One of the worst things that comes from the banning of drugs is the stigma attached to it in order to give reason to ban it. That stigma just doesn't let go no matter what evidence is being presented.
Case in point are the incredible studies by the folks at Johns Hopkins on Psilocybin. They're not feeding people hallucinogenic mushrooms, they're giving them controlled doses of manufactured psilosybin. Incredible studies, very interesting in all ways, but the news headline is almost always some shitty pun or stupid jab about 'shrooms or "trippy" or "far out" which immediately demeans the research in the readers mind.
This usually continues through the text. The author will describe the study, effects, results, etc. then punctuate it with some dumb line about it being groovy. Makes it embarassing to be associated with the results when we could be looking at some truly breakthrough approaches to therapy and who knows what else.
Obfuscation of the true nature of the research might help in this case.
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Although I don't disagree with the problem of stereotypes and stigmas, what I think we're seeing with the language you've identified is a movement from "they ignore you" to "they laugh at you," - remind me, what are the next two stages?
Also: He is also the director of the substance-abuse division at Bellevue, and he told me that he had known little about psychedelics [..] until a colleague happened to mention that, in the nineteen-sixties, LSD had been used successfully to treat alcoholics. Ross did some research and was astounded at what he found.
How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?! I'm not saying he should have been a fan of psychedelics all along, but he should at least have had some awareness of their history and how they came to be controlled substances.
There are two parts to the characterization at play here:
1. Psychedelics are not "abused" in the same way that other substances are. Furthermore, when psychedelics do get abused, the adverse effects are expressed differently, and patients are not routed through the same treatment channels that addictive substances see. Since psychedelics aren't addictive, users usually don't need ongoing maintenance to prevent relapses. Instead, victims of psychedelic side effects usually suffer from catastrophic burnouts after the mother of all bad trips, or persistent neurological symptoms creep in after a period of experimentation, and remain possibly for life. Once that happens people quit cold turkey, and cope with their flashbacks however they must.
2. Being a director of anything isn't a huge deal. It's not much of an auspicious title. Like manager or vice president, after you meet a thousand of them, big deal. Meanwhile, as for doctors, you'd be shocked at how sheltered some doctors are. Many of the doctors I've met only became doctors because their parents forced them into it, and they spent their youth locked in their bedrooms getting good grades, and those geeky scholarly habits stick with them into middle age. It wouldn't surprise me to meet a doctor who is a total outsider to the patient population their supposedly expected to treat through book learnin'...
Your point #2 is pretty good, but I was surprised because every psychiatrist I've ever met has taken psychedelics, and doctors enjoy getting high just as much as the rest of the population.
But even so, I thought it would be the sort of thing someone would know about just through a general awareness of current events. I've never taken a flying lesson but I know who the Wright brothers are, that their first successful flight was in 1903, the basic control mechanisms of all aeroplanes, and a bunch of other rudimentary aeronautical knowledge. I thought most people had a vague idea of who timothy Leary was and that a drug named LSD was quite popular in the 1960s and so on - it's not exactly obscure.
>But even so, I thought it would be the sort of thing someone would know about just through a general awareness of current events. I've never taken a flying lesson but I know who the Wright brothers are, that their first successful flight was in 1903, the basic control mechanisms of all aeroplanes, and a bunch of other rudimentary aeronautical knowledge. I thought most people had a vague idea of who timothy Leary was and that a drug named LSD was quite popular in the 1960s and so on - it's not exactly obscure.
You're living in a bubble. You're the exception.
The general public are actually by and large incredibly ignorant. Do some research into literacy rates if you want to be terrified.
Ask the average man on the street to name five Enlightenment philosophers and he'll just stare at you blankly.
Aren't Hegel and Nietzsche too late to be considered Enlightenment philosophers? I'm intentionally not looking it up since I wanna see if I pass the test too... I'll add Hume and Spinoza as replacements, but please don't ask me to elaborate on what any of these people actually contributed to our societal body of knowledge :)
I would have had a similar list (decreasing order of confidence as well). Kant, Voltaire, Descartes, Heidegger, Kierkegaard.
