Legal use of hallucinogenic mushrooms begins in Oregon(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Legal use of hallucinogenic mushrooms begins in Oregon
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/03/health/psychedelic-drugs-mushrooms-oregon.html
299 comments
My take is that if you can't articulate your experience, or why it made you feel better, it can't be all that constructive.
I've seen significant negative effects in myself and others, but there's way too much clinical evidence at this point to dismiss the potential upsides.
I'm curious, in what ways do you see yourself as being worse off now versus prior to having taken psychedelics?
> I see most of the comments here expressing skepticism getting downvoted (like what you would expect on reddit)
What with the many medical studies demonstrating treatment efficacy, it’s hardly surprising that scare-mongering anecdotes and ignorance-based commentary are downvoted.
What with the many medical studies demonstrating treatment efficacy, it’s hardly surprising that scare-mongering anecdotes and ignorance-based commentary are downvoted.
One personal counterpoint, as a non-user: I trained under an elite alpinist for 3+ years. This is is someone who'd achieved much in their field, was a happy parent and generally seemed successful and content.
We had a lot of intimate conversations (daily check-ins, 365 days a year). On the topic of existential dread and depression, he stated that the single most impactful thing he'd ever experienced was one shroom trip. He wasn't a regular user; just this single trip had a lasting effect on him. I've heard similar from less familiar sources, who are similarly successful and aren't drugged out.
That said, I appreciate you're being skeptical here. I know more than one "medical cannabis" user who became a deadbeat. Dosing control needs to be a thing in this space, it's just a free-for-all right now.
We had a lot of intimate conversations (daily check-ins, 365 days a year). On the topic of existential dread and depression, he stated that the single most impactful thing he'd ever experienced was one shroom trip. He wasn't a regular user; just this single trip had a lasting effect on him. I've heard similar from less familiar sources, who are similarly successful and aren't drugged out.
That said, I appreciate you're being skeptical here. I know more than one "medical cannabis" user who became a deadbeat. Dosing control needs to be a thing in this space, it's just a free-for-all right now.
I had a good experience with mushrooms. It was a little stressful but I had a breakthrough and afterwards I found that I stopped compulsively reliving embarrassing/painful memories.
What were your experiences like? Ive seen people do more and more drugs and fry their brain before but it never seemed like mushrooms were a big part of that.
But we should absolutely be talking about it. Its not like anyone is best served by only hearing a narrow subset of experiences.
What were your experiences like? Ive seen people do more and more drugs and fry their brain before but it never seemed like mushrooms were a big part of that.
But we should absolutely be talking about it. Its not like anyone is best served by only hearing a narrow subset of experiences.
> It was a little stressful but I had a breakthrough and afterwards I found that I stopped compulsively reliving embarrassing/painful memories.
I'm really happy that you got something positive out of them
My issue with psychedelics in general is that one experience was able to accomplish significant changes. People make this sound like a good thing, but for most people that's way too much. The number of beneficiaries isn't enough to offset the number of casualties
Some people will read this description I've written here and think "this is exactly what I need". Those are the last people who should be doing them. Making them available for "therapeutic use" just fast tracks access to people who are doing them for the wrong reasons
> What were your experiences like? Ive seen people do more and more drugs and fry their brain before but it never seemed like mushrooms were a big part of that.
I had one trip where I saw a sign that I should stop (in hindsight it was likely a coincidence, but it scared the shit out of me)
I had a close friend who I introduced to them (because at the time I thought they were "good for people"). He dropped out of college and has been between jobs ever since. He still does them and is completely obsessed
I'm really happy that you got something positive out of them
My issue with psychedelics in general is that one experience was able to accomplish significant changes. People make this sound like a good thing, but for most people that's way too much. The number of beneficiaries isn't enough to offset the number of casualties
Some people will read this description I've written here and think "this is exactly what I need". Those are the last people who should be doing them. Making them available for "therapeutic use" just fast tracks access to people who are doing them for the wrong reasons
> What were your experiences like? Ive seen people do more and more drugs and fry their brain before but it never seemed like mushrooms were a big part of that.
I had one trip where I saw a sign that I should stop (in hindsight it was likely a coincidence, but it scared the shit out of me)
I had a close friend who I introduced to them (because at the time I thought they were "good for people"). He dropped out of college and has been between jobs ever since. He still does them and is completely obsessed
ramesh31(2)
This is history in the making. Huge props to Oregon legislators for spearheading the change. Soon we’ll see official psychedelic therapy centers operating in the open and this is hands down one of the best things for the society.
pelasaco(3)
“One of the best things for society” is a very very bold claim. For the uninformed like myself how would psychedelic therapy be THIS beneficial?
Just one example:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/psilocybin-mush...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/psilocybin-mush...
"More than 80% of those who were given the psychedelic treatment had drastically reduced their drinking eight months after the study started, compared to just over 50% in the antihistamine control group, according to results published Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry. At the end of the trial, half of those who received psilocybin had quit drinking altogether, compared to about one-quarter of those who were given the antihistamine."that the placebo led to abstinence in 25% of cases makes me concerned about a selection bias in the pool
What % would you expect to be affected by the placebo?
I think most adults are in a steady state for their habitual behaviors around diet / exercise / drinking / drugs. Would be surprised by anything larger than 10% change in control tbh
Is it that hard to imagine twelve psychotherapy sessions convincing someone to quit drinking for eight months?
Have you ever met an alcoholic?
Yes. I've also met former alcoholics, and people who quit for a while then started drinking again. Twelve weeks of therapy leading to eight months of sobriety for 25% of people does not seem surprising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxm8QwvESJk&ab_channel=TEDME...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02872-9
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206443
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8901083/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02872-9
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206443
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8901083/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
It can help treat a range of issues: addictions, various traumas, depression, fears and anxieties. Also, it can be very dangerous for anyone with genetic predispositions to a range of mental health issues, such as bipolarism and schizophrenia, so anyone who is dealing with mental health issues ought to know their family history or get personally tested for the genetic markers.
They have genetic markers for all these? Any good test recommendations?
Very interested to know this
This is very serious.
My brother's schizophrenia started while I sat with him on the grass trying to comfort him after he had taken mushrooms.
This led to moment after moment of things that are difficult to for me to talk about. My family spent 3 Christmases at the state hospital to be with him. Thanks to the help he was able to get at the hospital and through continued care, he's now able to live with my parents.
Please be wise.
My brother's schizophrenia started while I sat with him on the grass trying to comfort him after he had taken mushrooms.
This led to moment after moment of things that are difficult to for me to talk about. My family spent 3 Christmases at the state hospital to be with him. Thanks to the help he was able to get at the hospital and through continued care, he's now able to live with my parents.
Please be wise.
Psychiatry barely understands HOW exactly many prescription meds work so don't expect exact answer on how non-prescription substances work.
But if approached properly, single session with psychedelics may have beneficial effects of months or even years of psychotherapy. Week or two after such session you start noticing that some things simply stopped being problematic.
But if approached properly, single session with psychedelics may have beneficial effects of months or even years of psychotherapy. Week or two after such session you start noticing that some things simply stopped being problematic.
nothing better than seeing expensive ad-buys for very expensive drugs, and they say "XXXXX is thought to work by".. you have spent millions on development, billions on marketing, and you think???
Substances are tested and when it is found that they have beneficial effects on certain conditions, outweighing negative side-effects in individuals with these conditions - they are accepted for use after clinical phases.
Would you rather have no meds for some conditions because we don't fully understand how existing ones work, or would you dissect living humans' brains for faster research?
Would you rather have no meds for some conditions because we don't fully understand how existing ones work, or would you dissect living humans' brains for faster research?
What you're witnessing is a radical restructuring of what is socially acceptable, or seen as good.
This statement about what is "good for society" can't be evaluated by statistics or metrics. It has to be believed, taken on faith.
Oh, they'll cite studies about miraculous results with overcoming addiction and depression. Pardon me for being skeptical about the massive amount of junk science that has over promised, under delivered, or been outright unrepeatable.
This is no different than the "AI" algorithms that are quickly making their way into decision making in society. It's a black box that worked great in the lab, so let's ship it to everyone. Surely it will be good for us!
This statement about what is "good for society" can't be evaluated by statistics or metrics. It has to be believed, taken on faith.
Oh, they'll cite studies about miraculous results with overcoming addiction and depression. Pardon me for being skeptical about the massive amount of junk science that has over promised, under delivered, or been outright unrepeatable.
This is no different than the "AI" algorithms that are quickly making their way into decision making in society. It's a black box that worked great in the lab, so let's ship it to everyone. Surely it will be good for us!
Don’t remove fences unless you are damn sure why they were put up in the first place.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return as they always do.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return as they always do.
It's not as though this is some thousand-year-old fence; psychadelics were illegalized under Nixon. If there was a reason other than 'they are drugs', it has not been made public, and all research at the time suggested that they should not have been illegalized. I'm open to being told I'm wrong, but 3 pages of google results did not push me in that direction.
These drugs have been illegal for a lifetime. It's hard to get people to accept even overwhelmingly beneficial technology into the main fold of society. I'm not optimistic anything beyond weed is gonna get legalized federally in our lifetime.
As cannabis (and now psilocybin) have demonstrated, we don't really need federal legalization to make significant strides at the state level. If anything, it's a positive pushback against nearly a century of dramatic overreach by a federal government granted far too much power. At some point, the federal government will have to face the awkward situation that 100% of the desirable to live in states are in open contempt to federal law, and they have to play catch-up.
Generically (not always true) red states have that for gun stuff (decriminalized unregistered / federally illegal NFA items) and blue states have that for pot and maybe even something else. It's hard for me to imagine the government will eventually catch up to freedom-leaning on either side, but I agree improvements at the state level is far better than nothing.
