt the materialist lens and say that they "rewire your brain" -- and in a certain sense, that's of course true. But the crucial point is that experientially, you discover firsthand that life is precious beyond belief -- beyond what the rational mind can contain -- and if cigarettes (or depression...) aren't helping you express that transcendent truth, well, bye bye. And that's not something you easily forget.
(And on a grander scale, if our modern way of living isn't helping life thrive, well, maybe it's time to make some loving changes. So I'm glad this research is being done.)
(And on a grander scale, if our modern way of living isn't helping life thrive, well, maybe it's time to make some loving changes. So I'm glad this research is being done.)
After a decade of solitude, they helped me realize that I was living in a machine world. It showed me how to love myself, other people and nature again. Yes, it was like magic, a true perspective change, a reintroduction to the human world.
It showed me what supreme contentedness and connectedness is after this long time of seeing the world purely in differences - within myself, without myself and in the relationships between me and my environment. Unity.
Understanding what love is. Why people go to parks. How they can enjoy life. Why they bond. The beauty of life and subjectivity.
When you are in a state of happiness, everything in the past and present seems meaningful and positive in some way, because all of it brought you to this state of being. Even if it was terrible. Even if you didn't dare to consider it. In this state, you can contemplate these things because you are overloaded with serotonin.
I advise everyone to use a tripsitter when they experience this, especially for the first time. Respect the drug and it will respect you.
If you don't know anyone and think you are alone, do not be afraid, there are people who will do that for you
:)
It showed me what supreme contentedness and connectedness is after this long time of seeing the world purely in differences - within myself, without myself and in the relationships between me and my environment. Unity.
Understanding what love is. Why people go to parks. How they can enjoy life. Why they bond. The beauty of life and subjectivity.
When you are in a state of happiness, everything in the past and present seems meaningful and positive in some way, because all of it brought you to this state of being. Even if it was terrible. Even if you didn't dare to consider it. In this state, you can contemplate these things because you are overloaded with serotonin.
I advise everyone to use a tripsitter when they experience this, especially for the first time. Respect the drug and it will respect you.
If you don't know anyone and think you are alone, do not be afraid, there are people who will do that for you
:)
> you can contemplate these things because you are overloaded with serotonin.
And while serotonin definitely is involved, it is only a part of it.
The real "magic" can happen because psilocybin/LSD/etc. allows you to increase your frequency. This in turn allows you to tune in to other ("higher" and immaterial) dimensions that surround us all the time. Most of us normally do not yet perceive them in everyday life, but these special molecules can make that happen for us - for a few moments at least. Some call this state "heightened intuition", others call it "getting in touch with your guides", others call it "opening your clear-senses". The benefit of such a short "peek behind the veil" is that at least your subconscious will always remember that there is an infinite profoundness to life that we completely ignore in our current way of living/culture. This is why many people get out of their deep/long-lasting/clinical depression, sometimes by experiencing only a single dose of LSD. They have seen "it", maybe heard "it", or smelled "it", but most of all, they have experienced "it" and it will stay with them - "it" being this mysterious force of pure joy, love and deep understanding (which is much more profound that any intellectual understanding).
Word of caution: Before you go ahead with such an experience, make sure you take all the time in the world to educate yourself about all of it. Then make sure your source sells you the actual and pure substance; maybe test it beforehand if you can. Plan your trip carefully. Do it in nature and undisturbed.
And while serotonin definitely is involved, it is only a part of it.
The real "magic" can happen because psilocybin/LSD/etc. allows you to increase your frequency. This in turn allows you to tune in to other ("higher" and immaterial) dimensions that surround us all the time. Most of us normally do not yet perceive them in everyday life, but these special molecules can make that happen for us - for a few moments at least. Some call this state "heightened intuition", others call it "getting in touch with your guides", others call it "opening your clear-senses". The benefit of such a short "peek behind the veil" is that at least your subconscious will always remember that there is an infinite profoundness to life that we completely ignore in our current way of living/culture. This is why many people get out of their deep/long-lasting/clinical depression, sometimes by experiencing only a single dose of LSD. They have seen "it", maybe heard "it", or smelled "it", but most of all, they have experienced "it" and it will stay with them - "it" being this mysterious force of pure joy, love and deep understanding (which is much more profound that any intellectual understanding).
Word of caution: Before you go ahead with such an experience, make sure you take all the time in the world to educate yourself about all of it. Then make sure your source sells you the actual and pure substance; maybe test it beforehand if you can. Plan your trip carefully. Do it in nature and undisturbed.
How do I measure this frequency? What would it look like on an FFT plot?
Thank you for writing this beautiful text :)
Well said...thank you.
I think it’s clear that there is a push for magic mushrooms to follow the same path as Cannabis has.
It’s very hard to fight the war on drugs (from a personal liberty standpoint) one drug at a time. From my political position it’s personally insulting that institutions such as the DEA and FDA tell me what I can and cannot put into my body. I’m an adult, I can either make those decisions for myself or hire experts for consultation to help me make the decision.
It’s very hard to fight the war on drugs (from a personal liberty standpoint) one drug at a time. From my political position it’s personally insulting that institutions such as the DEA and FDA tell me what I can and cannot put into my body. I’m an adult, I can either make those decisions for myself or hire experts for consultation to help me make the decision.
> From my political position it’s personally insulting that institutions such as the DEA and FDA tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.
I'm of two minds about that. While I agree that I ought to have full autonomy over my own body, at the same time the state has a vested interest in not allowing its population to fall victim to life-destroying drugs, especially when those drugs target the most vulnerable members.
Russia's heroin problem has been rising and rising -- apparently 2% of the population are addicted, and much higher rates for certain segments [1] -- and people talk of a "lost" generation. And it may get even worse.
I think our social contract with the state involves not allowing that to happen to its population.
[1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120792...
I'm of two minds about that. While I agree that I ought to have full autonomy over my own body, at the same time the state has a vested interest in not allowing its population to fall victim to life-destroying drugs, especially when those drugs target the most vulnerable members.
Russia's heroin problem has been rising and rising -- apparently 2% of the population are addicted, and much higher rates for certain segments [1] -- and people talk of a "lost" generation. And it may get even worse.
I think our social contract with the state involves not allowing that to happen to its population.
[1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120792...
There's a path to getting people off hard drugs like heroin that the war on drugs doesn't address at all, in fact it exacerbates it. Getting people off hard drugs is not the intended outcome, the war on drugs fills up private prisons with inmates and generates a lot of money.
https://www.mic.com/articles/20186/war-on-drugs-how-private-...
https://www.mic.com/articles/20186/war-on-drugs-how-private-...
To be clear, nothing in my comment suggested I support the war on drugs and mass incarceration, rather it was whether the state should have any "say" in my putting hard drugs in my body.
While
> at the same time the state has a vested interest in not allowing its population to fall victim to life-destroying drugs, especially when those drugs target the most vulnerable members
the current strategies don't work. The root cause of why people seek drugs is a complex topic and none of the strategies to keep people off drugs seem to address the root causes but to simply ban and punish.
> at the same time the state has a vested interest in not allowing its population to fall victim to life-destroying drugs, especially when those drugs target the most vulnerable members
the current strategies don't work. The root cause of why people seek drugs is a complex topic and none of the strategies to keep people off drugs seem to address the root causes but to simply ban and punish.
I don’t disagree the state has an interest in the health and well being of its citizens. I think it should promote that health and well being with education, access to healthcare, and other forms of social support. I’d also be okay with limiting the advertising rights for drugs.
I do not think prohibition improves the well being of citizens. Heroin is easily available in virtually all major US cities.
I do not think prohibition improves the well being of citizens. Heroin is easily available in virtually all major US cities.
I think this is the key point that gets lost in these discussions. Legalization, or decriminalization, does not equal an abdication of responsibility by the state—it can actually mean the opposite.
But that begs the question that criminal prohibition of drugs like heroin actually reduces their use. If proponents of bans are responsible stewards of liberal society, they not only have to show that the problem is greater than the loss of liberty, they also have to show a causal link between denying that liberty by force and actually solving the problem.
Everybody agrees heroin is bad for the individual and for society, and that it should go away. What isn't clear to me is that putting users in jail and creating a hugely competitive profit incentive for violent gangs is actually effective towards that goal.
With heroin already illegal we see that a given portion of the population uses it anyway, so how much of the population do we think is not using it solely because it is banned? How does this compare to purely medical intervention?
Everybody agrees heroin is bad for the individual and for society, and that it should go away. What isn't clear to me is that putting users in jail and creating a hugely competitive profit incentive for violent gangs is actually effective towards that goal.
With heroin already illegal we see that a given portion of the population uses it anyway, so how much of the population do we think is not using it solely because it is banned? How does this compare to purely medical intervention?
The fact that, in the US, high fructose corn syrup is so prevalent, proves that the US government does not have people's health in mind whatsoever. The war on drugs isn't about morality or health, it's about control. They just claim it's about morality and health to convince people to support it.
You might be interested to learn that heroin is actually quite a safe drug and safer to self-administer than paracetamol [0]. While you're right that the state has a duty to protect its citizens the war on drugs, all drugs, has the opposite effect.
Drugs are a public health problem not a criminal one. People are taking things like heroin primarily due to other factors in their life, which the state should address. For drugs like magic mushrooms lack of availability is increasingly looking like actively harming the availability/development of a positive treatment for many conditions.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalc...
(tldr the negative impacts of heroin all arise from its criminalisation, while it is extremely addictive it's also extremely hard to overdose on when taken on its own)
Drugs are a public health problem not a criminal one. People are taking things like heroin primarily due to other factors in their life, which the state should address. For drugs like magic mushrooms lack of availability is increasingly looking like actively harming the availability/development of a positive treatment for many conditions.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalc...
(tldr the negative impacts of heroin all arise from its criminalisation, while it is extremely addictive it's also extremely hard to overdose on when taken on its own)
> the negative impacts of heroin all arise from its criminalisation
This is a really, really simplistic view. Heroin will build up tolerance and withdrawals can kill you, or are at least extremely unpleasant. It's only safe as long as you have access to an ever increasing supply of heroin.
I think your example is kind of unfortunate because a lot of drugs are actually quite safe, but not the very addictive, tolerance-building, terrible withdrawal kind (opioids, benzos, alcohol). Magic mushrooms are, of course, none of those three things.
This is a really, really simplistic view. Heroin will build up tolerance and withdrawals can kill you, or are at least extremely unpleasant. It's only safe as long as you have access to an ever increasing supply of heroin.
I think your example is kind of unfortunate because a lot of drugs are actually quite safe, but not the very addictive, tolerance-building, terrible withdrawal kind (opioids, benzos, alcohol). Magic mushrooms are, of course, none of those three things.
The Russian heroin addicts are all on fentanyl by now, it's hard to find heroin nowadays from the streets in many places.
> the negative impacts of heroin all arise from its criminalisation
This is something of an exaggeration; heroin withdrawal can happen even without criminalization, for example, and is profoundly unpleasant, and constipation can dramatically reduce your quality of life. But certainly those negative "impacts" pale compared to the epidemic of drug-overdose deaths caused by prohibition, or even prohibition-induced unplanned withdrawal experiences.
This is something of an exaggeration; heroin withdrawal can happen even without criminalization, for example, and is profoundly unpleasant, and constipation can dramatically reduce your quality of life. But certainly those negative "impacts" pale compared to the epidemic of drug-overdose deaths caused by prohibition, or even prohibition-induced unplanned withdrawal experiences.
That's a good point. I guess in addition poly-drug use is made more likely by criminalisation but doesn't necessarily cease with legalisation.
But isn’t it already illegal in Russia? Sounds like that’s not working out so well. Maybe time to try a different plan?
Thats a fair point. But does prohibition work in terms of reducing negative outcomes?
I think legalization is good. I also think universal healthcare is good. Unfortunately healthcare is super expensive and enabling certain behaviors increases costs a lot. Different estimates seem to suggest that (back in 2015) the opioid epidemic had had an economic cost somewhere between a half a trillion and a trillion dollars, and it's increasing [0, 1]. Full-on prohibition is bad, but maybe there's still lots of societal value in having some controlled substances.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images...
[1]https://altarum.org/news/economic-toll-opioid-crisis-us-exce....
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images...
[1]https://altarum.org/news/economic-toll-opioid-crisis-us-exce....
I think you are confusing several matters.
If I understand your comment right, you are saying that the opiod crisis shows that people do choose drugs if they can and if there was univ. healthcare, then the system would go down under the costs.
The problem with this, as I see it: A good chunk of people addicted in this opiod crisis didn't choose to get addicted. They were all too readily prescribed hard painkillers for ailments that did by no means require such a treatment (e.g. backpain of various degrees). This is fentanyl as a gateway drug, so to speak. Those people would not have been addicts otherwise. But they got hooked on the medication and when their prescriptions comes to an end, then they would seek a replacement.
That is why doctors and pharmaceutical companies are getting sued - and are losing.
Further: If psychedelic drugs are indeed this helpful with issues like smoking and depression, like recent research suggests, then controlled administration would surely be a great relief to an overwhelmed healthcare system: saving e.g. on expensive anti-depression drugs or on cancer treatments, where the cancer was caused by smoking.
If I understand your comment right, you are saying that the opiod crisis shows that people do choose drugs if they can and if there was univ. healthcare, then the system would go down under the costs.
The problem with this, as I see it: A good chunk of people addicted in this opiod crisis didn't choose to get addicted. They were all too readily prescribed hard painkillers for ailments that did by no means require such a treatment (e.g. backpain of various degrees). This is fentanyl as a gateway drug, so to speak. Those people would not have been addicts otherwise. But they got hooked on the medication and when their prescriptions comes to an end, then they would seek a replacement.
That is why doctors and pharmaceutical companies are getting sued - and are losing.
Further: If psychedelic drugs are indeed this helpful with issues like smoking and depression, like recent research suggests, then controlled administration would surely be a great relief to an overwhelmed healthcare system: saving e.g. on expensive anti-depression drugs or on cancer treatments, where the cancer was caused by smoking.
I was taking issue with this statement:
>I’m an adult, I can either make those decisions for myself or hire experts for consultation to help me make the decision.