I don't think this is something people should necessarily know. Ask them to name some 5 philosopers and be happy if they can do that, but specifying a period? A tad too hard I guess :-)
In disbelief that you would want to memorise stuff that can be found by googling. :)
Heck, I don't know em. Rosseau? Anyway, the ignorant people may be quite proficient in stuff you'd be surprised at. But I agree the literacy rates ARE frightening. Maybe technology will fix that one day...
>I've never taken a flying lesson but I know who the Wright brothers are, that their first successful flight was in 1903, the basic control mechanisms of all aeroplanes, and a bunch of other rudimentary aeronautical knowledge.
Most people don't know any of those things, including many of the people that frequently fly on the planes (based on conversation I have with people sitting next to me when I fly)[1]. Similarly, I wouldn't expect many people that frequently get high on something other than psychedelics to know anything at all about LSD.
1. PSA: Something that frequently comes up that is relevant to being a passenger is the importance of putting on your own air mask as fast as possible. At a 40,000 ft elevation atmospheric pressure, hypoxia will cause you to lose consciousness in <20 seconds. Remember to put on your own mask before helping others ;)
Forget knowledge of esoteric or edgy topics - I bet if you took the 10 most important research results in the last year that your own doctor would not be aware of all of them even if relevant to their practice.
I can sort of understand that, given that how many research findings are invalidated later on (or cannot be reproduced). Also, I don't need my GP to be aware of the latest cancer research when all I got is the common cold.
“By the time I got to medical school, no one even talked about it,” Ross said.
Besides, substance abuse programs focus heavily on the current headliner addiction drugs - opium in the late 19th century, alcohol in prohibition times, cocaine in the 80s, crack thereafter, prescription painkillers and heroin again now; with a secondary focus on whatever's not the current headliner. How many recent (or non-recent) news stories are there about an epidemic of LSD addicts or mushroom addicts?
Kind of like asking how someone gets to be a web developer without being fluent in Fortran and COBOL.
That doesn't answer my question at all. If I only took an interest in what other people were talking about I'd be pretty poorly informed; I don't see how you can learn effectively without being motivated by internal curiosity.
The relative absence of psychedelic addicts in itself would be grounds for wondering how they got to be tightly controlled substances in the first place. I'm not suggesting that he should be expert, but that he should at least have a base level of familiarity with the field.
I'm not fluent in fortran or COBOL, but at least I know what they are, and I'm also familiar with lots of languages that I'll probably never have occasion to use, like APL, brainfuck and so on.
The funny thing about this is, while I definitely don't believe it in the moustache-twirling-government-villain sense of the mind-control variety, I do think that it's a least _a little_ true - particularly with how public use of LSD may have played an important role in the anti-war movement (Vietnam War). It's widely documented that many people attributed it as a turning point.
Not even that many people need to have tried it; it's one of those consciousness-raising things, where people that you'd normally respect the opinions of start espousing this belief, and that reduces cognitive dissonance in others in a kind of "belief wave".
> How many recent (or non-recent) news stories are there about an epidemic of LSD addicts or mushroom addicts?
Not sure how you mean that question. You cannot get addicted to LSD - even psychologically you cannot get addicted really. LSD is too heavy and simply won't work if taken too frequently.
One would have thought such a role would require at least some formal study of the relevant subjects, which should expose you to the history of such things.
I like to imagine these people actually taking LSD. While watching Bill Hicks. What a blast they'd have.
"How do you get to be director of a drug abuse program at one of the nation's top hospitals while being so ignorant about the field you supervise?"
Because knowing too much about it - especially the positives and common usage - isn't really an important bit to know to get the job. What matters more is having the right qualifacations, being in the position to get such a promotion, and most of all, having the "correct" viewpoints on drugs and addicts.
One of its main architects (a Nixon aide( has admitted that the War on Drugs was made up to attack subversive elements in the US, like the Black Panthers and the hippies. The idea was never about drugs, just control.
> war on drugs has been a huge disservice to humanity in so many ways. ... All for what? Some sense of moral purity?