If you do the slightest bit of research into the criminalization of drugs in the US you will find that the people putting up those fences were laughably far from protectors of society. They were demonstrably more motivated by racism and classism than by a desire to safeguard social progress.
I think we're better off with a rich, mixed, and multicultural society but it may actually be true that a more homogenous society that tosses fringe races into the shredder or whatever is actually a safer place for the "right" people. Maybe they were protectors in their own racist way.
US laws are not the fence.
Well-functioning societies have steered clear of intoxication. A
A Clear-headed, rational, and objective view of reality is the goal.
There’s nothing new about messing with your perception of reality.
Wise men steer clear of it. Wise men counsel against intoxication of any kind. Fools don’t ask why.
Well-functioning societies have steered clear of intoxication. A
A Clear-headed, rational, and objective view of reality is the goal.
There’s nothing new about messing with your perception of reality.
Wise men steer clear of it. Wise men counsel against intoxication of any kind. Fools don’t ask why.
Spending a tiny fraction of your life intoxicated allows you to make rational decisions despite occasional enjoying altered consciousness. There may be some level of brain damage but depending on the substance and how often it's used I question whether it's necessarily going to be the limiting factor in the aging body.
There is much new speculation by historians and archeologists that psychedelics are widely responsible for giant leaps in civilization and "society." Your take is a puritanical, modern view without regard to history or nuance.
Can you give a few examples of such well-functioning societies?
I think maybe there is no "clear headed and rational view" of reality in truth.
There is only perspective, which somehow relates to a thing we like to call "reality" but the relationship is tenuous at best and doesn't always directly correspond.
Understanding the role of perspective I believe can be valuable. Sometimes maybe a shakeup helps to understand perspective is just that, or otherwise produce a different way of looking at things.
There is only perspective, which somehow relates to a thing we like to call "reality" but the relationship is tenuous at best and doesn't always directly correspond.
Understanding the role of perspective I believe can be valuable. Sometimes maybe a shakeup helps to understand perspective is just that, or otherwise produce a different way of looking at things.
Your comment is sensible and, apparently, roundly rejected.
> This statement about what is "good for society" can't be evaluated by statistics or metrics
I'd beg to differ. One can think up any number of metrics that would be inarguably good for society. Reduction in suicide would be a huge one. Reduced crime rate. Reduced addiction rate. Increase in lifespan. Increase in standard of living. Reduction of domestic violence. There are many more dimensions you could measure, establishing direct causation is the tricky part but it is certainly possible to establish if the state of society in general is improving.
I'd beg to differ. One can think up any number of metrics that would be inarguably good for society. Reduction in suicide would be a huge one. Reduced crime rate. Reduced addiction rate. Increase in lifespan. Increase in standard of living. Reduction of domestic violence. There are many more dimensions you could measure, establishing direct causation is the tricky part but it is certainly possible to establish if the state of society in general is improving.
No, you've missed my point completely. You are talking about the ends. I'm talking about the means.
Yes, a society with less suicide is a better thing. We can achieve that in many ways -- however, some ways come with significant or unpredictable side effects.
Yes, a society with less suicide is a better thing. We can achieve that in many ways -- however, some ways come with significant or unpredictable side effects.
no one is going to force you to take psychedelics. I understand and support skepticism, but I have yet to hear a cogent argument backed by evidence for why these substances should be so harshly criminalize. The overwhelming consensus among experts is that these drugs are at the very least much safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs like adderall
People don't make decisions in a vacuum. I'm personally less worried about myself and more about children who don't know any better and fall for all the reddit-tier bullshitting with respect to these substances
I think you might be missing all the first hand experiences where it was a powerful good. Or maybe not, those have to be taken on faith after all.
Not that being skeptical about this is bad, frankly its good, but probably best when it is specific and focused into criticism.
Not that being skeptical about this is bad, frankly its good, but probably best when it is specific and focused into criticism.
As a depression treatment, it far exceeds the state-of-the-art SSRIs, which perform only slightly better than placebo. It's cheaper, more effective, and lasts longer. ~10% of Americans suffer from depression, and more than a third of them don't respond to SSRIs at all. Dramatically reducing the suffering of 3% of the population at net-negative cost is a big deal.
For comparison to topics-de-jour, in the US 0.3% of the population will get an abortion in a given year, 3.5% are gay/bi, 0.3% are trans, <0.03% die from gun violence (and over half are suicides potentially reduced by this treatment) each year, and about 1/40th of them are killed by law enforcement. Improvements in these areas will have a smaller effect size (ie. protecting gay marriage will not improve the lives of gay people as much as curing someone's depression will, gun control will not end all gun violence).
Big caveat here is that this treatment is relatively new, and depression treatments tend to be promising initially with results that fade in the long term. Additionally, the legalization of that treatment does not mean everyone who needs it will get it. On the other hand, depression is only one of the many issues that can be treated with psychadelics. We'll have to wait and see
For comparison to topics-de-jour, in the US 0.3% of the population will get an abortion in a given year, 3.5% are gay/bi, 0.3% are trans, <0.03% die from gun violence (and over half are suicides potentially reduced by this treatment) each year, and about 1/40th of them are killed by law enforcement. Improvements in these areas will have a smaller effect size (ie. protecting gay marriage will not improve the lives of gay people as much as curing someone's depression will, gun control will not end all gun violence).
Big caveat here is that this treatment is relatively new, and depression treatments tend to be promising initially with results that fade in the long term. Additionally, the legalization of that treatment does not mean everyone who needs it will get it. On the other hand, depression is only one of the many issues that can be treated with psychadelics. We'll have to wait and see
I am curious about side effects, especially long term IQ changes.
Absolutely, I should have brought up risks as well. Triggering early schizophrenia is a big one, personality changes also seem like a significant concern. I'm not aware of any IQ changes- if you have a study, send it my way if you please. If you're just gesturing at the fact that long-term research is lacking, I'm very much in agreement.
Hallucigenic drugs are probably not good for math performance.
Fwiw at least in the US it not likely to be cheaper. Until covered by insurance, a professionally administered experience will most likely be
be similar to a guided ketemine session which is currently around $450 a session when it costs penny to make.
I get why some people would want or need a physician, but these drugs should be offered at cost in take home form too. We let people take opioids and amphetamines at home without supervision, and for most people that's fine.
I'm with you in spirit, but practically speaking it's an excellent idea to have a friend with experience to accompany you during your first session.
Even if your friend just sits there for four hours while reading a book, it's comforting to know that someone you trust is there to say "yes" when you start asking "is this really happening?" That can make the difference between a wonderful experience and an alarming one.
Even if your friend just sits there for four hours while reading a book, it's comforting to know that someone you trust is there to say "yes" when you start asking "is this really happening?" That can make the difference between a wonderful experience and an alarming one.
They do. Sublingual ketemine is about $3 a dosage with a prescription, but it is usually only offered after a series of IV or IM treatments.
>Fwiw at least in the US it not likely to be cheaper.
It is much cheaper if you have cows nearby.
It is much cheaper if you have cows nearby.
Compare that to SSRIs that you have to take for 3 weeks before they either succeed or fail (and have unpleasant side effects). Also suicide while coming down off of SSRIs is unfortunately very common.
Contrast with: One session of psychedelic assisted therapy has been shown to offer months of relief from depression.
I’m not saying it’s a magic cure, just that we owe it to ourselves to continue to study psychedelic assisted therapy.
Contrast with: One session of psychedelic assisted therapy has been shown to offer months of relief from depression.
I’m not saying it’s a magic cure, just that we owe it to ourselves to continue to study psychedelic assisted therapy.
I think it could still qualify if the only outcome is that it reduces the amount of resources and power given over to enforcement agencies in the drug war. However, we won't see positive outcomes unless that energy is redirected towards prosecuting actual crimes committed against people and property.
If psychological and medical research on psychoactive substances is successfully resumed I believe we will see helpful and possibly ground breaking applications of these drugs. They're indisputably powerful compounds, the question is simply whether those effects can be harnessed by medicine and therapy to provide long lasting interventions.
If psychological and medical research on psychoactive substances is successfully resumed I believe we will see helpful and possibly ground breaking applications of these drugs. They're indisputably powerful compounds, the question is simply whether those effects can be harnessed by medicine and therapy to provide long lasting interventions.
Humans are the most insane species on this planet. Most problems of society do not stem from a lack of resources, but from a severe cluelessness of our own nature. If you could ask any animal for advise on the human condition, I'd bet they'd be utterly baffled as to wtf we're doing or trying to do. Mushrooms give perspective. Among all the noise, they tend to reveal a more sane view of life and let people recognize what's truly important. I think if more people are open for trying it society will likely change for the better.
This was an initiative petition referendum, nothing to do with legislators. Any citizen can make a bill and if they gather enough verified signatures from registered voters, it will be voted on by the people during a regular election. Oregon decriminalized personal amounts of all hard drugs with that ballot measure in 2020, not just psychedelics.
They were actually different measures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_109
https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...
Source: voted for both of them. 110 probably needs some tweaking (hah hah) and/or better implementation, but I still think the basic idea is a good one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_109
https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...
Source: voted for both of them. 110 probably needs some tweaking (hah hah) and/or better implementation, but I still think the basic idea is a good one.
I'd rather see progress made on helping decrease fentanyl overdoses first.
are you aware that we can make progress on multiple things at once?
The Oregon Legislators did very little for this. This was a state Ballot Measure spearheded by several groups gathering signatures. One of the more prominent groups was a bunch of veterans who had used it to treat their PTSD.
is Hallucinogenic a correct term to describe psychedelics?