The opioid crisis is evidence that this can lead to trouble. There's an easy counter argument that it only causes trouble for the people who choose to start using those substances, and so it's still the right thing to allow someone to do. I tried to present an externality imposed to counter that counter, and healthcare is an easy example.
>I’m an adult, I can either make those decisions for myself or hire experts for consultation to help me make the decision.
The opioid crisis is evidence that this can lead to trouble. There's an easy counter argument that it only causes trouble for the people who choose to start using those substances, and so it's still the right thing to allow someone to do. I tried to present an externality imposed to counter that counter, and healthcare is an easy example.
that's chump change compared to sugar (=> diabetes at $225bil per YEAR) and alcohol (destruction upon others via accidents as well as chronic health problems).
so what is your take on those? should they be controlled substances? because it certainly seems we need to have a discussion at the level of the nation about how we're going to pay for universal health care consumed by those taking part in these behaviors going forward if this is going to realistically work.
so what is your take on those? should they be controlled substances? because it certainly seems we need to have a discussion at the level of the nation about how we're going to pay for universal health care consumed by those taking part in these behaviors going forward if this is going to realistically work.
The best thing I've ever read on the subject of decriminalization:
Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Doug Husak
The argument is simple and comes from the legal perspective: every person who is put in jail should have a satisfactory answer to the question "Why am I being put in jail?". As the author (philosopher) points out, no satisfactory answer has been (or likely can be) given in the case of non-violent drug users.
All currently-known drugs should be decriminalized.
Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Doug Husak
The argument is simple and comes from the legal perspective: every person who is put in jail should have a satisfactory answer to the question "Why am I being put in jail?". As the author (philosopher) points out, no satisfactory answer has been (or likely can be) given in the case of non-violent drug users.
All currently-known drugs should be decriminalized.
The damages from the opioid epidemic are almost entirely due to the unpredictable quality of street drugs and, especially, the resulting fentanyl overdoses. Opioids have some toxic effects even without those overdoses, but the resulting deaths are more than an order of magnitude smaller. (People rarely die from constipation and hearing loss.) If you want to reduce the human cost of the opioid epidemic, you will favor legalization so that opioid addicts can safely obtain their drugs with known purity, and people who taint the drug supply with unpredictable poisons can be found and brought to justice.
On the other hand, if you want to reduce the economic cost of healthcare by killing opioid addicts with accidental overdoses, you may not be persuaded. But I am not on your side.
On the other hand, if you want to reduce the economic cost of healthcare by killing opioid addicts with accidental overdoses, you may not be persuaded. But I am not on your side.
>The damages from the opioid epidemic are almost entirely due to the unpredictable quality of street drugs and, especially, the resulting fentanyl overdoses.
Wow. I knew the unpredictable quality was bad, but didn't know that the damages were almost entirely due to them. Any chance you have a source there?
Wow. I knew the unpredictable quality was bad, but didn't know that the damages were almost entirely due to them. Any chance you have a source there?
I dug around trying to find the link to the study I'd seen, but I haven't been able to. I'd be much obliged if you could share whatever links you dig up.
It's not exactly on point but this comment[1] from HN user UglyToad links to a Guardian article[2] that mentions several studies. The article is specific to Heroin, not Fentanyl, but (admittedly knowing nothing about street drugs) I think they're quite similar, chemically.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270553
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalc...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270553
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalc...
The issue with fentanyl is that it's much more powerful than heroin, in the sense that the dose to reach a given effect is much smaller. This makes it much harder to prevent the smuggling of, but also means that insufficient mixing can give you a fatal overdose much more easily.
I don't know if heroin has a safer therapeutic index than fentanyl. Possibly. The Grauniad article is correct about the relatively low risks of properly prepared heroin and the dangers of adulteration. I wouldn't be confident that fentanyl in properly prepared doses is equally safe; it might be safer or less safe, but the major difference is in ease of smuggling, which is associated with lack of accountability.
The article mentions amphetamine briefly in an unjustified aside: "It is the same with black-market amphetamines: speed alone may not kill, but speed with a blindfold is highly likely to finish you off." The truth is that amphetamine is fairly safe at therapeutic doses—safer than many common psychiatric drugs, anyway—but at the much higher recreational doses, it reliably generates progressive damage to multiple organs, including the brain. This is not a problem shared by the opiates, aside from the much milder constipation problem.
I had seen somewhere an empirical study comparing deaths from prescription opiates and black-market opiates. I'd like to find it again.
I don't know if heroin has a safer therapeutic index than fentanyl. Possibly. The Grauniad article is correct about the relatively low risks of properly prepared heroin and the dangers of adulteration. I wouldn't be confident that fentanyl in properly prepared doses is equally safe; it might be safer or less safe, but the major difference is in ease of smuggling, which is associated with lack of accountability.
The article mentions amphetamine briefly in an unjustified aside: "It is the same with black-market amphetamines: speed alone may not kill, but speed with a blindfold is highly likely to finish you off." The truth is that amphetamine is fairly safe at therapeutic doses—safer than many common psychiatric drugs, anyway—but at the much higher recreational doses, it reliably generates progressive damage to multiple organs, including the brain. This is not a problem shared by the opiates, aside from the much milder constipation problem.
I had seen somewhere an empirical study comparing deaths from prescription opiates and black-market opiates. I'd like to find it again.
> It’s very hard to fight the war on drugs (from a personal liberty standpoint) one drug at a time.
I think it’s really easy to have a different stance based upon the actual drug.
I have no issues with marijuana and at no point in my life have feared of being robbed by someone trying to score money for a joint. But change that to heroin or meth and it’s a whole different situation.
I think it’s really easy to have a different stance based upon the actual drug.
I have no issues with marijuana and at no point in my life have feared of being robbed by someone trying to score money for a joint. But change that to heroin or meth and it’s a whole different situation.
If heroin and meth were "legal" in the sense of they being freely dispensed in special places and surely taken under supervision, you'd see a lot less violence caused by its users. That could be the starting point to get people off drugs, the same places could have get off drugs programs. The problem is that nobody really cares and the war on drugs causes more problems than it creates.
This has been tried with safe injection sites to mixed results. There seems to be a reduction in overdoses but also a rise in crime in the areas. Given the choice, it’s rationale that non-users in the area wouldn’t want that bargain.
Safe injection sites don't decriminalize the purchasing, so the price structure stays prohibitively high and the social cost stays high.
Heroin is already cheap. Unless you’re going to literally give it away you’ll always have people committing crimes to subsidize a fix.
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/heroin-addiction/how-much...
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/heroin-addiction/how-much...
There is no legal justification for criminalizing the use of any substance. We can put people in jail for armed robbery, why should a non-violent drug user be put in jail?
It’s deterrent. All else being equal people will do less of an act if there’s a consequence.
Why does it even have to be armed? Why not jail petty theft that furthers a drug habit?
Why does it even have to be armed? Why not jail petty theft that furthers a drug habit?
I thought that Freedom was the most important tenet of the USA? If something doesn't harm anyone, should it be deterred just because it has associated behaviors that do? Should going to the shooting range be illegal because it makes people better marksmen therefore increasing fatalities in mass shootings?
> I thought that Freedom was the most important tenet of the USA?
Freedom being a core tenet of rights in the USA does not me individual freedom above all else. It’s a balancing act where individual freedoms need a justification for restriction. Not that it cannot be done.
I see it like freedom of speech allowing you to speak your mind but society deciding that yelling “Fire!” in a theater is not allowed.
> If something doesn't harm anyone, should it be deterred just because it has associated behaviors that do?
Of course it can. That’s what society and laws are for, namely guiding overall behavior in complex systems. The what and how matter though.
> Should going to the shooting range be illegal because it makes people better marksmen therefore increasing fatalities in mass shootings?
The vast majority of people going a firing range for target practice are law abiding people, not criminals planning a mass shooting. Infringing their rights would not, IMHO, be a fair or constitutional trade off.
This is a good example of where the specifics matter. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes to buy marijuana.
No honest debate on this subject could say the same about heroin or meth. Both of those drugs do nothing but destroy people’s lives and drive them to a life of dependence and crime.
Freedom being a core tenet of rights in the USA does not me individual freedom above all else. It’s a balancing act where individual freedoms need a justification for restriction. Not that it cannot be done.
I see it like freedom of speech allowing you to speak your mind but society deciding that yelling “Fire!” in a theater is not allowed.
> If something doesn't harm anyone, should it be deterred just because it has associated behaviors that do?
Of course it can. That’s what society and laws are for, namely guiding overall behavior in complex systems. The what and how matter though.
> Should going to the shooting range be illegal because it makes people better marksmen therefore increasing fatalities in mass shootings?
The vast majority of people going a firing range for target practice are law abiding people, not criminals planning a mass shooting. Infringing their rights would not, IMHO, be a fair or constitutional trade off.
This is a good example of where the specifics matter. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes to buy marijuana.
No honest debate on this subject could say the same about heroin or meth. Both of those drugs do nothing but destroy people’s lives and drive them to a life of dependence and crime.
The negative social side effects of these drugs have more do to with becoming a member of a stigmatized social group than the drug itself
Wouldn’t heroin/meth be significantly cheaper if it was legal?
Yes, it would be. But it wouldn't be a good idea to let it be freely available on the streets. Being easily accessible and taken under supervision in special places it would be a start.
What’s wrong with letting people take it in their homes?
[deleted]
overdose, possibly unsanitary conditions, no control over the preparation/application
They wouldn't be handing out powders and expecting you to measure out dosages yourself if they were legal.
It would be akin to visiting your pharmacy.
It would be akin to visiting your pharmacy.
Large, centralized bureaucracies routinely make mistakes with sweeping reforms intended to improve quality of life at the cost of freedom -- and then rarely if ever apologize or make corrections. They lack "skin in the game", and work on an asymmetry in power and information and almost always a lack of consequences [0].
This is why many industries & sytems in US are broken: medical (including psychiatric), educational, drug & criminal justice, etc.
[0] - Skin in the Game (book), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)
This is why many industries & sytems in US are broken: medical (including psychiatric), educational, drug & criminal justice, etc.
[0] - Skin in the Game (book), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)
I'm also for increased drug legalization, but it's important to keep in mind the counter-balancing points as well.
Lots of adults will make very poor decisions when presented with the easy opportunity to do so, at least at certain critical times. People fall on bad times routinely (job loss, death in the family, etc) and can quickly find themselves hopeless and/or depressed. In a completely unregulated environment, these bad episodes of life can quickly escalate into serious (e.g. heroin) addiction problems and spiral out of control with devastating long-term effects first on the individual, and then increasingly on everyone around them and the entirety of society.
There's the obvious and immediate costs like ER visits, violence, police calls, etc. There's also the secondary impacts: the devastating impact on friends and family (who may also fall into the same hole as a result), any children of the now-addicted, etc. All of this rolls up into big-picture economic costs and "fabric of society" issues as well.
I have a streak of independence and self-determination in me as well, but it's fallacious to think that there aren't significant tertiary negative effects on others when I do misguided things, and making it super-easy for me to do so at my weakest points in life isn't a winning idea. This is the ethical basis for societal/government regulation of "dangerous" activities and items.
You can see a mirror of these same issues in the gun control debate as well. A bunch of responsible adults reasonably don't want the government telling them they're not allowed to responsibly own firearms and make their own decisions about what firearms they own for what purpose. They can make those decisions for themselves and it doesn't hurt anybody, because they are responsible adults.
But, as above, one has to consider that some small percentage of these responsible adults will eventually have a bad mental health day (or week, or month) and things will spiral out of control. Or they'll make a simple mistake and the gun is stolen by another, or discovered by a curious child or a very upset teenager. These are dangerous items and misuse (or even minor human error in controlling access) can have huge negative societal impacts. Thus, it's ethical for society to take an interest in regulating them.
In both cases (and so many others) the magic is in finding good healthy balance, and realizing of course that law and policy can't prevent all possible harm. Banning all the guns and drugs in the country is obviously not the right answer, and neither is wiping all regulation off the books and letting everyone walk drunkenly into their local corner store and pick up a loaded M-16 and a pound of meth for $20 whenever they feel like it. Developing a good regulation regime that's reasonably-protective and also minimally intrusive on peoples' rights is hard work; much harder than soundbite-happy bans.
Lots of adults will make very poor decisions when presented with the easy opportunity to do so, at least at certain critical times. People fall on bad times routinely (job loss, death in the family, etc) and can quickly find themselves hopeless and/or depressed. In a completely unregulated environment, these bad episodes of life can quickly escalate into serious (e.g. heroin) addiction problems and spiral out of control with devastating long-term effects first on the individual, and then increasingly on everyone around them and the entirety of society.
There's the obvious and immediate costs like ER visits, violence, police calls, etc. There's also the secondary impacts: the devastating impact on friends and family (who may also fall into the same hole as a result), any children of the now-addicted, etc. All of this rolls up into big-picture economic costs and "fabric of society" issues as well.
I have a streak of independence and self-determination in me as well, but it's fallacious to think that there aren't significant tertiary negative effects on others when I do misguided things, and making it super-easy for me to do so at my weakest points in life isn't a winning idea. This is the ethical basis for societal/government regulation of "dangerous" activities and items.
You can see a mirror of these same issues in the gun control debate as well. A bunch of responsible adults reasonably don't want the government telling them they're not allowed to responsibly own firearms and make their own decisions about what firearms they own for what purpose. They can make those decisions for themselves and it doesn't hurt anybody, because they are responsible adults.
But, as above, one has to consider that some small percentage of these responsible adults will eventually have a bad mental health day (or week, or month) and things will spiral out of control. Or they'll make a simple mistake and the gun is stolen by another, or discovered by a curious child or a very upset teenager. These are dangerous items and misuse (or even minor human error in controlling access) can have huge negative societal impacts. Thus, it's ethical for society to take an interest in regulating them.
In both cases (and so many others) the magic is in finding good healthy balance, and realizing of course that law and policy can't prevent all possible harm. Banning all the guns and drugs in the country is obviously not the right answer, and neither is wiping all regulation off the books and letting everyone walk drunkenly into their local corner store and pick up a loaded M-16 and a pound of meth for $20 whenever they feel like it. Developing a good regulation regime that's reasonably-protective and also minimally intrusive on peoples' rights is hard work; much harder than soundbite-happy bans.