I was, and still remain to a great deal, very anti-drug. Unless there's a system to manage it effectively, people will abuse drugs. It will destroy their lives. Let's not downplay the impact here.
I've seen the negative effects far too often - from destruction of families to young girls prostituting themselves for their next fix to brutal crimes. It's horrific.
The actual "War on Drugs" has always been a half-hearted effort. It has served as a political talking point and a means to control/surveil the population through fear-mongering. In much the same way that terrorism is being used to increased the powers of the surveillance state.
I do agree with its' usage related to medical purposes or in any way that it can be effectively managed as a recreational activity (but I have doubts about the general population being able to manage harder drugs).
Having said this, there is great value in research. I saw the value of research for the first time when I read 'DMT: The Spirit Molecule' by Rick Strassman, M.D.[1]. It was truly an eye-opening experience for this particular (naturally occurring) drug.
It led me to read (for a while, many years ago) about other psychedelics as well as the research and personal stories related to their usage. Amazing stuff when managed correctly.
You've fallen into several traps there. The major one is that you, like those that wage the war, always leap to the hardest and worst examples and paint broad strokes about all drugs from a few stories of the depths of addiction, usually to opiates or methamphetamine.
The second is that you look at lives destroyed by 'drugs' without looking at the lives destroyed by the war, which pushes profits to cartels, destabilises entire countries and actually harms the people it claims to help.
Ending the war on drugs doesn't mean having a free for all, it means using evidence to weigh up the best course of action. With some substances that's likely legalisation and sale to adults under license. With others it may be medical supervision.
Banning anything psychoactive is not an evidence-based action towards harm reduction.
It was you who generalized about ALL drugs. I responded to that in the same general way. Then, despite my temperate and reasonable response (open to discussion about psychedelics, not psychoactives), you proceeded to create a strawman and burn it down. This, despite the fact that, under certain circumstances, I agree about some of the benefits of legalization - as I very clearly stated.
You can go on talking to yourself and the imaginary puppet you created but I'll follow up with this:
Like the other responses I've received that seem to come from children with NO real world experience. I ask you too: have you any experience with addicts? Have you ever asked a recovering addict if he/she would ever start using (psychoactive) drugs again if they were legal?
Of course not. The safe place where you're writing from is painful to interact with. Your response is practically a copy/paste from some hot trending topic from the pages of a marijuana user.
Don't presume to know where I formed my opinion. Some of us aren't children jumping on the latest hot topic with the fervor of an ignorant SJW. Some of us have lived through decades of this. fucking. shit.
Do NOT clump all drugs together in some ignorant Shangri–la dance. Unless you've experienced the effects of drugs in your own personal life, don't diminish their effects on people you probably never interact with. I doubt you care through your pseudo-cognitive dissonance.
You state that "sale to adults" would somehow, magically make addiction a non-issue with some legislation. For the love of Spock! People can't control the food they eat but they can somehow manage addictive drugs? That has NEVER happened. The naivete you engage in is far more dangerous than laughable.
You think for a second that even the least harmful drug isn't going to get taxed through the roof - creating yet another black market. The government can't control itself. You have to have seen it with cigarettes and now sugary drinks being taxed out of reach. Are you even living in the same world as everyone else?
Discuss a solution that makes sense. Talk real research. Separate the drug types. Some can be legalized, some should never see the light of day. And for God's sake - use some critical thinking: it's one hell of a drug.
As a sib points out, it's unfair to attribute the destructive negative effects you're describing to the drugs themselves.
Think about it this way: the two main ways people are harmed in relation to drugs is via a) addiction, and b) the illegal drug trade. The latter only exists because of prohibition (ok, even if all drugs were legalized, there might still be an illegal trade, but imo it would likely be a b2b black market rather than street based retail, so the violence would still be significantly lowered). As for addiction, it's thornier, obviously many people are addicted to legal drugs, but the criminalization of addicts severely exacerbates many addicts problems: they don't seek medical help due to fear of legal repercussions, they're forced to interact with illegal drug dealers, they often hide their addiction even from their friends/family because of the social stigma attached to criminality.