Some folks prefer the word entheogen. It's derived from the Greek word entheos, which means 'god within'.
I kind of hate the word entheogen now. Not because of the word but because of the people who use it. Sort of like the righteous vegan or fanatical winter cyclist, the dude-bro-Joe-Rogan-mystical-shaman types are super annoying. Like we get it, you did a bunch of drugs and it was earth shattering, it doesn't need to become 100% of your personality.
How many of these people are you running into? I don't think I've ever heard the word entheogen spoken.
When I was in university and hanging out with the types of people that go to music festivals and raves, you'd run into that kind of person sort of often.
Psychedelics are a class of hallucinogen along with dissasociatives (ket) and deliriants (datura and other kinds of terrible thing)
At sufficient doses. You don't have to trip every time you do it, you can take enough to just be stoned.
I would actually argue no. I can't remember the last time I felt to dose so high that hallocinations were remotely a topic. Also plenty of psychodelics are not or barely hallocigenic at all.
Honest question: is there a silent tug of war over the use of the word "legal" regarding drugs in the U.S.?
What do you mean?
Not really, the feds seem to be leaving it up to the states for now as long as you keep it to cash transactions and don't use banks, so it's state level legal (in Oregon) for now. There is no silent battle.
Well about one time in three that someone mentions "legal weed" in the circles I run in, someone will drop a remark about how there's federalism-themed ambiguity over how legal it actually is, so I'm not sure how "silent" it really is.
Not just drugs, but in certain communities push for the word “decriminalizing”
Decriminalization and legalization are different things.
Decriminalization is removing criminal penalties - there may still be fines or other non criminal penalties.
Decriminalization is removing criminal penalties - there may still be fines or other non criminal penalties.
Decriminalization and legalization are distinct things. Legalization means just that, the act becomes legal. Decriminalization means that the act isn't legal but the perceived severity is reduced and punishment for it is moved out of the bounds of the criminal justice system (e.g. getting caught with a joint becomes a ticket, like a parking ticket or an open container ticket, instead of sending someone to jail)
I wouldn't call it a "tug of war" but it seems like a lot of people are/were happy to just leave a lot of things as expensive civil infractions (not the case here) because they implicitly trust the cops/DA to only enforce it on people who are "violating cultural standards" (e.g. drinking in broad daylight on your front porch somewhere "nice" vs the same behavior in the hood).
No? What do you mean? Federal vs. state? Enforced or not?
Yes, federal vs. state. For example, many early dispensary owners - after wading through mountains of red tape, paying license fees, getting inspected, etc - had to get "creative" with their accounting and investment strategies, as the legal profits their business generated cannot be deposited into (federally monitored) bank accounts. It doesn't make much sense and seems to be arbitrarily enforced.
Yes, it is an effort on the part of federal government to create an unfavorable business climate for certain activities that are not otherwise prosecuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
They are not legal profits. And what they are doing in getting creative is pretty much vanilla money laundering. But to enforce the law would just invite the more violent cartels to do it instead.
The whole system of a patchwork of half-measures is really insanity in the face of the simplicity of just de-scheduling cannabis.
The whole system of a patchwork of half-measures is really insanity in the face of the simplicity of just de-scheduling cannabis.
Ah, I see. Dispensaries, not consumers. As pointed elsewhere in this thread, lands under federal jurisdiction also apply federal limits.
Hopefully, a bill like this will get passed into law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/459... and provide much more structure for removing the remaining barriers.
At this point it doesn't seem like many people in the fed world really want to do any gatekeeping, but apparently elected reps are more cautious.
Hopefully, a bill like this will get passed into law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/459... and provide much more structure for removing the remaining barriers.
At this point it doesn't seem like many people in the fed world really want to do any gatekeeping, but apparently elected reps are more cautious.
Yes. While at a national park in Colorado I had a pipe confiscated despite the contents being "legal" in Colorado.
I also spent an hour lined up against a wall while MP's buzzed around and tried to get CSPD to extradite me from a military base over some "spice" (that awful engineered-to-be-legal weed) which turned up in a search of the truck I had borrowed to buy a couch on Craigslist.
So in gray areas like those, the tug of war still lives. But nobody I know of is afraid that the feds are gonna kick their door in over something that's legal in CO.
Edit: grey area was the wrong phrase. But when the military is trying to hand you off to the cops and the cops won't take you, you know the system still has some kinks.
I also spent an hour lined up against a wall while MP's buzzed around and tried to get CSPD to extradite me from a military base over some "spice" (that awful engineered-to-be-legal weed) which turned up in a search of the truck I had borrowed to buy a couch on Craigslist.
So in gray areas like those, the tug of war still lives. But nobody I know of is afraid that the feds are gonna kick their door in over something that's legal in CO.
Edit: grey area was the wrong phrase. But when the military is trying to hand you off to the cops and the cops won't take you, you know the system still has some kinks.
Both of those situations are clearly federal jurisdiction, so it's unfortunate but not an example of a legal gray area.
A gray area would be when federal agents/LEO attempt to enforce federal laws in places where the state has jurisdiction (such as raids of dispensaries).
A gray area would be when federal agents/LEO attempt to enforce federal laws in places where the state has jurisdiction (such as raids of dispensaries).
Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon as they become political enemies with someone they are cooked.
But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass.
But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass.
> Controlled substance act is not a gray area anywhere in the US as far as I know. There is nothing gray at all about federal LEO raiding a dispensary on private non-federal land. These dispensaries are basically depending on the kindness of federal agencies to look the other way. As soon as they become political enemies with someone they are cooked.
Your last two sentences are correct, but there are actually grey areas here. It's actually more complicated than it seems. IANAL, but I have worked in drug policy previously, so I have worked with lawyers who are very well-versed on the nuances of this law.
The ambiguity isn't whether marijuana falls under the CSA (it does) - it's the extent to which federal agents can pursue violations of it in specific circumstances. Especially since this often involves the cooperation of local law enforcement (ie, subject to the state), and some states even statutorily prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement with matters that are legal under state law.
A lot of it is grey specifically because aspects of these issues haven't been definitively tested in court in recent years, and as time goes on, they become more murky because state laws change, and federal agents become less excited about pressing the issue with the possibility of an unfavorable court ruling.
> But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass. It's truly insane.
I'm sorry that happened to you. That's awful.
Your last two sentences are correct, but there are actually grey areas here. It's actually more complicated than it seems. IANAL, but I have worked in drug policy previously, so I have worked with lawyers who are very well-versed on the nuances of this law.
The ambiguity isn't whether marijuana falls under the CSA (it does) - it's the extent to which federal agents can pursue violations of it in specific circumstances. Especially since this often involves the cooperation of local law enforcement (ie, subject to the state), and some states even statutorily prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement with matters that are legal under state law.
A lot of it is grey specifically because aspects of these issues haven't been definitively tested in court in recent years, and as time goes on, they become more murky because state laws change, and federal agents become less excited about pressing the issue with the possibility of an unfavorable court ruling.
> But federal land is definitely the worst. I had a federal agent obtain a search warrant to strip search me and drag me to a hospital and 'internally search' my GI tract because they claimed there were drugs up my ass. It's truly insane.
I'm sorry that happened to you. That's awful.
For some background, there is a documentary that describes the past and the current state of using hallucinogenic drugs for therapy: “How to Change your Mind” on Netflix.
I can't help but wonder how this can ever be a good idea.
The government shouldn't be telling you how to live your life, sure. But that doesn't change reality that the vast majority of people out there are not qualified to make a medical assessment for themselves about the severity of synthetic substances (and many naturally occurring substances as well)f
It feels like the culture of family and community is steadily being eroded in the United States in favor of liberalization at any cost.
The government shouldn't be telling you how to live your life, sure. But that doesn't change reality that the vast majority of people out there are not qualified to make a medical assessment for themselves about the severity of synthetic substances (and many naturally occurring substances as well)f
It feels like the culture of family and community is steadily being eroded in the United States in favor of liberalization at any cost.
There are harmful and dangerous drugs. But the harm caused by the moral panic over psychedelics, and the expansive, unselective Drug War has caused far more damage. We now have a legacy of militarized policing, military-style raids on homes, and widespread neonazi ideologies and brownshirt gangs in police departments. We have privatized prisons. Predictably, that led to corruption in prosecutors and judges to fill those prisons.
Predictably, too, police culture is one of violence: High rates of domestic violence among police is one of the pillars of the kind of cultural rot exemplified and spread by Andrew Tate. The real problems are not that we lack a "culture of family and community" but that, based partly on the Drug War and partly on white Christian nationalism, we have a culture of brutality.
Predictably, too, police culture is one of violence: High rates of domestic violence among police is one of the pillars of the kind of cultural rot exemplified and spread by Andrew Tate. The real problems are not that we lack a "culture of family and community" but that, based partly on the Drug War and partly on white Christian nationalism, we have a culture of brutality.
You know that many psychiatric medications come with the risk of suicide ideation? And that every time a new scrip goes out it's an educated guess?
People should have the right to treat themselves as best they can.
Finally, if you look into the history of the War on Drugs, you'll find that the basis of it was oppression of classes of people, not safety.
People should have the right to treat themselves as best they can.
Finally, if you look into the history of the War on Drugs, you'll find that the basis of it was oppression of classes of people, not safety.
Why would you take what i've said as defending psychiatric medications or their side effects?
I'm saying the same thing. It appears irresponsible to resort to substances that affect your behavior in non deterministic ways to fix a perceived problem.
A child with the privilege of growing up in a good community, tends to have better outcomes and socio economic problems don't have solutions at the end of a needle.
