Stupulous · HackerTrans

4 lata temudiscuss

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.

Stupulous

4 lata temudiscuss

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.

Stupulous

4 lata temudiscuss

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

Stupulous

5 lat temudiscuss

Characterizing people who take a nuanced stance as denying science, and then disregarding the things they say is a bad path to take. If he's said things that are untrue, call them out. If he's said true things that you think imply he believes untrue things, you should make an effort to change your model to one that incorporates all truth. This is directed more at your approach than it is in defense of Shellenburger, but I'll happily read rebuttals of his points in replies to this comment if you or others are so inclined.

comments