> it's unfair to attribute the destructive negative effects you're describing to the drugs themselves.
I can't believe some of the responses. I have to ask you too, have you any real-world experience with addicts? Have you ever lived in a community with a drug epidemic? Neighbors, mothers, friends, family on heroine or crack?
Are you suggesting that making drugs like heroine, cocaine, amphetamines, crack, inhalants and others available to adults (let's say, 21 years and older) is a solution? People can't even control their fast food intake or alcohol consumption but somehow heroine wouldn't be a problem.
I've seen the damage this has caused, first hand, more times than I can recall - in the real world, in the inner-cities. I did not pick up my opinion in a trending topic.
I've talk to ex-drug users. Not a single one would ever do drugs again. I've seen families destroyed and not a single one effected would want (psychoactive) drugs to be a part of their lives.
Now if we're talking about marijuana or well-researched psychedelics (not psychoactive), that's a different topic.
Other than your initial point or two I agree with your post. I can understand why a society would have wanted prohibition; people are more generally more productive without drugs.
We can barely manage tobacco and alcohol. Drug abuse continues to exist everywhere facilitated by prescription abuse.
I don't believe we should mandate what people can and cannot do with their bodies, but I am concerned about our increasing desire to escape the real world through pharmaceuticals or entertainment.
Thanks for a well thought out response that adds value to the discussion. Some of the other responses irked me because of how little thought was given to these harsh realities and I responded in kind. Don't be put off if you read those responses.
I just watched the video. I would love to agree but I can't. Mind you, I'm speaking as someone who grew up in the inner-city. This doesn't mean that people there were unhappy, disconnected - something the video seems to think is the root cause. In fact, it was usually the opposite. Parties, strong family bonds, lots of strong personal connections, outgoing - and still... drug-addicts. Fact is, I was one of the few that was introverted and disconnected (geek).
The Vietnam sample given in the video doesn't speak to how often the users were taking drugs, how often they went cold turkey, how difficult it was to attain drugs. They played a section of a lonely and scared soldier but did not discuss situations where a group of soldiers, in a welcoming environment, shared the experience.
What a person needs to do to get drugs (not having the resources) and how it changes them over time isn't dealt with in the video at all. They slowly become accustomed to the new changes (theft, prostitution, assault) and work from there.
The very same people I have known in life who have been drug-addicts have only changed their lives when they hit rock-bottom as a result of tough love or jail time. Some never manage it despite all the effort in the world.
Nothing else changed in their lives - not their personal connections, not their work situation, nothing. This is at odds with the message of the video. In fact, love and compassion along with strong friendly bonds led to enabling in every case that I witnessed.
I don't want to sound like some kind of expert. The topic, which I never should have engaged in, brings back many bad memories. Mothers leaving & destroying their families, two cases where a baby was thrown out a window (once during a party), a son killing their mother, a heterosexual male teen engaged in homosexual sex for money, overdose ending in death, young suburban girls living on the streets, the wife of a friend leaving her husband for weeks at a time to prostitute for money. Sigh... And more...
I am a firm believer that even the nicest person will willingly engage in the worst kinds of crimes under the right conditions. We can all be broken. We should always be on guard to protect ourselves from situations that can break us. Drugs are one of these devices.
> I don't believe we should mandate what people can and cannot do with their bodies
I agree with this 100%. Suicide, daredevil acts, tats, all-night gaming sessions... whatever. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone else: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
This has never been the case with drug addicts, in my experience. Every drug addict effects those around them in negative and often dangerous ways.
While I'm not a fan of your approach to this topic, understanding why you feel so strongly about this helps me understand it a little better.
Personally I think decriminalization (Portugal-style) is the best approach. I agree with you that many substances are too powerful to be left to the 'free market', and some pro-legalization people don't seem to acknowledge that.
That said, I think any conversation on the topic is bound to be problematic as long as we use 'drugs' as a catch-all, because our current thoughts on the matter, as a society, are so muddled.