I'm saying the same thing. It appears irresponsible to resort to substances that affect your behavior in non deterministic ways to fix a perceived problem.
A child with the privilege of growing up in a good community, tends to have better outcomes and socio economic problems don't have solutions at the end of a needle.
> It appears irresponsible to resort to substances that affect your behavior in non deterministic ways to fix a perceived problem.
While I slagged pharma solutions I also acknowledge that they have value too. Our brains are biochemical machines and sometimes the chemistry needs a tweak. When done right it's life changing.
> A child with the privilege of growing up in a good community
And those that don't?
> don't have solutions at the end of a needle
That's quite a leap.
While I slagged pharma solutions I also acknowledge that they have value too. Our brains are biochemical machines and sometimes the chemistry needs a tweak. When done right it's life changing.
> A child with the privilege of growing up in a good community
And those that don't?
> don't have solutions at the end of a needle
That's quite a leap.
Instead of parsing isolated sentences like someone without the capacity to connect them, try reading the whole thing and reflecting on the meaning before responding to independent quotes without context.
Well you packed quite a bit in there and there and I got lazy. But my points stand.
Medication can be valuable for mental health, but there are risks. While there are abuses of this, it still doesn't discount the value for those it does help.
Psychedelics/Ketamine/MDMA are showing great promise in therapeutic contexts and it's about time they are allowed to be used. They also can be enjoyed recreationally (and also abused), but again, that doesn't discount the legitimate medicinal use of them.
Your approach seemed to be that people just need to be born in the right community and upbringing and have a good life and everything will be all right.
The War on Drugs has been a catastrophic failure and attitudes such as yours support the continuation of that mistake.
Medication can be valuable for mental health, but there are risks. While there are abuses of this, it still doesn't discount the value for those it does help.
Psychedelics/Ketamine/MDMA are showing great promise in therapeutic contexts and it's about time they are allowed to be used. They also can be enjoyed recreationally (and also abused), but again, that doesn't discount the legitimate medicinal use of them.
Your approach seemed to be that people just need to be born in the right community and upbringing and have a good life and everything will be all right.
The War on Drugs has been a catastrophic failure and attitudes such as yours support the continuation of that mistake.
I have a great family, live in a great community, and do mushrooms about once a month. Conservatives don't have exclusive rights to the definitions of family and community.
Good for you. How about the meth head downtown sleeping in his own shit and piss?
Great ending, right? Too bad he's too stupid to make the right decisions. Or maybe you're saying he made HIS decision, so fuck him anyway.
Great ending, right? Too bad he's too stupid to make the right decisions. Or maybe you're saying he made HIS decision, so fuck him anyway.
[deleted]
Freedom means having the ability to fuck up your own life. Having a kid means I end up with piss and shit on me and wear out my body faster yet society seems to think that's fine. I realize that's entirely different but I'm not really interested in being in the business of how you want to harm your own health.
Freedom and anarchy are not the same thing.
Meth and shrooms are about as related as meth and coffee.
Yeah, he made his decision. What's your point?
Maybe we should make meth illegal.
Addiction and excessive use are the only things about drugs, including alcohol, that tend to break apart family and community. If there's no stigma attached to occasional and social use of psychedelics or other drugs then I don't see how they would negatively impact family and community any more than occasional use of alcohol does. I agree that some people will suffer negative consequences from drug use but upon close examination of those cases it's very rarely the drug itself that is the source of the trouble. People abuse drugs in order to escape otherwise inescapable situations in their lives, if every day you wake up to misery and pain then taking a pain killer or dissociative is the easiest way to escape that and often the only way if the person has no family, community or healthcare support.
This is some nanny-state bullshit. You should not be able to impose your idea of 'culture of family and community' on others when there is overwhelming evidence that these substances are less harmful and addictive than other already legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine.
> people out there are not qualified to make a medical assessment for themselves about the severity of synthetic substances
You'll be pleased to hear then that the law we're discussing requires trained supervision: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/27/oregon-trains-psilocy...
You'll be pleased to hear then that the law we're discussing requires trained supervision: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/27/oregon-trains-psilocy...
What are the chances there is a repeat of the opioid crisis and in 10-15 years there is an investigation into what went wrong?
[deleted]
Why do you say that? Isn’t psilocybin non-addicting? Wouldn’t that be a major difference to the opioid epidemic? I’m not sure I follow the analogy you’re trying to make.
There is a rich history already, here's a good starting point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Sabina
Near zero. Hallucinogenic mushrooms aren't very addictive, don't have billion dollar companies pushing them, and don't have the same risk of death.
It's possible Oregon regrets this for some reason I can't imagine, but a repeat of the opioid crisis isn't a realistic outcome.
It's possible Oregon regrets this for some reason I can't imagine, but a repeat of the opioid crisis isn't a realistic outcome.
Not addiction or deaths but long term psychological problems. Surely there are companies lobbying...
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/03/us-dru...
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/03/us-dru...
Psychological problems are not comparable to addiction and death, particularly as our current resarch seems to show them solving more problems than they cause.
There are always companies that will try to make bank in an emerging market, but the details are different than an entrenched company using their power like in the opioid crisis.
There are always companies that will try to make bank in an emerging market, but the details are different than an entrenched company using their power like in the opioid crisis.
The article you linked has nothing to do with your assertion of long term psychological problems.
There is a great need for more research (as a lot has been blocked by prohibition) but early signs indicate psilocybe use would have a net improvement for society for long term psychological problems.
But there is certainly risk that it creates a new class of problems. But, people are doing clandestine treatment with psilocybes currently, so it seems unlikely that legalization will find new classes of issues or a higher incidence rate of issues vs relatively-uninformed clandestine use. If there is a concerning issue, we'd expect that we've already seen it, but perhaps underestimated it.
But there is certainly risk that it creates a new class of problems. But, people are doing clandestine treatment with psilocybes currently, so it seems unlikely that legalization will find new classes of issues or a higher incidence rate of issues vs relatively-uninformed clandestine use. If there is a concerning issue, we'd expect that we've already seen it, but perhaps underestimated it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Some good feedback... not sure why downvoted was a fair enough question?... point was are the long term side effects fully understood before mass circulation? How much lobbying has gone into getting it over the line? Is history going to repeat?
I didn't downvote but it is a low effort question, that may be why.
Opioid use is 8000 years old, but Morphine was only isolated 219 years ago. Psilocybin was first isolated by Albert Hoffman in 1958. Though mushroom use for religious purposes is known to be at least 6000 years old, I think it is likely that humans have been using them ever since they first stepped into the Americas. There is a big difference between smoking opium and shooting morphine. There is little to no difference between taking a psilocybin pill and eating mushrooms. Have you heard of any mushroom-eater epidemics in the last 6000 years? I think there has been plenty of time for at least one, but you think another 10-15 years will do it?
The opium wars occured because of detrimental effects of opium consumption on chinese population.
We're more than 20 years into marijuana being legal with no reefer madness.
It won't be an addiction crisis but possibly a crisis of another kind, perhaps socioeconomic. Mind changes and shifts in priorities of an already disenfranchised youth could deplete the stock of candidates who want to contribute to the capitalist system. The 1960s could be nothing compared to the mid-late 2020s.
The ability to think independently and outside of the box nurtured by psychedelics actually turned out well for capitalism. It was not good for military recruiting and war support though.
The rise in software and hardware innovations that came out of the SF counter culture included Steve Jobs and Apple. He did quite a bit of acid.
The rise in software and hardware innovations that came out of the SF counter culture included Steve Jobs and Apple. He did quite a bit of acid.
The human body rapidly develops tolerance to tryptamine-based psychedelics (i.e., most of the ones being discussed here). In general, if you take a tryptamine, then taking more won't do anything for at least a couple weeks. (Tolerance isn't all-or-nothing; even if a person has developed it, it's still possible to get a small response with a gigantic dose.)
But even if there were no such thing as tolerance, psychedelics aren't pleasant in the day-in-day-out way that a beer after work can be, or that I imagine an opioid would be. They require far too much emotional work. It's typical to take a moderate mushroom dose, and then spend a month or two "integrating" the experience (i.e., figuring out what the heck all those insights mean).
But even if there were no such thing as tolerance, psychedelics aren't pleasant in the day-in-day-out way that a beer after work can be, or that I imagine an opioid would be. They require far too much emotional work. It's typical to take a moderate mushroom dose, and then spend a month or two "integrating" the experience (i.e., figuring out what the heck all those insights mean).
Highly recommend reading Michael Pollans “how to change your mind”. Regarding misconceptions about psychedelics, their root in our history, and how they can be used as medicine/treatment. Think some of the most notable include historical treatments of severe alcoholics back in the fifties. Mental health wise I view this as a major opportunity for many to have another tool when taking daily anti depressants may not be cutting it. Notably it’s being used in late state cancer patients to cope with concept of death with great success.
Also interesting are psychedelics history with Silicon Valley’s early days. See interview with pollan: https://m.timesofindia.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matter...
Also interesting are psychedelics history with Silicon Valley’s early days. See interview with pollan: https://m.timesofindia.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matter...
Is there anything that can be done for patients with family history of schizophrenia?
Avoid them most likely. As people in these circles say, respect the mushroom, and avoid it like the plague if you have a history of psychosis or schizophrenia.
It's very unlikely that any studies will be done with such patients as they probably won't pass through any committee.
It's very unlikely that any studies will be done with such patients as they probably won't pass through any committee.
Avoiding them like the plague doesn't seem very respectful to me.