I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that people are not responsible enough to make decisions for themselves.
> I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that people are not responsible enough to make decisions for themselves.
Well, with all due respect, you've lived either a short life or a sheltered life.
People have weak moments in their life.
Well, with all due respect, you've lived either a short life or a sheltered life.
People have weak moments in their life.
You do realize that argument could be taken as far as to completely eradicate the concept of freedom, right?
'normal', well balanced people maybe. But the simple fact is, there are tons of people out there that are utterly broken inside for gazillions of reasons, not enough to end up in mental institution (or even enough but ie recently released), but a total mess nevertheless.
Talk to doctors in ER (or cops) about their experiences if you care. It is a sad and sobering report on current state of raw mankind
Talk to doctors in ER (or cops) about their experiences if you care. It is a sad and sobering report on current state of raw mankind
>> But the simple fact is, there are tons of people out there that are utterly broken inside for gazillions of reasons
That doesn't mean the adult population (including the people you mention) shouldn't be given agency and the requisite respect to make decisions for themselves provided they are not harming other people.
>> Talk to doctors in ER (or cops) about their experiences if you care.
Given the number of vile, ignorant and disturbing things come out of the mouths of cops both on and off duty there are probably better ways to get an objective picture of the current raw state of raw mankind.
That doesn't mean the adult population (including the people you mention) shouldn't be given agency and the requisite respect to make decisions for themselves provided they are not harming other people.
>> Talk to doctors in ER (or cops) about their experiences if you care.
Given the number of vile, ignorant and disturbing things come out of the mouths of cops both on and off duty there are probably better ways to get an objective picture of the current raw state of raw mankind.
As someone who used to sell magic mushrooms - legally and very responsibly in the UK - I'm afraid OP has a point.
Some people - a much younger version of myself included - are total idiots, not to be trusted.
But hey, personal responsibility and all that... .
Some people - a much younger version of myself included - are total idiots, not to be trusted.
But hey, personal responsibility and all that... .
I think you would be persuaded by the book Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Doug Husak
The argument is simple: ask "Why am I being put in jail?". As the author points out, no satisfactory answer has been (or likely can be) given in the case of non-violent drug users.
All currently-known drugs should be decriminalized.
The argument is simple: ask "Why am I being put in jail?". As the author points out, no satisfactory answer has been (or likely can be) given in the case of non-violent drug users.
All currently-known drugs should be decriminalized.
Set and setting. The drug just rattles your cage.
I quoted Leary on 'set and setting' the other day on an LSD history thread and mentioned Leonard Orr used to get great results with nothing more exotic than oxygen, so rather than repeat that ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21264919 ) I'll say this:
If you have a modality of therapy that works, it will work without the drug (which, at best, serves as an amplifier and a "convincer".)
If you don't have a modality of therapy that works reliably, then it's irresponsible to add drugs and hope for the best. You're banging on the side of the box hoping to reseat the vacuum tubes.
The "convincer" effect can be achieved without drugs. Not to be too mysterious but I mean hypnosis. You can e.g. quit smoking using hypnosis. It's not even hard.
I'm not against drugs per se I'm just against using them in therapy. It's irresponsible. It's like advocating zeppelins over bikes for personal transport.
(I'm great friends with Mushroom, and a little 'shroom tea can be great fun. But cramming 'im into a wee lil pill and then claiming "quit smoking" magic is in it... That's bad science and lousy magick.)
I quoted Leary on 'set and setting' the other day on an LSD history thread and mentioned Leonard Orr used to get great results with nothing more exotic than oxygen, so rather than repeat that ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21264919 ) I'll say this:
If you have a modality of therapy that works, it will work without the drug (which, at best, serves as an amplifier and a "convincer".)
If you don't have a modality of therapy that works reliably, then it's irresponsible to add drugs and hope for the best. You're banging on the side of the box hoping to reseat the vacuum tubes.
The "convincer" effect can be achieved without drugs. Not to be too mysterious but I mean hypnosis. You can e.g. quit smoking using hypnosis. It's not even hard.
I'm not against drugs per se I'm just against using them in therapy. It's irresponsible. It's like advocating zeppelins over bikes for personal transport.
(I'm great friends with Mushroom, and a little 'shroom tea can be great fun. But cramming 'im into a wee lil pill and then claiming "quit smoking" magic is in it... That's bad science and lousy magick.)
In MAPS’ completed Phase 2 trials with 107 participants, 61% no longer qualified for PTSD after three sessions of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy two months following treatment. At the 12-month follow-up, 68% no longer had PTSD. All participants had chronic, treatment-resistant PTSD, and had suffered from PTSD for an average of 17.8 years.
https://maps.org/research/mdma/ptsd/phase3
Drugs used in therapy can resolve decades of treatment-resistant PTSD. Would you reconsider your position against drugs in therapy?
Would you be willing to look at the scientific results? Would you take a chance on closing your eyes momentarily to the word "drug"? This is therapy. Therapy is scientific results applied to the betterment of mankind.
To me, it would be deeply unethical to stop or ignore this work.
I've actually seen the results of "street therapy" for PTSD using MDMA by responsible adults. It was ... staggering. It's hard to express the boundless privilege of seeing PTSD melt off a person you love in an evening. And stay gone. Treatment-resistant PTSD. Decades of it. Gone. Because a substance was ingested. After endless therapy and doing all the right things. Sure, therapy worked. Glacially. There was constant pain. Constant anxiety. Gone. Just like in the studies. Rigorous, careful studies, taking decades of careful preparation in all spheres, political and medical.
But the anecdote doesn't matter. We have the studies.
https://maps.org/research/mdma/ptsd/phase3
Drugs used in therapy can resolve decades of treatment-resistant PTSD. Would you reconsider your position against drugs in therapy?
Would you be willing to look at the scientific results? Would you take a chance on closing your eyes momentarily to the word "drug"? This is therapy. Therapy is scientific results applied to the betterment of mankind.
To me, it would be deeply unethical to stop or ignore this work.
I've actually seen the results of "street therapy" for PTSD using MDMA by responsible adults. It was ... staggering. It's hard to express the boundless privilege of seeing PTSD melt off a person you love in an evening. And stay gone. Treatment-resistant PTSD. Decades of it. Gone. Because a substance was ingested. After endless therapy and doing all the right things. Sure, therapy worked. Glacially. There was constant pain. Constant anxiety. Gone. Just like in the studies. Rigorous, careful studies, taking decades of careful preparation in all spheres, political and medical.
But the anecdote doesn't matter. We have the studies.
I'm not an anti-drug puritan. (That would be so so hypocritical.) I think the criminalization of e.g. MDMA and the others is deeply foolish and has done a lot of harm. (To make an understatement. Frankly, I think you should be able to get clean liquid acid or MDMA at the local pharmacy. Why not? "Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do with my brain chemistry if I'm not hurting anyone?", eh?)
I don't want to take anything away from people, I just want us to think clearly about what's really going on when these kind of excellent results occur.
In the excitement over the successes with MDMA we shouldn't overlook things like Emotional Freedom Technique or Feldenkrais Technique that have also had wonderful successes with PTSD and yet don't involve ingesting substances. If we do, we risk missing out on the essential aspects of effective therapy.
I don't want to take anything away from people, I just want us to think clearly about what's really going on when these kind of excellent results occur.
In the excitement over the successes with MDMA we shouldn't overlook things like Emotional Freedom Technique or Feldenkrais Technique that have also had wonderful successes with PTSD and yet don't involve ingesting substances. If we do, we risk missing out on the essential aspects of effective therapy.
MDMA has a terrible comedown. Suicide Tuesdays is a thing after raves. After a 3 day festival, where you are taking molly like it's candy, Monday you're fine/ alittle hungover from the drinking but come Tuesday the world is fucking hopeless.
Agreed!
(I want to note that I was replying to this specifically: “ I'm just against using them in therapy. It's irresponsible.” It was a rather crystallized statement, but we clearly see nuances here :) I take it that we both fully agree that drugs must not overshadow therapy, and that there are great temptations for shortcuts.)
(I want to note that I was replying to this specifically: “ I'm just against using them in therapy. It's irresponsible.” It was a rather crystallized statement, but we clearly see nuances here :) I take it that we both fully agree that drugs must not overshadow therapy, and that there are great temptations for shortcuts.)
You're totally right, I went a little overboard there, sorry.
Well met! :-)
Well met! :-)
But a lot of the time psychoactive drugs can remove psychological barriers that would otherwise prevent constructive participation in therapy. Not everyone needs it, but judging from how many people are in more-or-less-perpetual therapy, I think you might be undervaluing psychoactive drugs in that context.
> I think you might be undervaluing psychoactive drugs in that context.
I can only assure you I'm not. Your brain can already make all the psychoactive drugs you need.
These chemicals (LSD, Psilcybin) are like electroshock therapy, just a little more subtle. There are more precise and/or delicate modalities that are effective. I don't think it's too controversial to believe that we should concentrate on the precise and delicate therapy, eh?
I can only assure you I'm not. Your brain can already make all the psychoactive drugs you need.
These chemicals (LSD, Psilcybin) are like electroshock therapy, just a little more subtle. There are more precise and/or delicate modalities that are effective. I don't think it's too controversial to believe that we should concentrate on the precise and delicate therapy, eh?
[deleted]
> If we do, we risk missing out on the essential aspects of effective therapy.
No we don't; you're just moralizing against what appears to be effective treatment. No one is saying psychedelics are panacea, that's just a strawman.
Stop projecting your own misguided personal ethics. There are real people that need real help.
No we don't; you're just moralizing against what appears to be effective treatment. No one is saying psychedelics are panacea, that's just a strawman.
Stop projecting your own misguided personal ethics. There are real people that need real help.
It's not just hitting the vacuum tube. If one just trips for the sake of tripping, then there is not much to be gained except for several hours of happy serotonin hits in the brain.
However, what we know about psychs is that there is a huge release of BDNF (brain derived neurotrophic factor) and a shutdown of the DMN.
The BDNF enables a ton of new neural connections to be built. It's like you have about 6-8 hours of a period where your brain plasticity goes back to that of an infant, just absorbing everything. So in this accelerated learning state, it's possible to work through one's emotions.
So it makes sense to prepare for several weeks to receive therapy and to outline goals and memories to revisit to process them during this heightened period. Then when the drug wears off, you're still left with the new neural connectivity and perspectives and the other benefits that were derived from the session.
Rather than hitting the vacuum tube, this is more like re-running the radio scanner in your car to find radio stations when you've moved over to a new city and the old radio stations are now out of range while one isn't tuned to the current set of radio stations.
However, what we know about psychs is that there is a huge release of BDNF (brain derived neurotrophic factor) and a shutdown of the DMN.
The BDNF enables a ton of new neural connections to be built. It's like you have about 6-8 hours of a period where your brain plasticity goes back to that of an infant, just absorbing everything. So in this accelerated learning state, it's possible to work through one's emotions.
So it makes sense to prepare for several weeks to receive therapy and to outline goals and memories to revisit to process them during this heightened period. Then when the drug wears off, you're still left with the new neural connectivity and perspectives and the other benefits that were derived from the session.
Rather than hitting the vacuum tube, this is more like re-running the radio scanner in your car to find radio stations when you've moved over to a new city and the old radio stations are now out of range while one isn't tuned to the current set of radio stations.
>If one just trips for the sake of tripping, then there is not much to be gained except for several hours of happy serotonin hits in the brain.
Which is perfectly ok and probably preferable for most who waste trips by thinking that you must think deep and just get uncomfortable.
And while obviously there are results where people make large changes my own experience about those people is that a lot of insights are like New Years Eves resolutions said when drunk and happy; the change or insight goes away when a short time has passed.
Which is perfectly ok and probably preferable for most who waste trips by thinking that you must think deep and just get uncomfortable.
And while obviously there are results where people make large changes my own experience about those people is that a lot of insights are like New Years Eves resolutions said when drunk and happy; the change or insight goes away when a short time has passed.
> So it makes sense to prepare for several weeks to receive therapy and to outline goals and memories to revisit to process them during this heightened period. Then when the drug wears off, you're still left with the new neural connectivity and perspectives and the other benefits that were derived from the session.
The you're describing sounds great. All I'm saying is, a sweat lodge (for example) can take the place of the drug. The "magic" is in the "set and setting" not the pill.
The you're describing sounds great. All I'm saying is, a sweat lodge (for example) can take the place of the drug. The "magic" is in the "set and setting" not the pill.
Yes, I would be very curious as to your sources for this. I did medically supervised psychedelic treatment; I found the setting rather unpleasant because it took place in a doctor's office and one of the many anxieties I was treating was a lifelong phobia of germs and anything medical. This was a far cry from a sweat lodge or from recreational psychedelic experiences I've had with friends in nature etc. I did not enjoy all of my trips and some were hardly even reflective experiences because they caused me so much anxiety in the moment, yet I got massive psychological benefits from them nonetheless.
I'm curious what you base this opinion on. Are you just describing your personal experience, or are you saying this applies to everyone?
This is how my doctor explained psychedelic therapy to me - it triggers a massive release in BDNF that stimulates neuroplasticity, which allows for long term changes to occur. The trip itself can be a catalyst for reflective experiences that help with the growth of positive new neural circuitry but it is by no means the most important aspect of the treatment. In the case of ketamine, which is what I did, the release of BDNF continues for hours after the trip ends.
Except initial trials of MDMA, LSD, and psilocybin in combination with guided therapy show outcomes that the therapy alone just isn't getting.
I never said that drugs don't work. I said they do work as amplifiers and "convincers". Combined with a good set and setting lots of people, myself included, have had "good trips" that include mental emotional and spiritual healing.
My concern is when people get confused and think that the "magic" is in the mushroom.
My concern is when people get confused and think that the "magic" is in the mushroom.
And if they work it is a whole lot safer than taking symptom management medication.