For example, most people would who use the term 'drugs' are not referring to alcohol or fast food, while I think alcohol use is in many cases more likely to become problematic than, say, marijuana or lsd use. But when it comes to heroin or crystal meth, most people would probably agree that these should not be 'fully' legalized.
Maybe you should stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a 'child' and/or coming from a sheltered upbringing. I can tell you from personal experience and the experiences of numerous close friends that addiction does not necessarily lead to rock bottom. Though it will undoubtedly have negative effects they are not always as nightmarish as what you've seen. So maybe you should check your bias at the door before you make grossly presumptuous statements about others.
I don't think anyone here would question whether or not drug abuse can ruin lives. The real question is whether or not the War on Drugs helps more lives than it destroys. I think the answer is pretty obvious when you look at case studies like the failure of Prohibition and, more recently, the success in Portugal (essentially complete decriminalization of drugs) and Vancouver (needle exchange programs).
Finally, just because you've only been exposed to the negative aspects of drug use (which there are plenty) does not mean that there aren't any positive aspects to it. You clearly have an informed view of the negative aspects but judging from your other comments I'm guessing you have little to no experience with taking drugs yourself (correct me if I'm wrong), which means that you are completely ignorant to the positive aspects. And believe me, there are many. Furthermore, you have to realize how much a person's mental state affects their potential for substance abuse. I can tell you from personal experience that it's not as simple as 'everyone who tries cocaine will get addicted to it'. The stigma that society has placed around recreational drug use has made it a very private topic for most people, which introduces a significant selection bias that favors
the negative/public cases. I'd be willing to bet that a lot more people than you think have experimented with recreational drug use.
I'm a Paramedic, and I can count on one hand the number of patients on shrooms, marijuana, or MDMA that have been any sort of problem. Meanwhile, I've seen more fatalities directly caused by alcohol than I care to remember.
That's the attitude that lead me to my current stance: I think they should all be legalized and regulated (mostly for purity of strength and ingredients). I want this even for drugs I think are dangerous or I wouldn't personally take.
“They were saying things like ‘I understand love is the most powerful force on the planet,’ or ‘I had an encounter with my cancer, this black cloud of smoke.’ People who had been palpably scared of death—they lost their fear. The fact that a drug given once can have such an effect for so long is an unprecedented finding. We have never had anything like it in the psychiatric field.”
This is needed by everyone, not just those dying of cancer.
Nearly everyone is infected with the cancer of cynicism. We are overcome by fear, too weak to do the right thing, condemned to remain prisoners of the dilemma, perpetual losers in the non-zero sum game of life. It is the source of nearly all human created folly, misery and tragedy, this election simply being a recent example. If only there was a drug that would get people to realize love can be the most powerful force on the planet, if only we had the strength of will and courage to actually love, to risk ourselves rather than play it "safe" behind self-servingly cynical justifications for doing the shit we actually do.
It will make sense to you some day - hopefully :-)
Logic is just one of the ways humans think. And often enough not the most powerful, because it is based on abstractions that are arbitrary artefacts of our minds.
Show us several people that are in this enlightened state right now, thanks to a specific psychedelic. Let's see that there are no downsides, no unwanted changes in those persons' personalities.
That "enlightened state" is, to me, an extraordinary claim, and if that exists, surely there is no reason to be defensive about it? I'm sure your studies are good, but allow me meet that person that has love, clarity, the ability to tap into some other place for creativity etc., yet at the same time has their shit together.
Have you not met monks, people who have used various drugs, or subscribe to various philosophies/religions? Many have a lot going for them but are also lacking in other areas. Hope you get what I mean.
At any other time in history I'd be excited about this. Under the incoming administration, I rather doubt the DEA is going to keep issuing research licenses for controlled substances.
The issue here isn't the DEA or the current Administration in power, but whether a profitiable "therapeutic business model" can succeed in the establishment pharma market, with respect to any controlled substance.