It’s advised to not seek psychedelics in those cases as they can introduce psychosis and exacerbate symptoms. It’s interesting actually because it may be helpful in us understanding and treating schizophrenia since it CAN introduce temporary psychotic like symptoms.
If I had a family history of schizophrenia I would personally avoid psychedelics (and weed) entirely.
Several studies have shown small numbers of people with a family history of schizophrenia showing symptoms during and after the study. Granted, this could just be a confounding effect (the symptoms normally manifest during the phase of life the study participants were in) So a causal link has not been established, and studies necessarily to find a causal link would be unethical. (You’d have to deliberately induce schizophrenia in people who wouldn’t normally have it)
But the suspicion is good enough for me. If I had a family history of schizophrenia I would never try psychedelics ever in my life.
Several studies have shown small numbers of people with a family history of schizophrenia showing symptoms during and after the study. Granted, this could just be a confounding effect (the symptoms normally manifest during the phase of life the study participants were in) So a causal link has not been established, and studies necessarily to find a causal link would be unethical. (You’d have to deliberately induce schizophrenia in people who wouldn’t normally have it)
But the suspicion is good enough for me. If I had a family history of schizophrenia I would never try psychedelics ever in my life.
More on Silicon Valley: https://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Per...
TL;DR the computing world we know today was shaped (at least partly) by acidheads and potheads as well as some squares.
TL;DR the computing world we know today was shaped (at least partly) by acidheads and potheads as well as some squares.
I'm a regular user of mushrooms, have been for a bit, and live in Oregon. Mushrooms are already decriminalized here and have been for some time, same with places in California.
For those that haven't done mushrooms, there's different types of mushrooms. They all have different effects, some stronger than others. Tripsafe.org has some really good information on mushrooms and LSD with respect to the experiences users can expect to encounter.
My personal use of mushrooms, which isn't always medicinal doses, has been productive. Mostly, I have fun, do things I already love doing, and can be a bit more social. Mushrooms end with an "afterglow" that is a bit like being on an antidepressant for a while, but this depends per strain in my experience.
They're definitely good for addressing trauma and I'd agree with the neuroplasticity claims. I won't claim they've "changed my life" mainly because hallucinogens will only change what you really seek and work to change. In my personal opinion they just kind of grease the wheels for change.
For those that haven't done mushrooms, there's different types of mushrooms. They all have different effects, some stronger than others. Tripsafe.org has some really good information on mushrooms and LSD with respect to the experiences users can expect to encounter.
My personal use of mushrooms, which isn't always medicinal doses, has been productive. Mostly, I have fun, do things I already love doing, and can be a bit more social. Mushrooms end with an "afterglow" that is a bit like being on an antidepressant for a while, but this depends per strain in my experience.
They're definitely good for addressing trauma and I'd agree with the neuroplasticity claims. I won't claim they've "changed my life" mainly because hallucinogens will only change what you really seek and work to change. In my personal opinion they just kind of grease the wheels for change.
I'm in Washington and excited for this development. A few friends and I have been penciling out a business concept for when it is legalized up here. We have an anesthesiologist, a nurse, a private chef, and a paramedic (me), and are all into mushrooms. The doctor owns a large amount of land nearby and wants to set up some yurts or similar, and do guided trips. Nice, but earthy accommodations, a physician if needed for the legality of things, a chef for food through the weekend, and a nurse and medic who can assist with anything that might be needed to reset for the week ahead.
We shall see.
I think your descriptions are accurate, it's very much a catalyst. I'd also say to those who are curious, it is quite difficult to have a "bad" trip, but to be clear, it's certainly possible to have quite "intense" trips, so always a good idea to start gently. Microdosing and going from there can be quite the ride - to me, everything is a little more vivid, real, colors are brighter, etc., but I'm still quite "in the real world".
We shall see.
I think your descriptions are accurate, it's very much a catalyst. I'd also say to those who are curious, it is quite difficult to have a "bad" trip, but to be clear, it's certainly possible to have quite "intense" trips, so always a good idea to start gently. Microdosing and going from there can be quite the ride - to me, everything is a little more vivid, real, colors are brighter, etc., but I'm still quite "in the real world".
I wasn't aware that Hacker News was popular among paramedics too. :)
I can never decide whether I’m a paramedic who is a Product Manager or vice versa. Though PM is what pays the bills in large part, so…
I am also a regular user of mushrooms these days. My usage of them is definitely different from when I was younger - when I got ahold of them I would always trip pretty heavily and had a blast with them. As you get older, heavy trips just don't seem to be as enjoyable. Too much shit going on in adults lives I think, too many things to think about and it's harder to let go and enjoy the trip. Nowadays, I strictly microdose with them. To make this more streamlined, I will take a whole batch of mushrooms and pulse them into a powder with a coffee grinder, then fill up large capsules with them. This has the benefit of making each pill about as uniformly dosed as possible as long as you fill the capsules with the same amount. With these, you can really dose it the way you want. 1-2 capsules is usually great for a nice microdose. It will even give me energy similar to several cups of coffee, doesn't affect my cognitive ability at work at all, and the afterglow as you said is great.
As far as my personal anecdotal experience, if you can get Steel Magnolias that's the way to go. Penis Envy's are OK too.
As far as my personal anecdotal experience, if you can get Steel Magnolias that's the way to go. Penis Envy's are OK too.
I live in the Bay Area and I’m curious about trying mushrooms for personal reasons. I’m not addicted to anything and don’t drink alcohol or smoke or do any other drugs After reading information about mushrooms recently I’ve been interested to try them for personal growth and wellbeing.
Where do you even get them? How do you know how much to take? How do you take them? I’ve tried finding centers to go to where they assist you but can’t seem to find any that aid with it end-to-end.
Where do you even get them? How do you know how much to take? How do you take them? I’ve tried finding centers to go to where they assist you but can’t seem to find any that aid with it end-to-end.
Normally you would just order spores online and grow them yourself (it's trivial if you're not trying to maximize output, just takes time and some attention), but sadly that's not legal in Idaho/Georgia/California. Not sure what other options are available in CA as far as growing goes. As for the rest, I've found a lot of helpful info on /r/shrooms and shroomery.org. Sometimes people can give conflicting advice, but as with all things it's best to synthesize from multiple sources and figure out what works for you. Start small and be careful.
/r/unclebens for dead simple process with no special equipment.
Technically you can’t get spores delivered to CA. Shipping to a friend in another state is not super hard.
Technically you can’t get spores delivered to CA. Shipping to a friend in another state is not super hard.
From my experience it doesnt take much, a cap or two and maybe a stem is enough to feel it. Dont do what I did, which is wait half an hour before getting impatient and finishing off the baggy. It can take up to an hour to kick in.
Wish I could tell you where to get them, for me it was 'work in a restaurant'.
Wish I could tell you where to get them, for me it was 'work in a restaurant'.
> Where do you even get them?
Unfortunately, if you don't want to try and grow them you'll have to get them from someone you know. You could also try the dark web if you really want some, I'm sure you could get some there but if you can avoid that, it would be better. Fortunately it seems like getting mushrooms mixed with fentanyl isn't a thing AFAIK.
> How do you know how much to take? / How do you take them?
Up until recently, I was just eating a small amount - kind of hoping a stem and a small cap would do the trick. Most the times, this would work, but every once in awhile you'll get a small guy that is way more powerful than you think. I've found the best way for me now is to grind them into a powder and fill large fillable capsules with them. You can get several different sizes; I would start with smaller ones at first. The trick is to grind up as much of that batch of mushrooms as possible, as well as you can (I just use a simple coffee bean grinder). This does a good job of making sure each capsule you fill with the resulting powder is as evenly spread as it can be without special equipment. The benefit of this is you will now have 10-30 mushroom capsules with the same efficacy and you can then start with a single one and see how you feel. For your first time, I would not push past a single one. It can also sometimes take up to 3 hours before it really sinks in depending on what you're eating and such, so the first time just do not take another one.
Unfortunately, if you don't want to try and grow them you'll have to get them from someone you know. You could also try the dark web if you really want some, I'm sure you could get some there but if you can avoid that, it would be better. Fortunately it seems like getting mushrooms mixed with fentanyl isn't a thing AFAIK.
> How do you know how much to take? / How do you take them?
Up until recently, I was just eating a small amount - kind of hoping a stem and a small cap would do the trick. Most the times, this would work, but every once in awhile you'll get a small guy that is way more powerful than you think. I've found the best way for me now is to grind them into a powder and fill large fillable capsules with them. You can get several different sizes; I would start with smaller ones at first. The trick is to grind up as much of that batch of mushrooms as possible, as well as you can (I just use a simple coffee bean grinder). This does a good job of making sure each capsule you fill with the resulting powder is as evenly spread as it can be without special equipment. The benefit of this is you will now have 10-30 mushroom capsules with the same efficacy and you can then start with a single one and see how you feel. For your first time, I would not push past a single one. It can also sometimes take up to 3 hours before it really sinks in depending on what you're eating and such, so the first time just do not take another one.
You can join the church of Zide Door in Oakland. It is a weird trip just going over there. Golden teacher is a very well known strain.
They won’t necessarily guide you through the set and setting.
The thing I recommend is to plan a date with yourself. Imagine the time and place you’d like to be in when you get a glimpse of the infinite.
You may wish to go with someone experienced for your first time, or even start with non-hallucinogenic dose and work your way up. (1/4 a hallucinogenic dose causes a barely noticeable pleasant feeling)
They won’t necessarily guide you through the set and setting.
The thing I recommend is to plan a date with yourself. Imagine the time and place you’d like to be in when you get a glimpse of the infinite.