It’s true that claiming the pill will cure smoking is a lie. That’s no more true than saying the tires on your car will get you to work. The scientific studies of late depend on the use of the pill and a specially trained therapist through multiple sessions. Several drug free sessions to discuss deep issues and get to know one another, an introductory session with the equivalent of 2g of dried mushrooms, and two weeks later a full session with the equivalent of 5-6g dried mushrooms. All of this is with the trained therapist who knows the patient. And the results are undeniable. Of course it may be possible to find these benefits without the therapist, but certainly with the therapist the drug can enable deeply valuable medical treatment. Anyone who claims the drug fixes the problem by itself is either a quack or is speaking slightly incorrectly and really trying to say the drug was an important part of their solution.
If hypnosis is so effective for quitting smoking, how do you explain that studies fail to find much effect? E.g., this 2019 meta-analysis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31198991
From the conclusion: "If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most."
The effect size and certainty with mushrooms seem much greater.
From the conclusion: "If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most."
The effect size and certainty with mushrooms seem much greater.
Yeah, I have no idea what those folks were doing. I know I can get the result because I did, back in the day. I'm not a licensed hypnotherapist but I went through an exploratory phase in my 20's which included experimentation with hypnosis. It was easy to develop "profound" hypnotic phenomenon like arm catalepsy (your arm is basically asleep, if you feel it with your other hand it feels like someone else's arm, etc.) I don't know what to tell you.
I actually only ever tried smoking cessation once, at a party, to demonstrate hypnosis. A friend of a friend went from two packs a day to two cigarettes a day, and a month later she was still barely smoking. YMMV.
Oh man! I just remembered what happened: I went into an online quit-smoking chatroom and offered to help people quit and they tore me a new one. People were howling for my blood! That's why I never went into business as a therapist. (That and I'm kind of an anti-social curmudgeon.)
I actually only ever tried smoking cessation once, at a party, to demonstrate hypnosis. A friend of a friend went from two packs a day to two cigarettes a day, and a month later she was still barely smoking. YMMV.
Oh man! I just remembered what happened: I went into an online quit-smoking chatroom and offered to help people quit and they tore me a new one. People were howling for my blood! That's why I never went into business as a therapist. (That and I'm kind of an anti-social curmudgeon.)
You seem to have a supreme self confidence that most people do not. So you think that you 'hypnotized' the person to gradually stop smoking over a month from a sort session? You have some 'magical' powers. Sorry for the skepticism...
> You seem to have a supreme self confidence that most people do not.
Only in certain areas.
> So you think that you 'hypnotized' the person to gradually stop smoking over a month from a sort session?
No. The change in rate of smoking (2 packs a day to 2 cigs a day) was immediate and durable (at least up to a month, I didn't talk to her again beyond that.) Interestingly, at the very end of the session there was a momentary unconscious movement of the hand in a holding-cigarette gesture. I think the reason that she didn't stop smoking entirely was somehow connected to that gesture, FWIW.
> You have some 'magical' powers.
Maybe..? Certainly, to myself I seem nondescript.
> Sorry for the skepticism...
It's fine. You're nicer than most. I sometimes think I should write an autobiography, but then I think, who would believe it?
Only in certain areas.
> So you think that you 'hypnotized' the person to gradually stop smoking over a month from a sort session?
No. The change in rate of smoking (2 packs a day to 2 cigs a day) was immediate and durable (at least up to a month, I didn't talk to her again beyond that.) Interestingly, at the very end of the session there was a momentary unconscious movement of the hand in a holding-cigarette gesture. I think the reason that she didn't stop smoking entirely was somehow connected to that gesture, FWIW.
> You have some 'magical' powers.
Maybe..? Certainly, to myself I seem nondescript.
> Sorry for the skepticism...
It's fine. You're nicer than most. I sometimes think I should write an autobiography, but then I think, who would believe it?
I'm sorry, I have to disagree friend. You're overlooking the basic neurochemistry of these substances. If you take Psilocybin or LSD, it will cause actual, scientifically observable changes in the brain. These actual changes can be of great benefit even if there is not necessarily an official therapy employed.
The whole recreational, non-study-able drug use phenomenon, the societal wave of recognition of the value of these experiences, it's all due to the fact that these have a real positive impact on the neurochemistry of the majority of people. Set and setting is important in all branches of medicine and self-improvement, but it's undeniable that these drugs will do wonders even with loosely structured goals at the outset, given proper set and setting as a baseline.
The whole recreational, non-study-able drug use phenomenon, the societal wave of recognition of the value of these experiences, it's all due to the fact that these have a real positive impact on the neurochemistry of the majority of people. Set and setting is important in all branches of medicine and self-improvement, but it's undeniable that these drugs will do wonders even with loosely structured goals at the outset, given proper set and setting as a baseline.
>a little 'shroom tea can be great fun.
You go out of your way to say you're not against drugs per se, but based on this statement and I can say that your attitude towards psychedelics is probably antithetical to their therapeutic potential. Having used mushrooms only once (admittedly in a larger-than-probably-responsible dose), I can say that viewing the trip as a recreational experience is misguided at best and damaging or dangerous at worst.
You go out of your way to say you're not against drugs per se, but based on this statement and I can say that your attitude towards psychedelics is probably antithetical to their therapeutic potential. Having used mushrooms only once (admittedly in a larger-than-probably-responsible dose), I can say that viewing the trip as a recreational experience is misguided at best and damaging or dangerous at worst.
With that statement I was merely acknowledging a fact. Many people have had a fine old time with the aid of the "Magic" Mushroom. It can't be denied. However, personally, I agree with you that "viewing the trip as a recreational experience is misguided at best and damaging or dangerous at worst."
> (I'm great friends with Mushroom, and a little 'shroom tea can be great fun. But cramming 'im into a wee lil pill and then claiming "quit smoking" magic is in it... That's bad science and lousy magick.)
Fortunately that's not what they're finding for these classes of drugs. See the incredible stats coming out around MDMA + PTSD + therapy.
Fortunately that's not what they're finding for these classes of drugs. See the incredible stats coming out around MDMA + PTSD + therapy.
> I'm not against drugs per se I'm just against using them in therapy. It's irresponsible.
I think it’s appropriate to try something else when you’ve tried therapy, support groups, etc. Sometimes the best thing one needs especially when they’ve been focused on changing their mind and habits for a long while is something to open up all the calcified pathways.
I think it’s appropriate to try something else when you’ve tried therapy, support groups, etc. Sometimes the best thing one needs especially when they’ve been focused on changing their mind and habits for a long while is something to open up all the calcified pathways.
Yes, absolutely. If you have exhausted the better options, get high.
Sure! The olotrophic breathwork developed by Grof for example is a great substitute to LSD therapy.
That's a lot of words without much analysis. Can you please explain precisely how these studies are bad science?
It would take too long to do the subject justice, but I'll try to sketch it:
The idea that psilocybin "cures" smoking addiction is like the "Virtus dormitiua"
> I am asked by the learned doctor the cause and reason why opium causes sleep. To which I reply, because it has a dormitive property, whose nature is to lull the senses to sleep.
We have no idea why magic mushroom do what they do, nor any solid scientific idea of how they do what they do. The best we can say is, "By breaking down those networks, there's a chance they won't re-form." and "It seemed to work..."
A neuroscientist friend of mine likes to say, "Psychiatry is not a branch of medicine." This still isn't it. For example: at any point were the subjects of the study given a blood test?
The idea that psilocybin "cures" smoking addiction is like the "Virtus dormitiua"
> I am asked by the learned doctor the cause and reason why opium causes sleep. To which I reply, because it has a dormitive property, whose nature is to lull the senses to sleep.
We have no idea why magic mushroom do what they do, nor any solid scientific idea of how they do what they do. The best we can say is, "By breaking down those networks, there's a chance they won't re-form." and "It seemed to work..."
A neuroscientist friend of mine likes to say, "Psychiatry is not a branch of medicine." This still isn't it. For example: at any point were the subjects of the study given a blood test?
Not fully understanding the mechanisms doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. If that was the case, anaesthesia should have already been abandoned quite emphatically.
Of course, caution is certainly warranted with such powerful tools, especially as we try to understand them better. But if they are effective and can be used safely in the right context, then we should use them. And we have indications that this is the case.
So we must proceed carefully forward. I'm so glad that the multi-decade blockade on research is finally lifting.
Of course, caution is certainly warranted with such powerful tools, especially as we try to understand them better. But if they are effective and can be used safely in the right context, then we should use them. And we have indications that this is the case.
So we must proceed carefully forward. I'm so glad that the multi-decade blockade on research is finally lifting.
[deleted]
This actually worked for me. I was a habitual marijuana user for several years and it had very adverse effects on my productivity and motivation, but I couldn't seem to quit. Then I did mushrooms with some friends and when I woke up I simply did not have the desire to smoke anymore. It has been around 12 years and I haven't ever picked it back up.
Just as another data point, I actually love weed with no desire to quit, and I too found myself questioning if it's even something I want to keep in my life after a psychedelic experience.
One of the weird things about psychedelics is that you'll often think "why don't I take better care of myself?" which often includes not doing the drugs or living the lifestyle that gave you that insight.
I also think I enjoy weed less since I've had that experience, which I'm a little disappointed about, but I feel like I have a much better compass for making good decisions now. I replaced grams in blunts with small amounts of whole leaf vaporization after that.
One of the weird things about psychedelics is that you'll often think "why don't I take better care of myself?" which often includes not doing the drugs or living the lifestyle that gave you that insight.
I also think I enjoy weed less since I've had that experience, which I'm a little disappointed about, but I feel like I have a much better compass for making good decisions now. I replaced grams in blunts with small amounts of whole leaf vaporization after that.
I can attest to that. In my early tweens i was in a severely depressive state and would be actively rejecting psychotherapy and just keep going further down the spiral - it all changed after a one or two experiences with magic mushrooms.
Despite not using them in a clinical, supervised environment, or in conjunction with therapy, the experience actually had me somehow understand where my depressions came from and helped overcoming them like nothing else did.
Of course it didn't "cure me", managing depression has been a way longer journey - but for me it changed my life from "barely able to get up" to a state where i was actually able to do things, start working, live my life and care for myself almost overnight. Literally felt like it had re-wired my brain, never since relapsed into quite such a dark and hopeless state i was living in back then.
Despite not using them in a clinical, supervised environment, or in conjunction with therapy, the experience actually had me somehow understand where my depressions came from and helped overcoming them like nothing else did.
Of course it didn't "cure me", managing depression has been a way longer journey - but for me it changed my life from "barely able to get up" to a state where i was actually able to do things, start working, live my life and care for myself almost overnight. Literally felt like it had re-wired my brain, never since relapsed into quite such a dark and hopeless state i was living in back then.
>the experience actually had me somehow understand where my depressions came from
While I realize that it is an entirely personal matter, I can't help but ask if you can perhaps share some of your insights?
While I realize that it is an entirely personal matter, I can't help but ask if you can perhaps share some of your insights?
It's really quite hard to explain as anybody who's had psychedelic experiences will probably tell you - but for me it was something like this:
A major reason for my depressions where my fathers early death, which i hadn't really processed up to that point. In my first ever trip, some hours in i fell into a state where all that sadness and regret just overpowered my conscience, quite literally myself. Yet at the same time i was calmly observing myself, and i was able to reflect quite deeply onto my emotional state, ironically all whilst beeing utterly unable to control it.
This "loss of ego", i could maybe describe it as an "out of body experience" made it incredibly obvious to me how to put my regular emotional state into context and understanding how rejecting the process of grief and feeding my fears of loss had created the state i was living in.
Afterwards all those things that had an unshakeable grip on me started to become understandable in a way you'd understand ANOTHER person going through this, reasoning wasn't clouded anymore from my affection. I think that was the tipping point
A major reason for my depressions where my fathers early death, which i hadn't really processed up to that point. In my first ever trip, some hours in i fell into a state where all that sadness and regret just overpowered my conscience, quite literally myself. Yet at the same time i was calmly observing myself, and i was able to reflect quite deeply onto my emotional state, ironically all whilst beeing utterly unable to control it.
This "loss of ego", i could maybe describe it as an "out of body experience" made it incredibly obvious to me how to put my regular emotional state into context and understanding how rejecting the process of grief and feeding my fears of loss had created the state i was living in.
Afterwards all those things that had an unshakeable grip on me started to become understandable in a way you'd understand ANOTHER person going through this, reasoning wasn't clouded anymore from my affection. I think that was the tipping point
Tldr; it quite literally "killed my ego" for a short time and allowed for an unclouded view onto what was going on with me. And that way of reflecting my emotional state stayed with me ever since
A lot of the people using them mention killing the ego, I've never done anything like that and wonder what do you think under the word ego? I know the literal term obviously.
Way I see it, the ego manifests as a bunch of defense mechanisms that seek to preserve the status quo of one's existing personality, by distorting one's perception and generating sometimes-intrusive thoughts. The ego is also the thing that always wants more... more adulation, attention, money, etc.
As an example: given that you have free will, at any moment you could say to yourself, "hey, there are X and Y habits/traits I have, let's not do those anymore and do Z instead." Maybe it's smoking, eating badly, you don't treat people the way they deserve, being a doormat, whatever. You could absolutely choose to become an entirely different person overnight. You might also change your career/lifestyle overnight (not everyone is so lucky though).
Now the ego swoops in and says, "Hold on, let's not do anything crazy, it'll be scary and embarrassing if I suddenly act differently, what will my friends think? It's easier to keep on keeping on. These habits are just things that I would do. It's okay when I do these things because I'm me." and so on like this.
As an example: given that you have free will, at any moment you could say to yourself, "hey, there are X and Y habits/traits I have, let's not do those anymore and do Z instead." Maybe it's smoking, eating badly, you don't treat people the way they deserve, being a doormat, whatever. You could absolutely choose to become an entirely different person overnight. You might also change your career/lifestyle overnight (not everyone is so lucky though).
Now the ego swoops in and says, "Hold on, let's not do anything crazy, it'll be scary and embarrassing if I suddenly act differently, what will my friends think? It's easier to keep on keeping on. These habits are just things that I would do. It's okay when I do these things because I'm me." and so on like this.
Ego death feels and seems and looks, quite literally, like you are actually experiencing your physical death. But then you come out on the other side just fine, or if you don't resist but instead let go, perhaps "enlightened" for a while ... (there are degrees of enlightenment IME)
It's strikingly similar to death experiences I've had slowly waking up as I die in morning dreams ...