[Edit] for obvious reasons, psychedelics are unusual in this regard, and a hard sell
I've read of psychedelic research done in Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. MAPS has information on some international studies being carried out on psychedelics.[1] Erowid probably has some too.[2]
On the subject, if you've ever wondered what would happen if the US military were to invest millions of dollars into testing all kind of things from sarin to their version of super-strong LSD on volunteers (and, generally, why there was an actual queue from enlisted men to sign up to be the guinea pig for chemical weapons!), I recommend Ketchum's book about his time in exactly such a facility [1]. There's a wealth of data and analysis on the impact of many psychedelics on humans, both at large doses and for long term exposure.
The anecdote that stayed with me was the guy who liked to show off the relative safety of liquid VX (yes, the nerve agent) to new arrivals by dipping his finger in it then rinsing it with water. Different times.
I did my own research as a freshmen in the late 90's. In my opinion, everyone should experience LSD/Mushrooms at some point in their life. They were some of the most influential, and amazing experiences I've ever had. No dependency issues, and lasts for hours.
Anyone interested psychedelic users' perspectives on harm reduction, health benefits, and risks should check out http://erowid.org and http://bluelight.org (especially the Psychedelic Drug Discussion subforum).
Since you're into the subject, at the risk of repeating my other comment in this page and seeming to oversell it, I'd like to call your attention to the documentary "Dirty Pictures" (if you haven't seen it): https://youtu.be/qXHyKyoHJzo
It's mostly of historical/political interest, but I'm repeating it here because I genuinely think if you're interested and somewhat knowledgable about this subject, you really should watch it.
I'm not knowledgeable on this topic but I'm a bit surprised that the article doesn't at any time make reference to Rick Strassman and his clinical experiments with DMT. In fact, I've noticed that LSD and DMT are very rarely referenced within the same academic discussions.
In terms of dose-reponse, 100 micrograms of LSD produces effects roughly as strong as 20 milligrams of psilocybin.
In terms of subjective perception of the immersion or "pushiness" of the experience, I expect almost all users experienced with both compounds would rate LSD as stronger.
"This is far too valuable to limit to sick people"
Not a word about the major negative side effects including panic attacks, seizures, and death, or how some members of the population are at far greater risk of experiencing these side effects for reasons we do not yet know or fully understand.
Sure, if it helps someone near death why not, but I don't like the rosy picture this article portrays.
I'm not aware of these drugs directly causing the death of anyone (excluding someone driving on the freeway after taking them). Do you have an example of a fatality?
As for the other unpleasant effects it's true these can happen temporarily. I know some people anecdotally believe negative effects can be permanent, but I'm not aware of any research supporting cause and effect.
Now weigh the risks above with the possible reward. Near death comfort (while important) is only one application. For example anxiety and OCD are life crippling for so many people, and research suggest psychedelics might offer one of the best treatments yet.
The potential benefits to society are so great, the research must continue. I also see no reason you could not help out with some empirical study.
(for the unfamiliar, a recreational dose is typically between 70 and 200ug. 200-400 is a heavy dose, and 400+ will leave you incoherent for many hours.)
Results: Eight-year cumulative risk to receive a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was 46% (95% CI, 35%–57%) for persons with a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis and 30% (95% CI, 14%–46%) for those with an amphetamine-induced psychosis. Although alcohol-induced psychosis was the most common type of SIP, 8-year cumulative risk for subsequent schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was only 5.0% (95% CI, 4.6%–5.5%).
You have to get a "psychosis event" in the first place. Conditional probability, only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem. You leave out some vital information, without it the percentages and risks you mention are meaningless. As a (university researcher inner medicine) doctor I know used to say: There have been cases of severe side-effects from placebos... meaning just mentioning something can have bad effects is meaningless without more information.
> let the downvotes start.
Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about. It isn't even clear to me what your point is, if there is one. It's a carefully selected piece of information that just by itself doesn't say anything useful in the context of this discussion.
> only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem
still you can't say there is no problem at all.
Lets count: the population of Finland is 5.5 million; 18000 cases makes 1/3 percent of the general population - a significant number (not known if all cases have been considered by this study, lets assume they have - i would assume that half of the cases would not be reported at all, but lets skip that), lets assume that five percent of the population have taken drugs - then 1/15 users would get one.
>Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about
No, there is such a thing as collective bias. lets not pretend that it doesn't exist.
Strawman. First, I indeed didn't say it, so what is the reason you bring it up, except to create a distraction?
Second, see what I already wrote. Also to your last sentence - you just yell "bias" before anything even happened. Then you add a lot of your own interpretation, without any evidence, to some selected numbers from a single study of a special country: Finland is not exactly the normal case in this context (for example: http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/02/finland-tops-european-cou...).
Sorry, i was referring to the parent poster by
TheSpiceIsLife.
> Then you add a lot of your own interpretation, without any evidence, to some selected numbers from a single study of a special country: Finland is not exactly the normal case in this context (for example: http://www.euronews.com/2015/07
i didn't make anything up, that's called extrapolation.
Actually in many job interviews they ask for that.
Am I always supposed to ask for your permission when interpreting some data points? Thanks Sir; i don't think so.
2 + 2 still makes 4 , that doesn't depend upon your mood.
18.000+ cases in a population of 5.5 million is a significant number, you can't put that away. Just because you got enough penie points here to mod me down doesn't make you automatically right.
> you just yell "bias" before anything even happened
Just enough to look at the parent poster - downvoted to oblivion. Also i wonder how everybody here is so unanimously positive about the subject - every other voice has been purged out (including my contribution) ; wonder why that happened...
You have been downvoted (at least by me) because your argument is poorly constructed and poorly written, not because you disagree. In my experience this is usually the case on HN.
Conspiracy theories and suspecting the rest of the community is 'out to get you' or interested in 'silencing' you is sure incendiary but the truth is usually far more boring. Present a careful reasoned argument and people will appreciate it, even if they disagree. Saying "rarely drugs have bad side effects!!!" (without introducing context and comparing the safety of these drugs to OTC medication and currently legal drugs) is true but it isn't a real argument or piece of information, it's just FUD.
I think you raise a valid concern. Inducement or exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms is probably the most troubling and widely reported problem with these drugs. The famous case of Syd Barrett comes to mind. There are many such anecdotes, and I myself saw something similar first hand (the individual in question eventually got better, but it took a few months). However, considering the potential upside, to me this makes it even more important to do extensive research on all of it.
Oh, and a quick note-- the only 'psychedelic' drug mentioned in the study you cited is cannabis, which from everything I've read doesn't even begin to compare to the more powerful psychoactives. Funny enough, it is the one we have the strongest link to psychosis for, but this could only be because it's been so much more widely used and studied. It seems obvious that more study is needed, insofar as it can be done ethically.
While I've heard of stories of people injuring themselves by jumping out of windows and so on, I've yet to hear a credible story about anyone dying from consumption of psychedelics, or indeed suffering seizures. Panic attacks for sure, they're quite unpleasant although in my experience pretty rare. All the statistical evidence suggests that psychedelics are quite safe compared to popular stimulants and depressives. I've had several bad trips, but I blame myself for those - smoking a ton of weed after you've also taken psychedelics is a good way to get disoriented.
There are many lesser-known psychedlics with scarily-low lethal doses. Bromo-dragonfly and some *-NBOMe compounds are a few that killed people recently. High doses of DOC can cause extreme vasoconstriction in extremeties, resulting in necrosis. https://psychonautwiki.org is a good site for investigating health risks.
Case in point are the incredible studies by the folks at Johns Hopkins on Psilocybin. They're not feeding people hallucinogenic mushrooms, they're giving them controlled doses of manufactured psilosybin. Incredible studies, very interesting in all ways, but the news headline is almost always some shitty pun or stupid jab about 'shrooms or "trippy" or "far out" which immediately demeans the research in the readers mind.
This usually continues through the text. The author will describe the study, effects, results, etc. then punctuate it with some dumb line about it being groovy. Makes it embarassing to be associated with the results when we could be looking at some truly breakthrough approaches to therapy and who knows what else.