You may wish to go with someone experienced for your first time, or even start with non-hallucinogenic dose and work your way up. (1/4 a hallucinogenic dose causes a barely noticeable pleasant feeling)
Isn't it accepted knowledge that all the strains just differ in strength? It's either more or less psilocybin and nothing else in the mushroom would change the type of effect you get. I tried 3 P. Cubensis strains and found no difference.
Surprisingly, among growers, they seem to suggest that all P. Cubensis have the same potency, save for the notorious PE strain which is estimated to be 1.5X as strong.
That's generally right for cubensis, except that variation from fruit to fruit is generally greater than the variation from variety to variety. A notable exception is so-called Penis Envy, which is established to be significantly more potent in psilocybin and psilocin content. That variety also has an interesting origin story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRArM5Ev4EE
Other Psilocybe types, such as semilanceata, azurescens, and baeocystis, differ in that they have more or less of other compounds such as Baeocystin, which some believe have psychoactive effects.
Many people report nonlinear responses to psilocybin/psilocin dosages. For example, 5 grams of dry cubensis is more than twice as strong as 2.5 grams. So it's understandable that stronger varieties have qualitatively different reputations than weaker ones.
Other Psilocybe types, such as semilanceata, azurescens, and baeocystis, differ in that they have more or less of other compounds such as Baeocystin, which some believe have psychoactive effects.
Many people report nonlinear responses to psilocybin/psilocin dosages. For example, 5 grams of dry cubensis is more than twice as strong as 2.5 grams. So it's understandable that stronger varieties have qualitatively different reputations than weaker ones.
Rationally I could see no difference in either micro dosing or 'fun' dosing by comparing a popular Asian with a Mexican strain. They look kinda different tho.
Do you think different types of mushrooms have consistent qualitatively different effects? Or is it just varying levels of potency?
Are all the differences due to the ratio of psilocybin to psilocin? Or are there additional molecules that are psychoactive and vary between types?
I've seen a lot of online debate over this question - some believe that psilocin and psilocybin are the only two significant factors, the only differences from this ratio is onset time (one converts to the other in vitro), and all perceived differences between strains are subjective (i.e. people are falsely overgeneralizing their experiences with particular strains).
On the other hand, many seem convinced there are significant differences between types, which to me would indicate there must be additional molecules having an effect.
Are all the differences due to the ratio of psilocybin to psilocin? Or are there additional molecules that are psychoactive and vary between types?
I've seen a lot of online debate over this question - some believe that psilocin and psilocybin are the only two significant factors, the only differences from this ratio is onset time (one converts to the other in vitro), and all perceived differences between strains are subjective (i.e. people are falsely overgeneralizing their experiences with particular strains).
On the other hand, many seem convinced there are significant differences between types, which to me would indicate there must be additional molecules having an effect.
[deleted]
There’s a shop in Portland that just got busted for selling shrooms out of a storefront. They were selling for a while, but then they started advertising on a billboard and the pigs(ACAB) shut it down.
I would love it if someone explained what they were thinking when they opened a shroom shop right on a Main Street. This happened recently[1].
[1] https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/12/08/portland-police...
I would love it if someone explained what they were thinking when they opened a shroom shop right on a Main Street. This happened recently[1].
[1] https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/12/08/portland-police...
eh9(4)
I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever substance/plant/medicine I choose to partake in, anyways. If I intentionally fused it with a far more dangerous chemical, and I don't make that obvious to the purchaser, then yeah, that should be a felony. Just like how false advertising is something you can take to court.
We treat the population too much like children. Let people make their own decisions. If it kills them, it kills them. They made their choice. If they want help, they'll seek it on their own.
If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses.
If you drive under the influence of chemicals that reduce your motor skills and reaction time, and alter your perception of reality, that is an obvious offense.
Other than those cases which we can almost all agree should be intervened, why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with their bodies?
We treat the population too much like children. Let people make their own decisions. If it kills them, it kills them. They made their choice. If they want help, they'll seek it on their own.
If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses.
If you drive under the influence of chemicals that reduce your motor skills and reaction time, and alter your perception of reality, that is an obvious offense.
Other than those cases which we can almost all agree should be intervened, why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with their bodies?
puritanism and moral authoritarianism. People love imposing their morals on others, and most are taught from a young age that drugs other than alcohol and caffeine are bad
I personally don't take anything (other than maybe some over-the-counter painkillers when I've got a minor injury, or what doctors prescribe to me - just to quell the gotchas). I don't drink or smoke cigs, because of the obvious health defects that are associated with them. Drinking less so, but I am personally concerned about acquiring an addiction.
But if there was one thing I would consider trying, it's psychedelics. It can help you think outside the box, apparently has some link to treating depression, and they're not particularly addictive (other than an adrenaline junkie type of addiction, which can develop with anything).
Point being, I don't do anything of the sort. But it baffles me that people are incapable of allowing others to do things that they personally don't want to partake in.
But if there was one thing I would consider trying, it's psychedelics. It can help you think outside the box, apparently has some link to treating depression, and they're not particularly addictive (other than an adrenaline junkie type of addiction, which can develop with anything).
Point being, I don't do anything of the sort. But it baffles me that people are incapable of allowing others to do things that they personally don't want to partake in.
Don't underestimate the amount of lobbying the alcohol industry does to make it seem like always having a drink is the best and only way to wind down and have fun.
Would that make overdosing a criminal offense?
In the UK, being treated for an overdose is an expense of the tax payer. Obviously people still overdose, and that expense already exists. But the legality of dangerous substances is to minimize the harm, and therefore the cost associated with that harm.
A free-for-all approach would either have to accept a greater expense (not just economically) or introduce other measures to minimize the harm.
In the UK, being treated for an overdose is an expense of the tax payer. Obviously people still overdose, and that expense already exists. But the legality of dangerous substances is to minimize the harm, and therefore the cost associated with that harm.
A free-for-all approach would either have to accept a greater expense (not just economically) or introduce other measures to minimize the harm.
What would the punishment for the offense be? If it is prison time, that also costs the tax payer.
I've no idea. It's a complex arguement to make, and my few points don't do it justice.
I'm sure there is an optimal balance with legality that minmizes harm and cost. I think we are on the conservative side of that balance. But going for a free-for-all approach is the other extreme side.
I'm sure there is an optimal balance with legality that minmizes harm and cost. I think we are on the conservative side of that balance. But going for a free-for-all approach is the other extreme side.
Whether free for all drug use would be more expensive is an empirical question and- if it displaces any alcohol use — the evidence would be strongly that it would cut costs, especially if basic standards for purity were enforced.
This kind of hazard that helps legitimize criminality of risky health decisions (like drug consumption) is one of the major reasons why I am against taxpayer funded healthcare.
We treat obese people (as is probably ethical) so we can as well treat all the other self-imposed conditions without counting the pennies.
I agree. That is why the cost isn't just economical.
We treat obese people while enacting laws to improve public health. Such as food quality laws.
We treat obese people while enacting laws to improve public health. Such as food quality laws.
I agree with the sentiment and think that legalizing drugs like psilocybin is a positive step. But I have learned from seeing the consequences of drugs like fentanyl and meth that some substances are too dangerous and addictive to be available to the public. And in practice, cities don't have enough resources to deal with the consequences associated with them that you've listed. It is not practical to allow the use of drugs that consistently drive people to lives of crime and dependence. Often lives are damaged irreparably and the societal costs are incalculable, but emergency bills and social services can alone be staggering high.
But drugs like fentanyl and meth are still available to the general public despite being illegal. So the question instead is do the practical effects of illegality help society, and that's not at all clear.
And many people are too afraid to get help because of the potential consequences.
I no longer believe this after Oregon decriminalized drugs, there are no consequences and people still do not seek out help.
It takes time to see results. For instance it took a few years after Portugal decriminalized all drugs before their program really hit it's stride. There's a lot of societal infrastructure that needs to be dismantled and reconstructed for the new system and that takes time.
I think if you look at areas that try to restrict the supply of these dangerous drug options you will find that that they are less available and expensive. When you look at areas like Portland/West Coast of US, you see that with increasing availability there are lots of associated problems. Perhaps there needs to be institutionally provided drug alternatives for those who have already become addicted, but id argue its very clear that lowering barriers to use has clear negative impacts.
I'm not sure that's the case. Meth and heroin was plenty cheap and plenty available in the deep south, and it's not like they're known for being soft on drug crimes down there.
Availability is more than just price. In the deep south its more difficult to buy/sell and use these drugs in public than it is in portland.
I'm mean, I'm from the deep south. They have a much larger issue with hard drugs than the west coast does. The drugs are just as available despite the increased enforcement.
Drugs have won the war on drugs.
Drugs have won the war on drugs.
Would drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine be as popular if the population had as easy access to less dangerous/harmful alternatives like morphine or methylphenidate?
I'm actually in agreement with you here, but I can see the other side. You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large. If you make it illegal, the proportion who fall to its ill effects may be reduced, even if the cost to those who still use it is greatly magnified. It's a classic case of what's best for society versus what's best for the individual.
I, personally, would argue that enforcing overly harsh rules results in a net cost for society, due to the costs of enforcement, loss of productivity to society by those you put in jail, etc. But the motive behind these laws is not always just "muh morality," and it's not a sure bet that allowing people unfettered freedom in their personal life is a good thing for society.
I, personally, would argue that enforcing overly harsh rules results in a net cost for society, due to the costs of enforcement, loss of productivity to society by those you put in jail, etc. But the motive behind these laws is not always just "muh morality," and it's not a sure bet that allowing people unfettered freedom in their personal life is a good thing for society.
As with most issues, this one can be reduced to collectivist vs. individualist. I'm primarily an individualist. Hence my opinion.