It's strikingly similar to death experiences I've had slowly waking up as I die in morning dreams ...
The "ego" comprises of what makes you "you" — or more specifically, what you think makes you "you". Your personality, your likes and dislikes, your memories, your history, your judgements. All the things that create your "identity". The ego is your custom filter through which you experience consciousness.
It's helpful to be able to experience the world without the influence of the ego, because then you are able to experience the world in a completely unfiltered way. You are able to get closer to an experience of objective truth.
Many people who have used psychedelics or work deeply with meditation all come to similar conclusions: the ego is an illusion. All beings are one and the same. Your sense of "separateness" from every living thing on this planet is a function of your ego-filter — and your ego-filter is wrong.
It's helpful to be able to experience the world without the influence of the ego, because then you are able to experience the world in a completely unfiltered way. You are able to get closer to an experience of objective truth.
Many people who have used psychedelics or work deeply with meditation all come to similar conclusions: the ego is an illusion. All beings are one and the same. Your sense of "separateness" from every living thing on this planet is a function of your ego-filter — and your ego-filter is wrong.
Awesome. So the last two years I have asked people if they know anyone with shrooms, I really wanted to quit dipping (Copenhagen tobacco), been dipping for 15 years, and heard this really works.
No one I knew had any leads, not really shocked by that. But I quit dipping anyways, about 6 months ago. Moral of the story: sometimes your friends don't have illegal drugs and you have to suck it up and do right things the hard way. Second moral: having friends that have drugs would have made all this so much easier.
No one I knew had any leads, not really shocked by that. But I quit dipping anyways, about 6 months ago. Moral of the story: sometimes your friends don't have illegal drugs and you have to suck it up and do right things the hard way. Second moral: having friends that have drugs would have made all this so much easier.
I like how a lot of the comments assumed you are European since you chew Copenhagen, a US smokeless tobacco company brand.
Defiantly not European and if I where the profiling type I would almost bet money on a) that it's a him and b) him living in my region of the US. If I, am wrong on the second follow-up guess would be northwest plains states. But the stuff was really popular in the South, and in some places for a time more popular than smoking. I grew up on a farm and the cowboys at the feed store would always give me some when I was a kid. It started a life long love-affair that I wish I would have never started. In those cowboys defense, in the 70's Big Tobacco was still convincing people that tobacco was totally safe.
In European Snus is more popular and funny enough due to being water cured has less carcinogenics in it.
In European Snus is more popular and funny enough due to being water cured has less carcinogenics in it.
More than any other illegal drug mushrooms are the easiest to obtain for someone who’s social network is failing themes.
Between spore syringes and mushroom hunting.
Between spore syringes and mushroom hunting.
Spore syringes eh? A friend I know does agar tek and then to rye grain, then spawns to an unmodified tub with CVG.. he seems to have a lot of fun with this new and fun hobby!! I could totally see some engineer and tech oriented folk here getting really into it.. Gordotek bulk mushroom cultivation all the way!!
Plus the fruits really are medicinal for the mind body and spirit. It’s so good seeing the world starting to wake up to these natural technologies..
Plus the fruits really are medicinal for the mind body and spirit. It’s so good seeing the world starting to wake up to these natural technologies..
Spore syringes are easy to obtain and simple to grow. Also on Europe it's mushroom season round about now.
They're extremely easy to grow yourself.
You aren't too far from the Netherlands where they sell truffles as far as I understand.
Copenhagen is a brand of dip, not his location, if that is what you are referring to.
Ahh, didn't realise that. What's dip in this context? Rolling cigarettes or something different?
"Dip" is chewing tobacco. You put it between your cheek and gums, and the nicotine is absorbed through your oral mucosa.
[deleted]
Chewing tobacco.
Not really chewing tobacco, it's moist tobacco that one places between their gums and their lips.
According to this article the therapy isn't a one-time deal. Being able to grab a few shrooms while on vacation wouldn't do the trick.
Sometimes a single session can work. Always have an experienced guide and don’t do it if there is disposition to schizophrenia.
[deleted]
Can you not go and pick them where you are? I thought liberty caps were pretty widespread over Europe
Just delete this comment. If you're not an expert on mushrooms, picking mushrooms is basically playing Russian roulette. Telling people to do so is wildly irresponsible.
While I tend to agree with you, it also depends on your region. In the US south you can take one look at the psychedelic mushroom picture that grows here and pretty readily identify it. It also only grows in cow poop, so if you see one that looks like the picture, and it's growing in cow poop it's a magic mushroom.
In other areas it may not be that simple, that being said, it's pretty sage advice to not just go out and pick mushrooms to eat.
Personally I never did them or any other hallucinogen, but helped gather them for my friends when I was a kid. My dad is slightly schizophrenic and everyone says he was never the same after they scored some LSD in the 60's. While I am fine, save some depression and ADD, I figured with the family history why risk it, and with the anxiety disorder that comes from depression the thought of having a panic attack while hallucinating pretty much guarantees that it would happen. The one time I tried pot, was an absolute nightmare and that's not even a true hallucinogenic, just has some properties.
In other areas it may not be that simple, that being said, it's pretty sage advice to not just go out and pick mushrooms to eat.
Personally I never did them or any other hallucinogen, but helped gather them for my friends when I was a kid. My dad is slightly schizophrenic and everyone says he was never the same after they scored some LSD in the 60's. While I am fine, save some depression and ADD, I figured with the family history why risk it, and with the anxiety disorder that comes from depression the thought of having a panic attack while hallucinating pretty much guarantees that it would happen. The one time I tried pot, was an absolute nightmare and that's not even a true hallucinogenic, just has some properties.
No need to go overboard here.
It's perfectly safe to pick any mushroom. You can take them home, take a spore print, dry them, and carefully identify them with the help of the internet at your leisure.
All that's important is that you know not to eat them until you've done so.
And when you do think you've identified them, and want to eat them, first eat a small amount just to play it safe.
Picking mushrooms is not playing Russian roulette. It's completely harmless, no mushroom kills you on contact, you're being ridiculous.
It's actually a quite fun hobby to forage and collect mushrooms when in season, take them home and try classify them. Even if you just throw them all away afterwards. In the process you've dispersed their spores too.
It's perfectly safe to pick any mushroom. You can take them home, take a spore print, dry them, and carefully identify them with the help of the internet at your leisure.
All that's important is that you know not to eat them until you've done so.
And when you do think you've identified them, and want to eat them, first eat a small amount just to play it safe.
Picking mushrooms is not playing Russian roulette. It's completely harmless, no mushroom kills you on contact, you're being ridiculous.
It's actually a quite fun hobby to forage and collect mushrooms when in season, take them home and try classify them. Even if you just throw them all away afterwards. In the process you've dispersed their spores too.
Precious few mushrooms are truly poisonous.
And I've picked and eaten A LOT of supposedly dangerous ones, as well as other plants; something I suspect most people speaking out on the subject haven't.
As a matter of fact, I just got some red amanitas out of the freezer that I picked a few days ago. I'm going to fry them in butter with onions and garlic and make a lovely shroom sandwich.
Like amanitas, liberty caps have a very distinctive look. Soak them in water for a while if at all unsure, and only eat a small amount to begin with.
The really dangerous stuff is pushed by "science" and the people who come up with this FUD to sell their artificial, truly poisonous and addictive chemical cocktails for awesome profits instead.
And I've picked and eaten A LOT of supposedly dangerous ones, as well as other plants; something I suspect most people speaking out on the subject haven't.
As a matter of fact, I just got some red amanitas out of the freezer that I picked a few days ago. I'm going to fry them in butter with onions and garlic and make a lovely shroom sandwich.
Like amanitas, liberty caps have a very distinctive look. Soak them in water for a while if at all unsure, and only eat a small amount to begin with.
The really dangerous stuff is pushed by "science" and the people who come up with this FUD to sell their artificial, truly poisonous and addictive chemical cocktails for awesome profits instead.
I love mushrooms, and pick and enjoy both edible and psychedelic types, but this advice is frankly terrible. Russian roulette indeed.
please don’t just go around picking stuff if you don’t absolutely know what you’re doing. it sounds simple but mistakes are extremely costly
As the other commenters have said, this is insanely dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.
This is always a good read, it's what happens if you do this wrong: https://blog.mycology.cornell.edu/2006/11/22/i-survived-the-...
This is always a good read, it's what happens if you do this wrong: https://blog.mycology.cornell.edu/2006/11/22/i-survived-the-...
I too would very much recommend people pick and eat the "desriable to eat" kind of mushrooms. If I had to describe what they look like, I'd say it's very similar to the "will kill you horifically" kind of mushrooms.
EDIT: I should say that I mainly said this because I thought it was funny. I actually think it's fine if people to take risks like that if they understand the responsibility and do their own research. I also think it's fine if people occasionally die from things like those, so take that as you will.
EDIT: I should say that I mainly said this because I thought it was funny. I actually think it's fine if people to take risks like that if they understand the responsibility and do their own research. I also think it's fine if people occasionally die from things like those, so take that as you will.
There was a New Yorker article a few years ago about an experimental psilocybin treatment program in NYU and Johns Hopkins. Obviously the numbers were quite small considering government approval would be shaky and all that but it found that it was effective in treating addiction and chronic anxiety.
Here it is:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment
Here it is:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment
To anyone curious, this was studied at a small scale with promising results across several psychedelics. Most notably lsd and mdma (in addition to mushrooms and dmt). I can't seem to locate links to studies at the moment, but I'd suggest reading How to change your mind by Michael Pollan if you're interested in this stuff.
I went to a talk last week by Robin carhart-harris who does deep research in this area. The talk itself was pretty complicated but he was saying (I think!) that they believe these drugs cause the brain to go into a state where it becomes more susceptible to change. The same thing happens under extreme stress / trauma. The context of the experience itself then determines how that’s encoded. It’s like it opens the brain up to change.
Yes. I've done a lot of reading on the subject trying to explain and begin to understand how the incredibly positive changes I've experienced come about...and "reverse PTSD" seems remarkably close. A guided, safe psychedelic session is similar in that it's a one-time, extremely powerful event that causes a lasting change in the brain--except in this case it's positive and intentional* whereas PTSD is negative and wasn't sought out.
* There seems to be a large degree of choice in which changes one wants to take away from the experience but this is a highly subjective, personal conclusion.
* There seems to be a large degree of choice in which changes one wants to take away from the experience but this is a highly subjective, personal conclusion.
I've only done mushrooms once, and I've never wanted a cigarette more in my life than during that experience.
Why is that? What was causing the craving? Can you elaborate? I've heard that alcohol and cocaine cause this.
IME mushrooms cause any low-consciousness activities like smoking/drinking/mindless partying to seem repulsive.
IME mushrooms cause any low-consciousness activities like smoking/drinking/mindless partying to seem repulsive.
Repulsive is absolutely the right word for this effect.
Edit for one more thought on this: it also gave me an appreciation for vegans and vegetarians. I was eating chicken while tripping once and really had some inner conflict over if it was ok to eat another animal. I'll never be a vegetarian, but for a brief moment I understood what all my hippie friends are on about :)
Edit for one more thought on this: it also gave me an appreciation for vegans and vegetarians. I was eating chicken while tripping once and really had some inner conflict over if it was ok to eat another animal. I'll never be a vegetarian, but for a brief moment I understood what all my hippie friends are on about :)
I've been learning more about these psychedelics and they seem to have good medical benefits but if anyone is looking for a psychedelic or spiritual breakthrough, similar breakthroughs have been achieved through things like kundalini yoga.
Its the same as weight training vs steroids, but of course you can do both. You might not be ready or even know how to process your experience if you just take a drug. (I'm not talking about for medical purposes)
Kundalini awakenings can be just as harmful (if not MORE) as psychedelics awakenings without proper integration work. It always helps to work with a teacher or guide when traveling through a shadowy psyche.
Not disagreeing but clarifying that the big psychedelic medical studies also rely on integration work as it dramatically increases the value of the treatment. This I am paraphrasing from what I have learned from the Psychonauts podcast.
If the active ingredient really temporarily "rewires" the brain such that multiple "rewires" can help break dependency, it should be tested with video game addiction. I know many people I grew up with who have a WoW addiction that is highly detrimental to their lives.
I just started playing WoW classic. People always ask me how I like it, seeing as I never played WoW before. I would describe it as not very fun, but incredibly addicting. I'd continue to elaborate but I have to go do some leatherworking...
Oh god I fell into the trap as well. I hardly played games in the past few years and strictly single player ones which aren't infinite time sinks. Then WoW classic came and I just wanted to chill out a bit and experience some nostalgia. Now I'm hooked again, doing about 3 hours a day while also juggling work, family life etc.
BTW, the fun starts when they introduce PvP honor and battlegrounds. Other than that it's a true grindfest.
As for the OP topic, shrooms are great, got me out of depression during my late teens. No preparation or anything, just took some with friends and embraced it with positive curiousity.
BTW, the fun starts when they introduce PvP honor and battlegrounds. Other than that it's a true grindfest.
As for the OP topic, shrooms are great, got me out of depression during my late teens. No preparation or anything, just took some with friends and embraced it with positive curiousity.
Heh, my experience was the opposite. I played it for a bit (having played WoW during burning crusade through cataclysm) and had a lot of fun, but I stopped because it didn't hook me enough into playing long sessions or logging in every day.
If there's one game that does "not very fun (occasionally) but incredibly addicting" for me it's Old School Runescape. I started playing Runescape in 2006 and I still play in 2019 (with some breaks in between). I'm 21. That's most of my life.
If there's one game that does "not very fun (occasionally) but incredibly addicting" for me it's Old School Runescape. I started playing Runescape in 2006 and I still play in 2019 (with some breaks in between). I'm 21. That's most of my life.
I would recommend Michael Pollan’s “How to change your mind”. One of the theories is that addiction is a disease of mental rigidity and psychedelics loosens that rigidity.
Just downloaded and starting to read. Looks super promising. Thanks so much for the tip
It should in theory. I assume there will be clinical trials in the future if there is continued success with the alcohol and other ones.
From what I can say from experience - Psychedelics make you aware of the internal sensation of the body a lot. So smoking actually gives you a negative feeling as opposed to the usual feeling. This negative reinforcement is really useful for kicking the habit.