Well said. Nanny state vs the sovereign individual.
Yes, and the world consists only of responsible sovereign individuals, who need no guidance at all.
I refer to the 18th century gin craze, here's an impressive print: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/William_...
I refer to the 18th century gin craze, here's an impressive print: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/William_...
In addition to sovereign individuals the world also have only responsible nanny states, who would not abuse their citizens.
This picture is a like a caricature of satire for poking fun at prohibitionists, complete with the think of the children meme in forefront with the falling toddler. I love it.
That reduction is lossy. There's a large middle ground where free individuals make agreements with each other to cooperate in ways that make them all better off.
The previous commenter's handle alludes to one possible item, crystal meth: that's a substance that doesn't seem to have any redeeming value, and a lot of risk for other cooperative endeavors. So perhaps we should all agree not to traffic in it. (And if we later find a good use for it that stance can be revised.) Mushrooms have a very different calculus, and all that said I agree in general that the drug war has been very badly conceived and executed.
The previous commenter's handle alludes to one possible item, crystal meth: that's a substance that doesn't seem to have any redeeming value, and a lot of risk for other cooperative endeavors. So perhaps we should all agree not to traffic in it. (And if we later find a good use for it that stance can be revised.) Mushrooms have a very different calculus, and all that said I agree in general that the drug war has been very badly conceived and executed.
Not to take from the (very real I am afraid) dangers of substance abuse (starting with alcohol and sugar, of course) - I am curious: who you trust more to decide for the individual: the person itself or the larger social group?
An individualist with no definition of an individual is quite useless.
In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors. Even in the most liberal countries, there are ways to declare particular individuals as wards of another (disability, elderly, children, etc). Without rationality, the basis of classical liberal philosophy disintegrates.
So if we want to be consistent as a liberal individualist, we need to place rationality on quite a high pedestal, which means at least making concessions that those taking drugs ought to be temporarily at least deprived of particular civil rights.
In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors. Even in the most liberal countries, there are ways to declare particular individuals as wards of another (disability, elderly, children, etc). Without rationality, the basis of classical liberal philosophy disintegrates.
So if we want to be consistent as a liberal individualist, we need to place rationality on quite a high pedestal, which means at least making concessions that those taking drugs ought to be temporarily at least deprived of particular civil rights.
> In particular, classical liberalism depends on rational actors
It does not; classical liberalism is an ideology that depends on a particular structure of moral precepts of rights, independently of how people might make use of them.
The utilitarian, rather than deontological, argument for laissez-faire capitalism depends on the rational (in a very particular technical sense) actors, but this is (while people who identify as “classical liberals” overlap considerably with rhetorical, at least, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism) not the same thing.
It does not; classical liberalism is an ideology that depends on a particular structure of moral precepts of rights, independently of how people might make use of them.
The utilitarian, rather than deontological, argument for laissez-faire capitalism depends on the rational (in a very particular technical sense) actors, but this is (while people who identify as “classical liberals” overlap considerably with rhetorical, at least, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism) not the same thing.
> You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large.
I can understand why someone may take this stance, but I think this argument is something of a hasty generalization when it comes to drug policy. For starters, the policy alone (prohibited vs decriminalized vs legalized) does not appear to be the determining factor in the "certain proportion" of the population that use drugs problematically or otherwise. The US consistently has some of the highest drug usage and abuse rates compared to our western counterparts in Europe. I don't know of the exact reason for this. Could be other cultural differences between the US and Europe. Could be the fact that most European countries approach drug abuse as a public health issue opposed to a criminal one, and focus on harm reduction and rehabilitation instead of jail time.
I can understand why someone may take this stance, but I think this argument is something of a hasty generalization when it comes to drug policy. For starters, the policy alone (prohibited vs decriminalized vs legalized) does not appear to be the determining factor in the "certain proportion" of the population that use drugs problematically or otherwise. The US consistently has some of the highest drug usage and abuse rates compared to our western counterparts in Europe. I don't know of the exact reason for this. Could be other cultural differences between the US and Europe. Could be the fact that most European countries approach drug abuse as a public health issue opposed to a criminal one, and focus on harm reduction and rehabilitation instead of jail time.
I can think of many potential reasons between the US and Europe that explains the difference.
1. Europe has a greater emphasis on welfare and has greater social saftey nets
2. US private healthcare makes it harder for the poorest in society to get drug-related issues cared for
3. US War on drugs being a historical political selling point to gather voters
4. Private prisons; lobbying for stricter drugs laws equals profit
5. Over-prescription of pain medication by US doctors; lobbied by pharmaceutical companies for profit
>you have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large
The problem is you can extend this to all sorts of things that people abuse. Sugar, video games, alcohol, caffeine, etc. The solution is not to put people in jail and ruin their lives, its to educate them on the risks and to provide solutions to get help when needed.
The problem is you can extend this to all sorts of things that people abuse. Sugar, video games, alcohol, caffeine, etc. The solution is not to put people in jail and ruin their lives, its to educate them on the risks and to provide solutions to get help when needed.
> If you become a public nuisance, and/or threaten or injure people due to the influence, those are also obvious offenses.
Too many good innocent people will be unable to fix the issue once it gets started. This view may appear well intentioned but the end result is suffering for people who are lied to by people offering prescriptions or who fall for the people who talk up legal things that they themselves like but that are actually bad for health. (Like alcohol)
Too many good innocent people will be unable to fix the issue once it gets started. This view may appear well intentioned but the end result is suffering for people who are lied to by people offering prescriptions or who fall for the people who talk up legal things that they themselves like but that are actually bad for health. (Like alcohol)
If you are in society and altering your mind and impairing your judgement, you're no longer the default "you" but a chemically compromised and unpredictable actor, who may be out of control.
In her third week of college, my daughter found the naked body of a student who leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death while tripping on magic mushrooms.
She is traumatized for life because somebody chose to make a choice with their body by ingesting unpredictable drugs.
I am fairly confident, given the state of pro-psychedelics evangelism today, that the young man expected a fun trip. Instead, he died and could have killed another student with his fall.
In her third week of college, my daughter found the naked body of a student who leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death while tripping on magic mushrooms.
She is traumatized for life because somebody chose to make a choice with their body by ingesting unpredictable drugs.
I am fairly confident, given the state of pro-psychedelics evangelism today, that the young man expected a fun trip. Instead, he died and could have killed another student with his fall.
They’re not joke substances.
But for every mushroom related death, there are literally tens of thousands of alcohol related deaths.
But for every mushroom related death, there are literally tens of thousands of alcohol related deaths.
I don't disagree. Not long after that incident, a drunk frat student plunged to his death at the same college.
Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City, a sort of padded playground where people can choose to risk hangovers, overdose or death by their substance of choice, without being amid general society. Then after they sober up, they get to return to society.
Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City, a sort of padded playground where people can choose to risk hangovers, overdose or death by their substance of choice, without being amid general society. Then after they sober up, they get to return to society.
Perhaps you know already, but for the record the Oregon law only allows psilocybin use under trained supervision.
In the case of alcohol, in my opinion we need a similar cultural attitude. Your state flips on your 21st birthday from absolute prohibition to...as much as you want. We need not so much a place for people to safely binge, as to guide them to considering for themselves why they would want to in the first place. Some people always will of course, just like there will always be people who drive like assholes.
In the case of alcohol, in my opinion we need a similar cultural attitude. Your state flips on your 21st birthday from absolute prohibition to...as much as you want. We need not so much a place for people to safely binge, as to guide them to considering for themselves why they would want to in the first place. Some people always will of course, just like there will always be people who drive like assholes.
> Maybe what society needs is each city gets its own walled Sin City
Or perhaps the inverse, where folks like yourself can live fully protected, and insulated from individual liberty.
Or perhaps the inverse, where folks like yourself can live fully protected, and insulated from individual liberty.
Or just an indoctrination process focused on personal responsibility to one’s consciousness and loved ones; instead of a deranged “education” composed of a fixation on prohibition and self-repression.
Was it this one this one [1]?
They don't know if he fell, jumped, or slipped. They only have released anecdotals that he ingested psilocybin. You don't know what kind of trip the young man had, you don't know if he had suicidal tendencies, you're speculating that psilocybin, if even ingested, was responsible based on nothing but your own bias. Hell, we have people falling out of windows to their death trying to catch cell phones they've dropped.
> If you are in society
Here we go. Every time I see a sentence start with this, I know that there's a "we need to protect everyone from themselves" take that's sure to follow.
This is the kind of boomer anecdote I call bullshit on. My father is in his late 70s and any time low-dose medicinal studies around psychedelics are brought up he defaults to the same kind of Nixon-esc paranoia about "gateway drugs" and "I heard about..." boomerisms, because he lived through the 60s and saw things he didn't like, and is incapable of considering new information. It's the same kind of thinking that has cannabis still illegal at the federal level. Psilocybin, like any intoxicant or stimulant, can be lethal when abused. You can die from taking too much Tylenol, and the doses aren't even that high [1].
[1] https://nypost.com/2010/11/08/death-plunge-at-the-st-george-...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441917/
They don't know if he fell, jumped, or slipped. They only have released anecdotals that he ingested psilocybin. You don't know what kind of trip the young man had, you don't know if he had suicidal tendencies, you're speculating that psilocybin, if even ingested, was responsible based on nothing but your own bias. Hell, we have people falling out of windows to their death trying to catch cell phones they've dropped.
> If you are in society
Here we go. Every time I see a sentence start with this, I know that there's a "we need to protect everyone from themselves" take that's sure to follow.
This is the kind of boomer anecdote I call bullshit on. My father is in his late 70s and any time low-dose medicinal studies around psychedelics are brought up he defaults to the same kind of Nixon-esc paranoia about "gateway drugs" and "I heard about..." boomerisms, because he lived through the 60s and saw things he didn't like, and is incapable of considering new information. It's the same kind of thinking that has cannabis still illegal at the federal level. Psilocybin, like any intoxicant or stimulant, can be lethal when abused. You can die from taking too much Tylenol, and the doses aren't even that high [1].
[1] https://nypost.com/2010/11/08/death-plunge-at-the-st-george-...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441917/
No, it was this one. [1]
I would respond more in depth, but your total lack of sympathy shows a dismissive bias as tenacious as any boomer you insult.
[1] http://www.montanakaimin.com/features/a-death-at-aber-hall/a...
I would respond more in depth, but your total lack of sympathy shows a dismissive bias as tenacious as any boomer you insult.
[1] http://www.montanakaimin.com/features/a-death-at-aber-hall/a...
Sad story, condolences to all who knew Otto. Something that stuck out to me from that article was that his floormates were aware of his condition prior to his death and were worried for his and their own safety, but weren't sure what to do. I imagine the legality of the substance played a role in that; they were likely conflicted as to whether to seek medical/police help which would almost guarantee legal issues for Otto, or do nothing and risk his well-being.
> leapt through the eighth story dorm window to his death while tripping on magic mushrooms
So if keeping them illegal apparently utterly failed to prevent people from having ready access to them as your anecdote suggests, what was the benefit of keeping them illegal in the first place? Other than funneling government coffers into the prison-industrial complex, itself perpetuating far more tragedy and engendering a far more dangerous society as a result...and not just for your daughter, but for everyone.
So if keeping them illegal apparently utterly failed to prevent people from having ready access to them as your anecdote suggests, what was the benefit of keeping them illegal in the first place? Other than funneling government coffers into the prison-industrial complex, itself perpetuating far more tragedy and engendering a far more dangerous society as a result...and not just for your daughter, but for everyone.
> why are we telling people what they're allowed to do with their bodies
I don't think this is a useful defense of permissiveness, because it proves too much. We don't let people mutilate themselves either, because we consider it an indication of wrong thinking. It just isn't the case that all choices are respected, because not all behavior is accepted either.
I don't think the state treats subjects like children. It treats them like components, components exist within tolerances or they are discarded/altered. The state isn't my parent, it is my master.
I don't think this is a useful defense of permissiveness, because it proves too much. We don't let people mutilate themselves either, because we consider it an indication of wrong thinking. It just isn't the case that all choices are respected, because not all behavior is accepted either.
I don't think the state treats subjects like children. It treats them like components, components exist within tolerances or they are discarded/altered. The state isn't my parent, it is my master.
> if it kills them, it kills them
This attitude is fine, and I understand it, if it's accompanied by actually letting people fail. Unfortunately, when they do fail, it's the impetus to start yet another social welfare program for people who made terrible decisions, instead of just regulating the terrible decision out of existence to begin with.
This attitude is fine, and I understand it, if it's accompanied by actually letting people fail. Unfortunately, when they do fail, it's the impetus to start yet another social welfare program for people who made terrible decisions, instead of just regulating the terrible decision out of existence to begin with.
> I don't know why it's illegal to partake of whatever substance/plant/medicine I
choose to partake in, anyways.
You could start thinking outside the frames your government and/or religious leaders wants you to to keep between.
You could start thinking outside the frames your government and/or religious leaders wants you to to keep between.
America has a smart play here, actually. Your "can I use drugs?" test is "If you were a drug user, would I know?". That's why I worked at startups with rampant use of cocaine. I've used psychedelics for years. Loads of people I know go to Burning Man and do hella drugs. Everyone in the group is doing fantastically.
But someone I know told me a director at his bank was fired for inviting interns over after a bar crawl to do drugs. Or something like that. That was the test: do you know who to let know what you do?
But someone I know told me a director at his bank was fired for inviting interns over after a bar crawl to do drugs. Or something like that. That was the test: do you know who to let know what you do?
Why? All you have to do is read through an HN thread on some financial product with high risk, say interest-only mortgages, to learn that if you give people freedom to do what they want they’ll turn around and blame someone else when things go wrong.
I agree that adults should be able to take whatever substance they want, but I also know that if we did that people who had negative experiences would then blame the media, sellers, their parents, the medical establishment, the internet, the courts, the FDA and anyone else for the consequences, except themselves.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
I agree that adults should be able to take whatever substance they want, but I also know that if we did that people who had negative experiences would then blame the media, sellers, their parents, the medical establishment, the internet, the courts, the FDA and anyone else for the consequences, except themselves.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
If journalists would do their duty as the 4th estate they would spend less time writing about microaggressions and evaluate the words they use to frame government's actions.
Some alternative suggestions for title:
Oregon defies federal government, stops impeding on citizens rights
Government no longer violating rights of individuals consuming life-enhancing super food.
Government replaces black market of mushrooms with regulatory capture to pacify pharmaceutical executives and big government spenders
Some alternative suggestions for title:
Oregon defies federal government, stops impeding on citizens rights
Government no longer violating rights of individuals consuming life-enhancing super food.
Government replaces black market of mushrooms with regulatory capture to pacify pharmaceutical executives and big government spenders
It's less about having their focus on the wrong places, and more about deliberately obfuscating or providing little coverage on topics that go against the best interests of their advertisers (pharma).
Journalists at this point are not the 4th estate. The Upton Sinclairs are astoundingly rare, most corporate media have incentives pretty well aligned with the wealthy elite and/or the state to the point where they almost function as a privatized arm of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
I'm really looking forward to psychedelic therapy. I have a very rare kind of body image dysmorphia/dysphoria. Traditional therapy, SSRIs, etc. have been useless at treating it. I'm scared of psychedelics, having had scary bad trips in the past, but with a therapist to guide me I'm hopeful that I'll be able to get deep into my subconscious and fix something. Uncharted territory I can finally explore.
It's important that you abstain from any psychedelic use until you can get to your guided session.
oh, of course. I've been waiting precisely because I'm afraid to tangle with psychedelics solo, and want to hold out for a really good therapist to guide me.
Make sure you ask them how they'll handle it if things go _wrong_, like really wrong.
Psychosis can happen. Overconfident guides can lead you there. Make sure you're working with someone who knows that there are risks.
Psychosis can happen. Overconfident guides can lead you there. Make sure you're working with someone who knows that there are risks.
I don't have any family history of psychosis, but I'll definitely watch out for it. My plan for things going wrong was to take a benzo, use a weighted blanket and have soothing music until it kicks in. Possibly also something like trazodone to abort the trip.
Do you have any advice on how to procure a suitable guide? Ideally I'd want someone who's an experienced psychotherapist.
Do you have any advice on how to procure a suitable guide? Ideally I'd want someone who's an experienced psychotherapist.
Honestly, I'd ask them how they've handled things going wrong.
If things have never gone wrong for them, then they're not that experienced.
Find out if this is someone who takes responsibility for their actions.
If things have never gone wrong for them, then they're not that experienced.
Find out if this is someone who takes responsibility for their actions.
My college girlfriend/'drug addict' gets more correct with every passing day.
Magic mushrooms are the only thing I have that help against my migraines.
If I realize early enough I can avoid it mostly. If it's to late I can atleast get some sleep after a hour or so and have little to none aura the next day.
Interestingly enough LSD doesn't have that effect on me. It doesn't lower my headaches (makes them less painful tho) and the aura is just less annoying but still very present.
I recently had a episode of cluster like headaches (most likely because a sinus infection) and nothing helped at no dose. I even tried DMT at the pain peak but no help.
If I realize early enough I can avoid it mostly. If it's to late I can atleast get some sleep after a hour or so and have little to none aura the next day.
Interestingly enough LSD doesn't have that effect on me. It doesn't lower my headaches (makes them less painful tho) and the aura is just less annoying but still very present.
I recently had a episode of cluster like headaches (most likely because a sinus infection) and nothing helped at no dose. I even tried DMT at the pain peak but no help.
My friends all decided to try mushrooms together back in college, thankfully I decided not to participate. One of my friends did not respond well and has never been the same since.
He had a kind of psychotic break, became violent, and poured juice all over himself during the course of a very unpleasant sounding afternoon. He was definitely changed after that day and is no longer part of our friend group because of it. Every time we see him now he mentions the healing powers of crystals, and sometimes mentions that he hears voices. I think doing mushrooms definitely triggered some kind of schizophrenia in him.
It’s totally scary and put me off trying it forever.
I wonder if Oregon will see a rise in things like schizophrenia?
He had a kind of psychotic break, became violent, and poured juice all over himself during the course of a very unpleasant sounding afternoon. He was definitely changed after that day and is no longer part of our friend group because of it. Every time we see him now he mentions the healing powers of crystals, and sometimes mentions that he hears voices. I think doing mushrooms definitely triggered some kind of schizophrenia in him.
It’s totally scary and put me off trying it forever.
I wonder if Oregon will see a rise in things like schizophrenia?
> A single session is likely to cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
I don't know what to think about that. Seems like 'grifter' business.
I don't know what to think about that. Seems like 'grifter' business.
Personal hot take: I've done this stuff before. I've seen the before and after of people who've done it. None of the people who did it were better off
When it comes to psychedelics, there are two faces to them: how people talk about them and what they actually are. How they're talked about is 99% bullshit
People will talk about "life changing experiences", that's cool. From the outside, the only changes I see are people turning to deadbeats and doing more and more drugs. Of course, Portland is already a containment zone for mentally ill people on the streets. They could always use more