Same with alcohol or even meat products in particular. You can feel becoming stupid eating those. I think microdosing for 30 days is an effective way of kicking off habits or forming new healthy habits.
Same with alcohol or even meat products in particular. You can feel becoming stupid eating those. I think microdosing for 30 days is an effective way of kicking off habits or forming new healthy habits.
My own (anecdotal) experience with magic mushrooms underlines this. When I used magic mushrooms I was still a smoker. While on magic mushrooms, I felt much less need to smoke, and when I did it tasted less good. FWIW, artificial sweetened candy also tasted horrible. Also, Zyban (Bupropion) had a similar effect on me regarding smoking cessation aid.
A legal and safe psychedelic retreat center in the Netherlands is https://synthesisretreat.com/
They have experienced guides/facilitators who can help in case someone is having a challenging experience while on psilocybin, and they have medical staff on premise if anyone needs it. The one caveat to note is that even though I'd say the retreat center is 90% secular/scientific, there's still a 10% remnant of non-scientific woo such as "shamanism" and "energy flows" and "cosmic surgery" that might be a turn off for the atheistic scientist crowd. Worth taking a peek though.
(And to second the warnings: please read Michael Pollan's How to Change Your Mind first, and be extremely careful if there's any history of schizophrenia in your family before trying any psychedelic)
They have experienced guides/facilitators who can help in case someone is having a challenging experience while on psilocybin, and they have medical staff on premise if anyone needs it. The one caveat to note is that even though I'd say the retreat center is 90% secular/scientific, there's still a 10% remnant of non-scientific woo such as "shamanism" and "energy flows" and "cosmic surgery" that might be a turn off for the atheistic scientist crowd. Worth taking a peek though.
(And to second the warnings: please read Michael Pollan's How to Change Your Mind first, and be extremely careful if there's any history of schizophrenia in your family before trying any psychedelic)
You might call the shamanic aspect of it "non-scientific woo" but it's important to distinguish between "based on objective reality" and "actually improves your life" here. Many beliefs are one but not the other; in fact, I don't think they're that strongly correlated.
Of course, you can't easily alter your own beliefs, so if you have a lot of trouble suspending your disbelief for these things it might still be a turn off for you. But some such things can be useful to "believe" even if you do not think they reflect objective reality.
Of course, you can't easily alter your own beliefs, so if you have a lot of trouble suspending your disbelief for these things it might still be a turn off for you. But some such things can be useful to "believe" even if you do not think they reflect objective reality.
Makes perfect sense to me. I used IV ketamine infusions to treat anxiety and OCD. The effects I felt are very similar to what the patient in the article (and many other commenters on this post) describes; it's like my brain rewired itself in a way that allowed me to break out of negative patterns. I was suddenly able to consciously tell my brain to stop when I could feel myself going into a familiar anxiety spiral - and it WORKED. I had a sense of clarity about myself and my life that I had never experienced before. As a bonus, I went from being a frequent binge drinker to having literally zero desire to drink at all. It's not like waking up with a hangover and never wanting to drink again; I feel like I did as a child before I'd ever tried it at all and wasn't capable of craving the feeling of being drunk.
A similar story, with a sample size of one - me. Smoking marijuana helped me quit smoking cigarettes.
One of the reasonably well known side effects of smoking pot is sometimes a feeling of intense paranoia. Well, over a period of a few months, I was regularly smoking pot in the evenings and convinced myself that smoking cigarettes would kill me and while stoned I was able to exaggerate these feelings to the point of paranoia (I was thinking very, very hard. Overthinking, another well known side effect).
Subsequently, even during the day when I wasn't high, I could still "feel" that paranoia whenever I lit up a cigarette.
It took maybe 2-3 months, but eventually I stopped smoking cigarettes all together, and even now almost 20 years later, just one drag starts to make me feel sick.
Of course, then I had a pot smoking problem, but that's a different story, which required a different solution.
One of the reasonably well known side effects of smoking pot is sometimes a feeling of intense paranoia. Well, over a period of a few months, I was regularly smoking pot in the evenings and convinced myself that smoking cigarettes would kill me and while stoned I was able to exaggerate these feelings to the point of paranoia (I was thinking very, very hard. Overthinking, another well known side effect).
Subsequently, even during the day when I wasn't high, I could still "feel" that paranoia whenever I lit up a cigarette.
It took maybe 2-3 months, but eventually I stopped smoking cigarettes all together, and even now almost 20 years later, just one drag starts to make me feel sick.
Of course, then I had a pot smoking problem, but that's a different story, which required a different solution.
How did you quit heavy cannabis usage?
I moved to another country where I didn't have the same network of friends and contacts. Basically, changed my environment and was busy setting up a new life.
I didn't move to another country to give up cannabis, it was just a happy co-incidence.
I didn't move to another country to give up cannabis, it was just a happy co-incidence.
Switch to edibles and gradually reduce the dosage, (which is hard or impossible with smoking). You'll start to crave it less and prefer the more moderate (and different) high from edibles than being stoned from smoking. From this stage, you'll be in a better position to stop altogether if you want too.
When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
We're you worried the Cigarettes would pick up a knife and kill you? Because that would be paranoid.
Thinking they'd kill you with cancer sounds reasonable.
Thinking they'd kill you with cancer sounds reasonable.
When not high, I could rationalise that cancer fact the same way many other smokers probably do. When stoned, I focused on that fact and made myself paranoid about it.
Using Magic Mushrooms and Ayahuasca both made me more in touch with my body, and pushed me to take care of myself more. I noticed, while on Ayahuasca, that much of my anxiety was due to physical pain (or vice versa!), and that self-medicating with alcohol & tobacco were ultimately causing me more pain and dependence.
I was addicted to smoking, but not addicted to alcohol. Now, trying either leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Although, for health reasons, ironically, I am trying to pick up drinking Pinot Noir on occasion!
I was addicted to smoking, but not addicted to alcohol. Now, trying either leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Although, for health reasons, ironically, I am trying to pick up drinking Pinot Noir on occasion!
> New research shows that psilocybin might be an effective treatment for diseases such as depression and addiction. While the work is still in its early stages, there are signs that psilocybin might help addicts shake the habit by causing the brain to talk with itself in different ways.
Interesting to see it might also help with depression because antidepressants are sometime prescribed to help quit smoking.
Interesting to see it might also help with depression because antidepressants are sometime prescribed to help quit smoking.
Depression can be seen as protection mechanism that reinforce rigid thought patterns in order to avoid runaway (psychosis, mania). So anything tiping the balance in the other direction allows to deprogram those behaviors.
This is related to the "entropic brain" theory, see https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.0002...
This is related to the "entropic brain" theory, see https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.0002...
I think psilocybin (or patentable tweaks) has a future in medicine. Finally, pharmaceutical ads I wouldn't mind. ;)
Psilocybin Lead to (permanent) Increases in the Personality Domain of Openness.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537171/
Psilocybin Lead to (permanent) Increases in the Personality Domain of Openness.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537171/
good news, but:
where is the control group for 'going into a special place with the expectation of a spiritual/transformative experience and spending several hours meditating on letting go of the problem'?
pretty sure that might also have a nonzero statistical success correlate.
where is the control group for 'going into a special place with the expectation of a spiritual/transformative experience and spending several hours meditating on letting go of the problem'?
pretty sure that might also have a nonzero statistical success correlate.
I don't have a citation on hand, but I know one of the early psilocybin experiments (of seminary students, so probably prone to spiritual response) used niacin as the control compound. These were drug-naive test subjects so having no response at all would have unblinded the experiment. Niacin, in enough of a dose, causes tingling, flushing, and heart rate changes.
The culmination of many experiences with mushrooms over the last several years has caused me to become completely sober from marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and soon I will likely go vegetarian.
It seems to help with my psychological and spiritual development and make me more conscious, more purpose driven in life, and more aware of the shadow/devil side of my selfish personality.
I've also had a few enlightenment experiences that vastly deepened my understanding of what reality is and why we're here.
If anyone's curious; Elon Musk was right when he said:
"Love is the answer."
It seems to help with my psychological and spiritual development and make me more conscious, more purpose driven in life, and more aware of the shadow/devil side of my selfish personality.
I've also had a few enlightenment experiences that vastly deepened my understanding of what reality is and why we're here.
If anyone's curious; Elon Musk was right when he said:
"Love is the answer."
Addicts cannot give up their addictions without fundamentally growing as people, raising their level of consciousness, and boy will psychedelics help you with that...!
This is the same fundamental dishonesty that pushed for marijuana legalization: the idea that there are "medicinal uses" and the drug should be legalized based on those, pushed by advocates of casual use. Medical use as a trojan horse for recreational/casual.
I don't really think using a seriously psychoactive substance for smoking is good at all; it is something that can be done by other means which involve much less risk or even personality change
I don't really think using a seriously psychoactive substance for smoking is good at all; it is something that can be done by other means which involve much less risk or even personality change
The risk is minimal while the risk of continued smoking isn't.
The stories of personality change or risks are so overly reported on you forget that millions of people are using psychedelics daily without losing their personality.
The stories of personality change or risks are so overly reported on you forget that millions of people are using psychedelics daily without losing their personality.
the personality change is touted here constantly as a benefit of using it, and its promoted as a source for personal enlightenment. People here are talking about undergoing personal epiphanies and transformations.
i don't think it's smart even granting their argument to have a drug with powerful effects being used to solve problems. And this is assuming it wouldn't also amplify and mental issues a person has or cause psychotic breaks, etc.
i don't think it's smart even granting their argument to have a drug with powerful effects being used to solve problems. And this is assuming it wouldn't also amplify and mental issues a person has or cause psychotic breaks, etc.
It's not anyone's decision to tell someone what to do or not do in their life.
The argument about cost on society also doesn't hold up since we seem to be fine with other "risky" behaviors. Such as extreme sports. Heck we actually encourage it.
The argument about cost on society also doesn't hold up since we seem to be fine with other "risky" behaviors. Such as extreme sports. Heck we actually encourage it.
Where did you get this idea that there is no medicinal use?
I don't really think using a seriously psychoactive substance for smoking is good at all
Why?
Why?
I had one of the best mushroom trips of my life while smoking a cigar on the roof of a downtown building. Never felt the need to touch one again, it was that good.
This headline can give newbies the wrong impression. Mindset and environment are just as important as the substance.
A a more accurate headline would be "Months of intensive therapy set the stage for Magic Mushrooms to help smokers kick the habit"
I know people will see headlines like this, try to "cure" something with psychedelics, end up getting themselves into some sort of trouble and then blame the substances for their problems.
A a more accurate headline would be "Months of intensive therapy set the stage for Magic Mushrooms to help smokers kick the habit"
I know people will see headlines like this, try to "cure" something with psychedelics, end up getting themselves into some sort of trouble and then blame the substances for their problems.
Doing meditation and other spiritual practices seriously seems to have a potentiation effect on psychedelic outcome IME.
My later trips have been much deeper and more profound after lots of this type of work.
My later trips have been much deeper and more profound after lots of this type of work.
Newbie: I'll trade you lung cancer for mental breakdown
[deleted]
Heroin helps from cough:
> ... Bayer marketed diacetylmorphine as an over-the-counter drug under the trademark name Heroin.[79] It was developed chiefly as a morphine substitute for cough suppressants that did not have morphine's addictive side-effects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin
> ... Bayer marketed diacetylmorphine as an over-the-counter drug under the trademark name Heroin.[79] It was developed chiefly as a morphine substitute for cough suppressants that did not have morphine's addictive side-effects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin
I have a friend who participated in the JHU study. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to quit smoking and is continuing his two-pack-a-day routine. From what I gather though, 3+ years on, the majority of other participants in his study have managed to quit entirely. Shame he wasn't able to do the same.
Currently quitting nicotine, planning to go back to pipe smoking only when I'm "reset".
It's hugely psychological. I don't have the shakes or anything, but I'm drowsy, unalert, and feel slow. I can definitely understand how a shroom trip would "reset" my brain to a non-needy state.
It's hugely psychological. I don't have the shakes or anything, but I'm drowsy, unalert, and feel slow. I can definitely understand how a shroom trip would "reset" my brain to a non-needy state.
Why are you planning to go back to pipe smoking?
Because it's very non-habit forming, and has a positive effect on my mental well-being, as well as having been correlated to longer life.
I formed a vaping habit during a stressful period at work, which is much more nicotine (a pipe gives you the amount of nicotine as about a quarter of a cigarette, delivered over about a half hour), and I plan to go back to my occasional enjoyment of a pipe at home, refraining from using vaping as a coping mechanism.
I formed a vaping habit during a stressful period at work, which is much more nicotine (a pipe gives you the amount of nicotine as about a quarter of a cigarette, delivered over about a half hour), and I plan to go back to my occasional enjoyment of a pipe at home, refraining from using vaping as a coping mechanism.
The meme that quitting smoking is hard is manufactured to keep you smoking. Imagine who might benefit from this.
If you want to stop smoking there's only one book you need, Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Smoking.
If you want to stop smoking there's only one book you need, Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Smoking.
Joel Spitzer recommends this book and his youtube channel on quitting smoking is also fantastic.
This is like saying "I had a problem with a small chimney fire so I poured ten gallons of gasoline on it and now I don't have a chimney or a fire problem anymore because everything burned down"
Seriously no. This is not science. Hallucinogenic drugs also make people psychotic on occasion. Please don't take them, you'll be better off. Take the word of someone who's worked with recovering acid addicts. This shit ruins real lives.
Seriously no. This is not science. Hallucinogenic drugs also make people psychotic on occasion. Please don't take them, you'll be better off. Take the word of someone who's worked with recovering acid addicts. This shit ruins real lives.
> Hallucinogenic drugs also make people psychotic on occasion.
its like if prozac was a lab made compound where the anecdotes were that some people experienced cognitive benefits and some people wanted to commit suicide. except thats exactly what happened and instead of keeping this a mystery with a few dismissive anecdotes from people with good experiences and people with bad experiences, many trials were done and it came out with warning labels for some people to objectively avoid it.
hallucinogenic drugs can be treated with the same standard.
its like if prozac was a lab made compound where the anecdotes were that some people experienced cognitive benefits and some people wanted to commit suicide. except thats exactly what happened and instead of keeping this a mystery with a few dismissive anecdotes from people with good experiences and people with bad experiences, many trials were done and it came out with warning labels for some people to objectively avoid it.
hallucinogenic drugs can be treated with the same standard.
> This is like saying "I had a problem with a small chimney fire so I poured ten gallons of gasoline on it and now I don't have a chimney or a fire problem anymore because everything burned down"
In what way is it like that?
In what way is it like that?
These threads are always a trip. So many addicts in here.
For people with addictive personalities often the best treatment is a substitution with something addiction but less harmful
Time and Time again, we see how stupid the war on drugs had been for humanity. Look at all the negatives:
- Racist origins which disproportionately targeted minorities. It allowed police and prosecutorial discretion to arrest more minorities and give them longer sentences.
- Stopped medical progress. Finally a flood of studies are showing us mushrooms, marijuana, MDMA, acid, and more have positive medical uses.
- Gave law enforcement massive budgets which are further inflated with asset forfeiture. We see SWAT raids based on lies ruining lives and killing innocent people.
- Prevented people from relaxing with safer alternatives to alcohol.
The war on drugs needs to end.
No drug should be illegal. Drugs are a health concern, not criminal.
Replace public funding of law enforcement with public finding of rehab and other mental/physical healthcare services. It'll be cheaper and society would be healthier.
- Racist origins which disproportionately targeted minorities. It allowed police and prosecutorial discretion to arrest more minorities and give them longer sentences.
- Stopped medical progress. Finally a flood of studies are showing us mushrooms, marijuana, MDMA, acid, and more have positive medical uses.
- Gave law enforcement massive budgets which are further inflated with asset forfeiture. We see SWAT raids based on lies ruining lives and killing innocent people.
- Prevented people from relaxing with safer alternatives to alcohol.
The war on drugs needs to end.
No drug should be illegal. Drugs are a health concern, not criminal.
Replace public funding of law enforcement with public finding of rehab and other mental/physical healthcare services. It'll be cheaper and society would be healthier.
I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs. I’m Mexican and I live near the border, I’ve seen every day for the last 10 years how cartels gain power with all the money sent from US consumers. That money and power has corrupted not only police and politicians, but also some sectors of the population, drugs and narcos used to be anathema to most people, now they are part of our pop culture, thanks to news, TV series, movies and music.
I have a feeling there is certain minority in any population that is quiet happy to live off the weaknesses of the rest. Whatever those weaknesses maybe. And they usually just migrate to the next weakness exploiting enterprise once one is shutdown. Just a feeling...maybe totally wrong.
If you eliminate the low hanging fruit- you can make it much harder to live off the weaknesses of the rest.
The bad people in the cartels very well may just continue being bad people- but without the lucrative illegal drug trade they will no longer be the most rich and powerful people in their society.
The bad people in the cartels very well may just continue being bad people- but without the lucrative illegal drug trade they will no longer be the most rich and powerful people in their society.
Yeah makes sense. I guess there is some kind of Tree of Weakness that keeps evolving and needs constant pruning.
> I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs.
Is there evidence to prove that legal cocaine/meth/heroin being readily available for citizens would be good for society?
Is there evidence to prove that legal cocaine/meth/heroin being readily available for citizens would be good for society?
[deleted]
Most addictions are a social and healthcare problem. Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare.
I mean look at the opioid crisis. There is no insurance policy for addiction, plus, you are labeled as a dedbeat by the society. And only because doctor prescribed you something they should not have.
Without criminalization of addiction the opioid crisis would have been much easier to deal with.
You can use that as a template for other things as well.
Besides, I would much prefer people got addicted to mushrooms and cannabis rather than alcohol. The damage alcohol does to an addict is total and eventually lethal and irreversible.
I mean look at the opioid crisis. There is no insurance policy for addiction, plus, you are labeled as a dedbeat by the society. And only because doctor prescribed you something they should not have.
Without criminalization of addiction the opioid crisis would have been much easier to deal with.
You can use that as a template for other things as well.
Besides, I would much prefer people got addicted to mushrooms and cannabis rather than alcohol. The damage alcohol does to an addict is total and eventually lethal and irreversible.
> Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare.
Can't you argue that by making it illegal, you make it less available, therefore ending up with less people addicted?
Can't you argue that by making it illegal, you make it less available, therefore ending up with less people addicted?
Illegal drugs are available everywhere. They're even available in prisons.
If you can't even keep them out of prisons, how effective do you think making them illegal has been on availability?
If you can't even keep them out of prisons, how effective do you think making them illegal has been on availability?
I feel this is a very important point. Legality appears to have little effect on usage. All we really do is apply another label to a user/abuser; that of a "criminal".
If the aim is to reduce the social problems caused by addiction then criminalization is the wrong way to do it.
Now addicts are 'taken care' by the justice system which is less effective and more expensive than social and healthcare programs would be if applied to the same population.
Now addicts are 'taken care' by the justice system which is less effective and more expensive than social and healthcare programs would be if applied to the same population.
Is there evidence to prove that illegal cocaine/meth/heroin being available for citizens would be good for society?
I fact I am pretty sure that since the alcohol prohibition era there's evidence that turning markets with a lot of demand into illegal markets is worse for society .
I fact I am pretty sure that since the alcohol prohibition era there's evidence that turning markets with a lot of demand into illegal markets is worse for society .
There is a difference between decriminalization vs making something readily available. They are not the same thing.
Look at Portugal. They treated drugs as a social issue and are making great progress.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
Look at Portugal. They treated drugs as a social issue and are making great progress.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
Am I wrong in feeling like comparing Portugal to the US is a bit different because Portugal doesn't have many South American drug cartels looking to make money/do business at such scale knocking at their borders?
Portugal is within border-free EU and no so far away from Africa as well, there is plenty of opportunity for cartels there.
Its already readily available. The only difference is that a lot of people die to make it available. People who want to get high will find a way, be it by purchasing illegal drugs, huffing glue, or drinking legal alcohol.
Now imagine if we took all the money we dump into stopping people from getting high, and put it into helping people with addiction issues. Not saying it would work, but it seems like a good thing to try given that the current approach is a failure
Now imagine if we took all the money we dump into stopping people from getting high, and put it into helping people with addiction issues. Not saying it would work, but it seems like a good thing to try given that the current approach is a failure
It's readily available already. Anyone that wants some can get it quite easily.
Does one person have the right to define what another does with their body in a country that prides itself on the freedom of the individual? If they commit crimes while on drugs, punish them for that.
I agree with this generally. Though making specific laws can be helpful. For example, drunk driving laws. The only reason drunk driving is illegal is because it causes you to be a reckless driver, which is also already illegal. But the drunk driving laws make explicit the direct link between the alcohol and the recklessness. Maybe there is a similar case to be made for other drugs as well.
That's an interesting point. Frankly, I don't think we should punish DUI drivers if their only infraction is the DUI. Obviously, if they were driving wreaklessly then that is illegal, but I don't like the concept of charging someone for a crime because it COULD have lead to something worse. I think we should just impose extremely harsh penalties if it DOES lead to something worse. Usually, that "something worse" also has worse penalties. People should have the freedom to determine if they are impaired but also not be shielded from the responsibility freedom requires.
Decriminalization means that the thing isn't treated as a crime, not that it is legal.
Making an accidental error on your taxes is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're given the chance to fix it, or assessed a small fine.
Setting up a lemonade stand without a license is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're told to shut down, or assessed a small fine (or more likely, not bothered by the authorities at all).
This is why people advocate for decriminalization, not legalization. Keep it against the rules, but make it a slap-on-the-wrist civil offense, not a crime you can be thrown in jail for.
This is how illicit drugs were treated before the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 added production, possession, sale, and use to the criminal code.
Making an accidental error on your taxes is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're given the chance to fix it, or assessed a small fine.
Setting up a lemonade stand without a license is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're told to shut down, or assessed a small fine (or more likely, not bothered by the authorities at all).
This is why people advocate for decriminalization, not legalization. Keep it against the rules, but make it a slap-on-the-wrist civil offense, not a crime you can be thrown in jail for.
This is how illicit drugs were treated before the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 added production, possession, sale, and use to the criminal code.
It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances.
As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved.
There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.
As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved.
There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.
You are skipping the audience that ARENT life-destroying addicts, such as the target of the article.
The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag.
The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address.
How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?
The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag.
The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address.
How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?
I'm arguing in favor of legalization, not against it. In my estimation legalization means more addicts, a greater burden of addiction for society, fewer people in jail, and fewer bystanders hurt by the business. On balance it's the more moral choice, because for the most part those who end up experiencing the negative effects are doing so by choice, and dealing with legal addicts is preferable to dealing with illegal enterprises.
tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.
tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.
Some European countries have very promising research projects supplying selected heroin addicts (with a long enough history of discontinued therapies) with medical heroin. They go to a state run distribution station once or twice a day and get a dose. With that acquisitive crime are no longer an issue and the subjects can reintegrate into a normal life.
We need to change the narrative around substances, their use and abuse.
Addiction is not a personal failure but a coping mechanism in the face of trauma and failed social contracts.
Drug enforcement is a tool of selective oppression and unchecked profit for many actors, from enforcement agencies to incarceration. Prisoners are extremely expensive in tax money, and are treated inhumanely + used for forced labor. We as society seem to be happy to pay very high cost, including in money, to treat people horribly.
Prohibition is the main reason for substance prices to be high enough to support a powerful structure of organized crime which permeates and corrupts our society.
Money continues to be the major force behind policy changes in the US and until we make corruption illegal (lobbying and campaign finance are out of control), our politicians and laws will serve corruption.
Addiction is not a personal failure but a coping mechanism in the face of trauma and failed social contracts.
Drug enforcement is a tool of selective oppression and unchecked profit for many actors, from enforcement agencies to incarceration. Prisoners are extremely expensive in tax money, and are treated inhumanely + used for forced labor. We as society seem to be happy to pay very high cost, including in money, to treat people horribly.
Prohibition is the main reason for substance prices to be high enough to support a powerful structure of organized crime which permeates and corrupts our society.
Money continues to be the major force behind policy changes in the US and until we make corruption illegal (lobbying and campaign finance are out of control), our politicians and laws will serve corruption.
There is a decent Netflix show that discussed how America’s war efforts and their fear that they could diminish their control over the people in effect put back research in the area back half a century.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81098586?s=i&trkid=13747225
https://www.netflix.com/title/81098586?s=i&trkid=13747225
Thanks. I'm assuming you're talking about the "psychedelics" episode but I noticed the one about dreams. The synopsis asks:
"what’s the significance of dreams and What can they teach us?"
From what I understand about dreams, no one has the answer to that question. It seems like they're going to make unfounded claims which makes me worried about their info.
Do they tend to pose speculation as truth or are they avoiding pseudoscience?
"what’s the significance of dreams and What can they teach us?"
From what I understand about dreams, no one has the answer to that question. It seems like they're going to make unfounded claims which makes me worried about their info.
Do they tend to pose speculation as truth or are they avoiding pseudoscience?
Yeah sorry bad link.
Actually, they did a good job of asking the question without posing speculation as truth or quoting pseudoscience. They ask the question, talk about the history of how people have answered in the past, and show what kind of current research is investigating this topic.
Thanks for the follow-up. I'll definitely check it out!
I've always had a bit of a paranoid suspicion, and trust me, I know there is no evidence for it, and I wouldn't make it out to be more than just a feeling:
That the elites of the world are happy to have drugs being illegal, as it is a way to channel unemployed, violent youth who want to make a quick buck.
I mean, think of it this way: If you are a poor, violent and traumatized youth, and drugs were legal and you wanted to make a quick buck, you'd turn to robbery or worse, kidnapping/murder. As long as they prohibit something that people want, that cohort will always have a way to make a quick buck without turning to robbery/kidnapping/murder.
That the elites of the world are happy to have drugs being illegal, as it is a way to channel unemployed, violent youth who want to make a quick buck.
I mean, think of it this way: If you are a poor, violent and traumatized youth, and drugs were legal and you wanted to make a quick buck, you'd turn to robbery or worse, kidnapping/murder. As long as they prohibit something that people want, that cohort will always have a way to make a quick buck without turning to robbery/kidnapping/murder.
> That the elites of the world are happy to have drugs being illegal
Well, if you start talking about Reagan in the 80s, there's significant evidence. Not as a way to channel unemployed, but to have extra governmental funding for covert operations.
Well, if you start talking about Reagan in the 80s, there's significant evidence. Not as a way to channel unemployed, but to have extra governmental funding for covert operations.
That and to fight hippies and the anti-materialistic movements.
If individuals mostly make decisions based on a number of internal currents, conscious and unconscious, the same must apply to collectives.
If individuals mostly make decisions based on a number of internal currents, conscious and unconscious, the same must apply to collectives.
>I mean, think of it this way: If you are a poor, violent and traumatized youth, and drugs were legal and you wanted to make a quick buck, you'd turn to robbery or worse, kidnapping/murder.
Is there any evidence of such a "rise the lowest forbidden fruits won't impact the crop"?
Without data, one could just as well argue that it favors criminal paths by smoothing the road.
Think of it this way: if you rule death penalty for illegal music download, you further banalize evil by broadcasting the message that the worst social behaviors is ethically equivalent, as far as law pretends to pursue some ethical aims, as something as harmless.
Nota bene: I don't imply that death penalty is acceptable for any kind of judicial sentence. Human errors and possibility of political abuses should be sufficient points to definitely end such a practice out of any legislation that pretends to respect its citizen dignity.
Is there any evidence of such a "rise the lowest forbidden fruits won't impact the crop"?
Without data, one could just as well argue that it favors criminal paths by smoothing the road.
Think of it this way: if you rule death penalty for illegal music download, you further banalize evil by broadcasting the message that the worst social behaviors is ethically equivalent, as far as law pretends to pursue some ethical aims, as something as harmless.
Nota bene: I don't imply that death penalty is acceptable for any kind of judicial sentence. Human errors and possibility of political abuses should be sufficient points to definitely end such a practice out of any legislation that pretends to respect its citizen dignity.
As stated, no evidence.
I would like to make a point that the effect doesn't have to benefit everyone equally. Historically powerful factions of society have pushed things to the detriment of the majority and the furtherance of a tiny minority.
I would like to make a point that the effect doesn't have to benefit everyone equally. Historically powerful factions of society have pushed things to the detriment of the majority and the furtherance of a tiny minority.
People in charge do not have their eyes on humanity(I mean, this should be self-evident), they're mostly dealing with power and control. Society is much more an adversarial system than it is a utilitarian/humanitarian one.
Power should be challenged at all times.
Power should be challenged at all times.
One disturbingly accurate bit of snark I had is that a war on abstract concepts (Terror, Poverty) or inanimate objects will always end like a drunk fighting a lamppost - it will end with hurting themselves and looking like an absolute idiot.
So, even stuff like Meth that is instantly addicting to some people? If it weren't harder to get and illegal, I'd hate to think of how many 18-21 year old kids would decide just to "give it a try" only to have it ruin their life.
Then when something is that addicting and you can't afford it anymore... then what? Wouldn't it create more crime, more robberies, thefts, possibly murders in the process?
I think we have a pretty good balance, and some drugs are slowly becoming legal as we learn more about them and we can setup systems to control their distribution.
Then when something is that addicting and you can't afford it anymore... then what? Wouldn't it create more crime, more robberies, thefts, possibly murders in the process?
I think we have a pretty good balance, and some drugs are slowly becoming legal as we learn more about them and we can setup systems to control their distribution.
Yes, everything. Adults 18-21 already have access to meth and other drugs.
Regarding your other speculation about decriminalizing drugs, we don't have to speculate. Other countries have already done it and seen improvements in their society. Crime and addiction rates go down.
We have a horrible balance. Every single day we have prohibition, drug convictions ruin more people's lives and it makes it harder for them to get help for their addictions.
Every day we have prohibition, SWAT teams have another chance to run wild with lies https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/14/l...
Regarding your other speculation about decriminalizing drugs, we don't have to speculate. Other countries have already done it and seen improvements in their society. Crime and addiction rates go down.
We have a horrible balance. Every single day we have prohibition, drug convictions ruin more people's lives and it makes it harder for them to get help for their addictions.
Every day we have prohibition, SWAT teams have another chance to run wild with lies https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/14/l...
People will always wanna have drugs. They will find ways, so legalize it.
No one has done more to push drugs than the govt. Whether its flooding the ghettos during Iran contra, mk ultra or Timothy Leary. Our govt was behind it all. I'd guess after mlk jr they pushed the whole drug thing to keep real change from happening
Guillotine is very effective against headache...
Comments like this are effective against growing your understanding of reality.
Unless I misunderstood and you were meaning to say that psychedelic experiences can cause you to face your own death and have glimpses of enlightenment, then yes, but the metaphor will be lost on most people.
Unless I misunderstood and you were meaning to say that psychedelic experiences can cause you to face your own death and have glimpses of enlightenment, then yes, but the metaphor will be lost on most people.
You should ease up on mushrooms. To come up with such an interpretation...
I mean literally, guillotine heals headache 100%, but that's not a sufficient reason to practice it.
The same with psychedelic mushrooms, even if they work against smoking, it's not necceserily a sufficient reason to use them.
I mean literally, guillotine heals headache 100%, but that's not a sufficient reason to practice it.
The same with psychedelic mushrooms, even if they work against smoking, it's not necceserily a sufficient reason to use them.
How do you know that decapitation "heals" a headache? That sounds clever ... you're not bad or wrong for this, it's extremely common and I am guilty of it myself. But I'm pointing to the fact that you don't know that.
"even if they work against smoking, it's not necceserily (sic) a sufficient reason to use them"
This I can respect and agree with ^
"even if they work against smoking, it's not necceserily (sic) a sufficient reason to use them"
This I can respect and agree with ^
I suppose the entity capable of perceiving headache stops to exist.
Of course noone can be 100% sure, the same as with existence if reality outside of ones mind. We just suppose.
Of course noone can be 100% sure, the same as with existence if reality outside of ones mind. We just suppose.
I have a challenge for you: Without google or other external sources, what do YOU think are the top 2 or 3 downsides of using them? Do you even know?
I know cases of very tragic results of psychedelic use. So if you think to enlight me on childish bullshit like "the war on drugs is a conspiracy against us, in reality, drugs are very good for people" - if I was some 25 years younger I could consider that, but not today.
If you believe there are no downsides, FYI, around a century ago heroin was marketed as a "no downsides" cough suppressant. With time (very soon) the downsides became apparent. This may happen to the psychedelic you now consider safe.
The idea to alter one's mind with substances to have more pleasant / interesting / euphoric / hallucinogenic experience is vicious in principle, even if there were no other downsides.
If you believe there are no downsides, FYI, around a century ago heroin was marketed as a "no downsides" cough suppressant. With time (very soon) the downsides became apparent. This may happen to the psychedelic you now consider safe.
The idea to alter one's mind with substances to have more pleasant / interesting / euphoric / hallucinogenic experience is vicious in principle, even if there were no other downsides.
There have been tragic results of using automobiles, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't all continue to use them. There have been tragic results of using Tesla automobiles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all eventually move to electric, autonomous cars.
You can basically say "there have been tragic results" about anything because there will always be irresponsible use.
I could argue that this is irresponsible use of reasoning.
Psychedelics, used responsibly, have overwhelming positive results in my experience, in scientific literature, in popular culture, in human spiritual history. The problem is that you have to validate this in your direct experience, and many people will either not have the requisite knowledge or open-mindedness to use them properly or to overcome the fear of them in the first place.
You can basically say "there have been tragic results" about anything because there will always be irresponsible use.
I could argue that this is irresponsible use of reasoning.
Psychedelics, used responsibly, have overwhelming positive results in my experience, in scientific literature, in popular culture, in human spiritual history. The problem is that you have to validate this in your direct experience, and many people will either not have the requisite knowledge or open-mindedness to use them properly or to overcome the fear of them in the first place.
The magazine articles like the one we are discussing are not serious source of information. Neether are pop culture and "human spiritual history".
Personal experience and scientific literature could be, but I personally don't know such info.
Personal experience and scientific literature could be, but I personally don't know such info.
Let's be careful here, and use precise words. Yes, they are powerful, and they are to be feared, but they are not what you think they are. They're on Schedule 1 because the people banning them had an extremely narrow view on what they were capable of, as you seem to, about what they're good for.
Schedule 1 says something to effect of "No medicinal value". That is a lie, as much as 2+2=5. It's becoming increasingly clear through (slow) research and many anecdotal reports that the knee-jerk reaction most people (including myself) had to natural mushrooms is just flat out wrong. Every month we get more results about people having the worst parts of their lives changed, almost miraculously, almost as if God created a substance for healing and called it good, and for Humans to use. And then Luddites come along "drug bad always, God wrong about creating and calling it good, man ban drug it hurt man once in some circumstance" and the same Luddites leave a swath of suffering in their ignorant wake.
Schedule 1 says something to effect of "No medicinal value". That is a lie, as much as 2+2=5. It's becoming increasingly clear through (slow) research and many anecdotal reports that the knee-jerk reaction most people (including myself) had to natural mushrooms is just flat out wrong. Every month we get more results about people having the worst parts of their lives changed, almost miraculously, almost as if God created a substance for healing and called it good, and for Humans to use. And then Luddites come along "drug bad always, God wrong about creating and calling it good, man ban drug it hurt man once in some circumstance" and the same Luddites leave a swath of suffering in their ignorant wake.
its precisely because of all those glowing reports i distrust the hell out of them.
We have a long history and data on how drugs in general can treat problems, but often come with side effects and other issues when they work, often serious. And sometimes per person they just don't; finding the correct drug treatment for a person is a very hard.
When i hear all this about LSD as a perfect miracle drug, I get VERY suspicious.
We have a long history and data on how drugs in general can treat problems, but often come with side effects and other issues when they work, often serious. And sometimes per person they just don't; finding the correct drug treatment for a person is a very hard.
When i hear all this about LSD as a perfect miracle drug, I get VERY suspicious.
I can agree and sympathize with that, I think what happened was during the early days of LSD, there a strong counterculture that stemmed out of some very dark individuals like Aleister Crowley. Guys like Timothy Leary used Crowley almost like a symbol or standard, and it spawned a massive backlash against LSD and psilocybin. A lot of what was said about LSD and Psilocybin was true about Crowley and Leary, but they were just two very flawed people who took a lot of good medical research down with them.
These drugs are mysterious and powerful and some of the most irresponsible and foolish and loudest people on the planet got their hands on them. But there is a lot of promising research that suggests the baby shouldn't have be thrown out like it was in the 70's.
These drugs are mysterious and powerful and some of the most irresponsible and foolish and loudest people on the planet got their hands on them. But there is a lot of promising research that suggests the baby shouldn't have be thrown out like it was in the 70's.
>The idea to alter one's mind with substances to have more pleasant / interesting / euphoric / hallucinogenic experience is vicious in principle, even if there were no other downsides.
This idea is based on a false dichotomy between "drugs" and "normal stuff". Chocolate is a substance I take with the sole intent of altering my mind to have more euphoria. That's just using big words to say I eat it only because it tastes really good. There are people who think that that is "vicious", but I assume that you are not one of them, and if you are then you should probably make reference to the fact that you're approaching this from a very unconventional angle in your post itself.
This idea is based on a false dichotomy between "drugs" and "normal stuff". Chocolate is a substance I take with the sole intent of altering my mind to have more euphoria. That's just using big words to say I eat it only because it tastes really good. There are people who think that that is "vicious", but I assume that you are not one of them, and if you are then you should probably make reference to the fact that you're approaching this from a very unconventional angle in your post itself.
Glibness is very effective against evaluating new facts...
What's far more terrifying about this practice is that it's a method of reprogramming the way someone thinks. This is "Clockwork Orange" level experimentation.
Imagine this being used in concentration camps or interrogations. Getting people to a mental state where they have no choice but to confess or conform because their minds will no longer let them "touch the cigarette".
This is very scary.
Imagine this being used in concentration camps or interrogations. Getting people to a mental state where they have no choice but to confess or conform because their minds will no longer let them "touch the cigarette".
This is very scary.
The CIA tried this with MK ULTRA. It doesn't actually work and they abandoned it.
Granted this did supposedly give us the Unabomber so there's reason to be skeptical of such practices. Not to say that what these researchers are doing is MKULTRA.
They didn't use psychedelics on the unabomber.
Actually, it's about deprogramming. Cigarettes are a habit. Realizing that you don't need cigarettes to enjoy life is the removal of a habit. Nobody is forcing you to realize this; it's the natural result of a renewed joy for life. It's kind of the opposite of scary.
There's a difference between enlisting help to enact desired changes in ones consciousness and being brainwashed. There's nothing "Clockwork Orange" about this.
It's less about suggestibility/blank-slateness and more about attaining unfiltered, holistic perspective.
I totally agree. This is yet another Capitalists Play to sell a shit load of dangerous crap under the guise of healthcare. Yet another opioid-like crisis in its infancy. Just wait until this is available like pot and watch thousands of people who can't handle bare reality melt down and become burdens. (FWIW, I am experienced.)
It is true. Less experienced with shrumz, but he had one powerful experience with that in pitch dark in bedroom. Also had a lot of Keta experiences.
These will break down weak peoples' ideas of what their reality is... and they prob won't be able to handle that.
Opened minded people of course can, because they are used to going with the flow of life.
These will break down weak peoples' ideas of what their reality is... and they prob won't be able to handle that.
Opened minded people of course can, because they are used to going with the flow of life.
Technically speaking, smoking also helps smokers kick the habit, albeit over a period of 40/50 years or so on average.
Good for that woman that this helped her, but, as the article said, it takes you a few months and a whole lot of money to do this, as well as a host of other factors. It's hardly a cure-all.
Good for that woman that this helped her, but, as the article said, it takes you a few months and a whole lot of money to do this, as well as a host of other factors. It's hardly a cure-all.
I don't think the broader implication is that it's a cure-all, but there's significant research being done that points to it being far more effective than you may be giving it credit for. I'm at work and can't pull up sources but there's a group at John's Hopkins as well as a number of others - Tim Ferriss has a ton of links I believe, if you feel like looking into it. Speaking anecdotally, I have a number of friends who make very compelling arguments as to how remarkably transformative a single session (with the right intention set and setting) can be to your broader outlook with regard to addiction issues and depression. I wouldn't dismiss it outright or trivialize it just yet.
> I wouldn't dismiss it outright or trivialize it just yet.
I wasn't planning to do that. However, I'm not going to be part of any initial test-set either.
I will say, however, that I'm sceptical of the long-term prospects of this technique vis-a-vis remission. Furthermore, I'm not a huge fan of solving problems by taking strong psychotropic drugs.
I wasn't planning to do that. However, I'm not going to be part of any initial test-set either.
I will say, however, that I'm sceptical of the long-term prospects of this technique vis-a-vis remission. Furthermore, I'm not a huge fan of solving problems by taking strong psychotropic drugs.
Who's calming that it is a cure-all? This is one more tool people might be able to use in their struggle to quit.
It might be expensive but so is smoking. Between the cost of cigarettes, healthcare, and lost productivity, I'm sure smoking is more expensive.
It might be expensive but so is smoking. Between the cost of cigarettes, healthcare, and lost productivity, I'm sure smoking is more expensive.
> Who's calming that it is a cure-all?
I never claimed they claimed it was a cure-all.
> It might be expensive but so is smoking. Between the cost of cigarettes, healthcare, and lost productivity, I'm sure smoking is more expensive.
I don't know, the cost of the entire treatment wasn't mentioned in this article.
I never claimed they claimed it was a cure-all.
> It might be expensive but so is smoking. Between the cost of cigarettes, healthcare, and lost productivity, I'm sure smoking is more expensive.
I don't know, the cost of the entire treatment wasn't mentioned in this article.
Most drugs cost money. If this looks like it might help it's worth considering and maybe funding an actual study.
The drug allowed to me introspect and access my mind in a way which was previously blocked. From the perspective it unlocked, it was easy to see the harm I was doing to myself and others. It changed my life.